Next Steps In Safety

[Just_a_fan]

Perhaps on public roads, but not on F1 tracks.

Sorry boss, F1 tracks are part of the same universe and subject to the same laws of physics as public roads.

You're being needlessly obtuse, as is evident by your other posts. I never questioned how the laws of physics work, your original assertion was:

it would never distort enough to absorb an impact safely.

A distorting steel barrier is not a safe way to absorb an impact in Formula 1.

It is if it distorts in the correct manner. It's getting it to do that that is the interesting question.

Imagine a large steel plate mounted on crushable steel sections behind it. Car hits plate, car's crash structures are involved and deal with the energy. However, if the crash is big enough, as the forces build, the crushable mounting points behind the steel plate allow it to move in the direction of the impact, thus allowing more energy to be absorbed. Overall result is reduced g-loading on the driver. Tuning the system so that it absorbs energy when required but doesn't cause excessive g-loading or act as a spring to rebound the car is the key thing.

This very system is used in the bumpers of road cars - steel (or aluminium in many cases today) crushable mountings behind the crash beam.

Distortion is very much a good thing in a crash because it absorbs energy and reduces the acceleration imposed on the driver. In crash testing of road cars, a metal honeycomb structure is used as a progressive deformable structure. Face that with a steel panel to prevent penetration by the nose and you have a deformable crash structure.

[i70q7m7ghw]

Sorry boss, F1 tracks are part of the same universe and subject to the same laws of physics as public roads.

You're being needlessly obtuse, as is evident by your other posts. I never questioned how the laws of physics work, your original assertion was:

it would never distort enough to absorb an impact safely.

A distorting steel barrier is not a safe way to absorb an impact in Formula 1.

It is if it distorts in the correct manner. It's getting it to do that that is the interesting question.

Imagine a large steel plate mounted on crushable steel sections behind it. Car hits plate, car's crash structures are involved and deal with the energy. However, if the crash is big enough, as the forces build, the crushable mounting points behind the steel plate allow it to move in the direction of the impact, thus allowing more energy to be absorbed. Overall result is reduced g-loading on the driver. Tuning the system so that it absorbs energy when required but doesn't cause excessive g-loading or act as a spring to rebound the car is the key thing.

This very system is used in the bumpers of road cars - steel (or aluminium in many cases today) crushable mountings behind the crash beam.

Distortion is very much a good thing in a crash because it absorbs energy and reduces the acceleration imposed on the driver. In crash testing of road cars, a metal honeycomb structure is used as a progressive deformable structure. Face that with a steel panel to prevent penetration by the nose and you have a deformable crash structure.

I don't disagree with your point about crash structures in cars, but you jumped from "distorting steel barrier" to "deformable crash structures", two totally different things.

Flexible, twisting, tearing, distoring steel barriers are not a safe way to stop or slow a race car, period.





https://spinsmag.files.wordpress.com/20 ... ncpoxl.jpg

[nzjrs]

I see we are at the point in the discussion where we post snuff films to make our arguments.

[i70q7m7ghw]

I see we are at the point in the discussion where we post snuff films to make our arguments.

I've swapped the one some might consider too graphic, I think it's important people are aware this is not the first time something like this has happened.

[nzjrs]

The FIA document FIA Standard 3501-2017 Safety Barriers specifies that in order for a circuit/barrier to be homologated it must pass an assessment procedure with an impact test using a simulated car+nosecone.

As part of that test the measured peak acceleration should not exceed -50G. For context the Hubert report states his barrier impact was -33G (the initial impact that bounced him back into traffic)

The rest of the document is somewhat interesting as it discusses deformation and energy absorption of the barrier a bit.

In that document it mentions that more detailed specifications for metal triple guardrail systems are available in another document that is not online - "FIA Internal Guideline for Circuit Construction and Courses"

[Jolle]

Just imagine what would have happend if the barrier didn’t collapse on Romain. Instead of an impact where it took 2,5 meters to come to a full stop from 221 km/h he would have stopped in 0.5 meters, giving an impact of around 200G’s.
That he was able to walk away was because of the splitting of the barrier. The fire was because the car broke in just the wrong place.

[Just_a_fan]

I don't disagree with your point about crash structures in cars, but you jumped from "distorting steel barrier" to "deformable crash structures", two totally different things.

Flexible, twisting, tearing, distoring steel barriers are not a safe way to stop or slow a race car, period.

Bare armco isn't suitable to deal with cars travelling at racing speeds, it works very well on the public highway in much lower energy incidents and lower angles of incidence. But other systems where steel deforms are suitable. A number of barriers have steel in them and that steel deforms. An important distinction rather than a semantic one.

(Deforming is distorting, to say one is ok and the other isn't seems to be making an argument where one isn't necessary.)

[Just_a_fan]

Just imagine what would have happend if the barrier didn’t collapse on Romain. Instead of an impact where it took 2,5 meters to come to a full stop from 221 km/h he would have stopped in 0.5 meters, giving an impact of around 200G’s.
That he was able to walk away was because of the splitting of the barrier. The fire was because the car broke in just the wrong place.

This is a valid point. The halo saved him from being decapitated as he passed through the armco. Without the fire, we'd just have had a discussion of "the halo saved his life, let's not keeping moaning about it". It's the fire that makes the accident notable. The rest of the systems basically did their jobs as required. Without the fire, he'd have got out of the car, gone for an assessment and likely been back to speak to the journos before their evening meal.

[i70q7m7ghw]

I don't disagree with your point about crash structures in cars, but you jumped from "distorting steel barrier" to "deformable crash structures", two totally different things.

