F2: Henry Surtees dies in terrifying accident

[Ray]

I work on those and it would extremely dangerous to have those on a car. If you are only joking I get the joke. But what if one ofthose canopies because loose and gets ripped off the car and lands on the track. It becomes another piece of deadly debris. I watched the video again and he mved quickly to the right to avoid the car coming in front of him, and it so happened the wheel was in that exact line of travel. Had he just hit the car he'd probably be here. But like someone has said, what ifs get you nothing.

[dumrick]

I work on those and it would extremely dangerous to have those on a car.

I wasn't talking about having a jet canopy in a racing car, but developing something to enclose the driver's cell. Like in powerboats:


I've watched footage of boat crashes and it's able to remain on place in very heavy impacts (and in boats also seems to contribute to avoid the driver's cell from sinking).

[WhiteBlue]

Some very good contributions at last. I would agree that the tyre impact energy will have caused the death. This could also have been done by turning the helmet and head quickly or by deforming the helmet elastically and causing skull fractures. We do not know it.

Good point to show the Viso crash. I have not denied that freak accidents are possible even on the safest tracks. That is obvious to everyone who follows motor sport for some time. Alelanza fails to realise that run offs can be designed to absorb critical motion energy and that the trajectory of the Clarke car was entirely predictable.

With multiple car collisions and component failures trajectories are often unpredictable but that wasn't the case here. Clarke simply over drove the car. The car passed not a cm of gravel bed or asphalt run off on an obvious and likely trajectory. Had there been a reasonable strech of gravel bed or asphalt run off the Clarke crash would not have exceeded the wheel tether failure force. Hence my conclusion that an important safety measure (gravel bed) was critically absent. I may not be able to convince everybody that 30 m of gravel trap at that accident spot would have saved young Henries life, but if I were responsable for safety at Brands Hatch my conscience would not allow that accident spot to remain in its current form.

[alelanza]

I was reading this, and while he does not really go into detail, i can now see how too strong a tethering mechanism could have its own drawbacks as well and may not necessarily be the best option

Alelanza fails to realise that run offs can be designed to absorb critical motion energy and that the trajectory of the Clarke car was entirely predictable.

You fail to realize that no matter how predictable the car's trajectory was, the tyre is a different matter. Hopefully you did see the video and realize it was tyre (smaller, round bouncy thingy, think of a donut, you can't possibly mistake it for the car) and not the car that hit him.....

[WhiteBlue]

You fail to realize that no matter how predictable the car's trajectory was, the tyre is a different matter.

Sure a tyre is different to a car. Even an old man like me can see that with his glasses.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTDiYS1NVW4[/youtube]

I can also see that Clarke's car slides over green grass and not through gravel or over asphalt as it should.

We simply disagree about the reason why the tyre was on track in the first place. It is supposed to stay on the car and not go bumping around killing people. You believe an unavoidable freak miracle separated the wheel from the car. I believe that the wheel separation was avoidable by state of the art safety measures.

case closed - no further discussion needed

[Ray]

I work on those and it would extremely dangerous to have those on a car.

I wasn't talking about having a jet canopy in a racing car, but developing something to enclose the driver's cell. Like in powerboats:


I've watched footage of boat crashes and it's able to remain on place in very heavy impacts (and in boats also seems to contribute to avoid the driver's cell from sinking).

I know what you meant, not a jet canopy but some sort of tough canopy to protect the driver. But we have to take into consideration the drawbacks. Say it get stuck after an accident and the car is on fire? Sure fires are uncommon these days but them getting stuck would be very easy. Or maybe it shatters during an accident and then you have increased the amount of debris. I think it would be a good idea though.

[Giblet]

Something more along the lines of a safety cage. Like a US Football players face mask.

A single Y shaped steel or titanium bar extending from just below the airbox, and splitting somewhere down to the forward sides, as to not obstruct the forward view. Keeping an open cockpit, but caged as to keep extraction of a driver quick.

If not in F1, in the junior series at least.

Much like in pro hockey, face guards aren't required once you graduate to the NHL. The big leagues are just more dangerous.

[Ray]

I'm all for protecting a driver from impacts to the head, but a cage or canopy is a bit like putting a FOD screen on a jet engine all the time. It increases the risk of the driver being hurt. A cage would only be dangerous to the driver in case of impact. How would they get the driver out if it collapsed and he was in a bad spot? Cut if off? If it got hit hard enough it may break from the chassis and impale the drivers head. Same with a FOD screen. Why increase the chances of it coming loose in flight and destroying the engine and possibly crashing the plane, for the very small benefit of preventing a bird strike?

[alelanza]

You fail to realize that no matter how predictable the car's trajectory was, the tyre is a different matter.

Sure a tyre is different to a car. Even an old man like me can see that with his glasses.

I'm pretty sure it's not to do with your eyes

I believe that the wheel separation was avoidable by state of the art safety measures.

People believe whatever they want (turtle shells come to mind ), so that's fine, but again i welcome you to prove it, no matter how many times you edit your post you're simply repeating yourself

[WhiteBlue]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTDiYS1NVW4[/youtube]


Click on the video and watch the car slide over the grass with high speed. Would it do this in a gravel bed?

Just answer that point instead of making irrelevant remarks. We are dealing with a fact here. There is no gravel bed where one should have been!

This is F1technical. So lets throw some figures at this "freak accident".

Energy goes with the square of speed. To arrest a car that goes sideways as in that video you need friction. Let us conservatively assume that gravel provides three times more friction than a lawn of green grass. So going through 30 m of gravel would have taken almost 10 times more motion energy out of that car. It is very simple physics. Let us again conservatively assume that Clarke's car was slowed from 220 to 170 kpm. So he lost 50 kpm. In gravel he would have lost three times that speed. The speed would have gone down to 70 km. The motion energy goes down to 15% of what it was in this accident. Wheel tethers would almost certainly have absorbed that much lower energy without breaking.

[alelanza]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTDiYS1NVW4[/youtube]


Click on the video and watch the car slide over the grass with high speed. Would it do this in a gravel bed?

Just answer that point instead of making irrelevant remarks. We are dealing with a fact here. There is no gravel bed where one should have been!

This is F1technical. So lets throw some figures at this "freak accident".

Energy goes with the square of speed. To arrest a car that goes sideways as in that video you need friction. Let us conservatively assume that gravel provides three times more friction than a lawn of green grass. So going through 30 m of gravel would have taken almost 10 times more motion energy out of that car. It is very simple physics. Let us again conservatively assume that Clarke's car was slowed from 220 to 170 kpm. So he lost 50 kpm. In gravel he would have lost three times that speed. The speed would have gone down to 70 km. The motion energy goes down to 15% of what it was in this accident. Wheel tethers would almost certainly have absorbed that much lower energy without breaking.

And I agree. As already stated, any change done on that run off would have meant this accident wouldn't have happened, like I said before, a run off 1m 'less safe' would have also meant most of the world would have never even heard about this race. You assume those numbers, and come to the conclusion that tethers would have survived, w/o knowing how they broke to begin with. For all you know slowing down the car leaving the track might have meant the wheel would have hit someone else behind Surtees.
What i don't think you are seeing, is that on any circuit (class 1, A or whatever they're called), there are many miles where the walls are right next to the track, and given all the right circumstances a wheel can and has come off. In fact there's been instances, and someone on this thread made a mention to it and posted the video, where wheels have come loose even w/o a wall being involved. The main difference is that no one has been unlucky enough to be in the pathway of one of those wheels, again, Kubica's wheel in Melbourne. All that was needed was for someone to be following close and quick enough behind him, but as it turns out the possibilities are/were small.

[WhiteBlue]

For all you know slowing down the car leaving the track might have meant the wheel would have hit someone else behind Surtees.

That would be unlikely to the extreme. Not impossible, but close to.

What i don't think you are seeing, is that on any circuit (class 1, A or whatever they're called), there are many miles where the walls are right next to the track, and given all the right circumstances a wheel can and has come off.

I have allready said that of course wheels can come off by all kind of reasons. Wheel nuts can malfunction. Wings or suspensions can collaps and pitch a car into a wall. Timo Glock's recent accident shows that clearly. Nevertheless those that died in the sport deserve that we learn the lessons and improve those deficiencies that are identified. In that spirit I hope that Brands Hatch will make changes.

[R&D]

FIRST POST - Please be gentle?

I've been viewing this side for a while with considerable interest. After the tragic events of last weekend I had an idea & thought I'd join and submit it-

I know it may sound crazy but I'm gonna run with it anyway- crazy ideas often work?!

How about the wheels are fitted with mini parachutes?! It may not have stopped the Senna type disaster which was almost instantaneous, & at close quarters, but with Surtees it may have. And it may be a good "interim" method.

Please consider: Instantly, upon detachment, a wheel sensor "knows" it's detached and, airbag-style, an explosive charge deploys several small chutes instantaneously also. Small chutes would be effective immediately with the airflow. A following driver would have loads more time (a half second is a long time with these guys) and may take avoiding action (a jink). The weight would be minimal as would the cost, relatively. Just a thought.....

[The FOZ]

Simply put, you'd need a very large 'chute to be able to stop a wheel that happens to detatch at 200+ km/hour. Or several medium sized ones.

Then there's the problem of where it/they sit(s) when not in use.

In a crash, would the undeployed parachute be ripped off the wheel before it's even left the car fully?

What if a parachute(s) accidentally deployed mid-race for no good reason?

If a wheel does detach, what guarantees the parachute(s) actually deploy(s) properly to do it's job in the first place, and doesn't just flutter in the breeze?

What if the wheel bounces? Chute(s) would become very useless.

Parachutes use some sort of cabling to attach themselves to the thing they are attached to - what if one of those cables happened to catch another car - or worse, a driver?

What if a parachute caught a driver across the face? Now he can't see, and he's got a bloody tire dragging behind him.

Sorry, this idea would cause more problems than it would ever fix.

FIRST POST - Please be gentle?

I've been viewing this side for a while with considerable interest. After the tragic events of last weekend I had an idea & thought I'd join and submit it-

I know it may sound crazy but I'm gonna run with it anyway- crazy ideas often work?!

How about the wheels are fitted with mini parachutes?! It may not have stopped the Senna type disaster which was almost instantaneous, & at close quarters, but with Surtees it may have. And it may be a good "interim" method.

Please consider: Instantly, upon detachment, a wheel sensor "knows" it's detached and, airbag-style, an explosive charge deploys several small chutes instantaneously also. Small chutes would be effective immediately with the airflow. A following driver would have loads more time (a half second is a long time with these guys) and may take avoiding action (a jink). The weight would be minimal as would the cost, relatively. Just a thought.....