Flexible, twisting, tearing, distoring steel barriers are not a safe way to stop or slow a race car, period.

Bare armco isn't suitable to deal with cars travelling at racing speeds, it works very well on the public highway in much lower energy incidents and lower angles of incidence. But other systems where steel deforms are suitable. A number of barriers have steel in them and that steel deforms. An important distinction rather than a semantic one.

(Deforming is distorting, to say one is ok and the other isn't seems to be making an argument where one isn't necessary.)

The point I was making was you jumped from track-side barriers to crash structures designed within the vehicle. Saying steel is okay for use in barriers because it works in vehicle impact structures doesn't sit right with me, they are two totally different use cases.

You've also jumped to "lots of things have steel in them and they are okay", which feels like a mostly pointless argument to make. The question was are the current armco barriers in use at many race tracks fit for purpose? And several people here have tried to justify that by saying they are because they are designed to "deform" and absorb the impact of a race car. My argument, is that this very action is dangerous because it is highly unpredictable, and I've shown many examples. I'm not arguing that the steel barrier Robert Kubica crashed in to didn't slow him down, but I think he'd argue a concrete wall in that scenario would probably have been safer!

I don't disagree that barriers need to play a role in safely slowing the car, but twisting steel is not a safe way to do this!

[Hoffman900]

I don't disagree with your point about crash structures in cars, but you jumped from "distorting steel barrier" to "deformable crash structures", two totally different things.

Flexible, twisting, tearing, distoring steel barriers are not a safe way to stop or slow a race car, period.

Bare armco isn't suitable to deal with cars travelling at racing speeds, it works very well on the public highway in much lower energy incidents and lower angles of incidence. But other systems where steel deforms are suitable. A number of barriers have steel in them and that steel deforms. An important distinction rather than a semantic one.

(Deforming is distorting, to say one is ok and the other isn't seems to be making an argument where one isn't necessary.)

The point I was making was you jumped from track-side barriers to crash structures designed within the vehicle. Saying steel is okay for use in barriers because it works in vehicle impact structures doesn't sit right with me, they are two totally different use cases.

You've also jumped to "lots of things have steel in them and they are okay", which feels like a mostly pointless argument to make. The question was are the current armco barriers in use at many race tracks fit for purpose? And several people here have tried to justify that by saying they are because they are designed to "deform" and absorb the impact of a race car. My argument, is that this very action is dangerous because it is highly unpredictable, and I've shown many examples. I'm not arguing that the steel barrier Robert Kubica crashed in to didn't slow him down, but I think he'd argue a concrete wall in that scenario would probably have been safer!

I don't disagree that barriers need to play a role in safely slowing the car, but twisting steel is not a safe way to do this!

I agree with this. Tire barriers aren't the solution either as they grab cars, stop them, and fling them back into traffic. A friend of mine was just behind this and ducked into pit lane


There was a mirror image of this two years later in Speed World Challenge Touring Cars. They now have a SAFER Barrier in this location and cars that hit at this angle just glance and run down the wall. The SAFER Barrier does work as another friend broke a lower control at the apex of this corner and went straight into it. He was fine and did not get thrown back into traffic.

SAFER Barrier in illustration:


Indy Car and NASCAR routinely have impacts more severe than Grosjean's in terms of G's. Not ideal, but comes with cars doing 190 (NASCAR, restricted to about that) and 230mph on ovals.

[SiLo]

So basically they need something that has space behind it but is also soft, so it can not only absorb the impact, but moved with the momentum of the car so it doesn't spit it back out onto the track.

[Hoffman900]

There is something. It’s been used in the States for over a decade now. -shrugs-

I should add the video above is the old SAFER Barrier. They are more serviceable now and can withstand repeated impacts.

[i70q7m7ghw]

Agree about tyre barriers, I've hit one in a similar way, it wasn't a pleasant experience! They work well for head-on crashes when they are more than a few tyres thick, but tend to flick you out when you glance them. I must admit though, I think I'd still prefer to take my chances bouncing off a tyre barrier than going hard into a steel armco barrier. The indycar solution looks decent, I wonder how it handles a head-on impact?

[Jolle]

Agree about tyre barriers, I've hit one in a similar way, it wasn't a pleasant experience! They work well for head-on crashes when they are more than a few tyres thick, but tend to flick you out when you glance them. I must admit though, I think I'd still prefer to take my chances bouncing off a tyre barrier than going hard into a steel armco barrier. The indycar solution looks decent, I wonder how it handles a head-on impact?

There still are instances on circuits that aren't Paul Ricard that will always be unsafe. Making a 90 degree turn on a straight and going into the barriers at top speed is one of them. Somehow finding a concrete block head on while doing over 250km/h another. Same goes for being T-boned by a car above a certain speed. Some can be controlled, like with fire, a few liters of fire you survive with minor burns but when the whole 140 liter go up in flames...

You can calculate how much absorbing you need to stay safe. At 250 km/h its about 3 meters. But, like with Grosjean his car spits in two, with the front half being only 200kg at the end of a race, you need a foam that will stop 200 kg in 3 meters at 250 km/h and a full car doing the same speed. A full car, around 800kg will have to have a barrier of 12 meters. Lots of places already have this, Monaco exit tunnel is one of them, Sotchi where Sainz crashed another. But, that much bulk doesn't fit on all tracks or all around tracks. Plus some corners are just asking for trouble (like at Spa).

the safest thing is to have a championship on Paul Ricard, but we, the drivers and the licence holders don't want that, so we all compromise.

For me a good compromise would be big blocks of foam in braking areas and safer barrier on straights and no more guardrail bending inwards on straigts. Oh, plus remove some extremely dangerous corners that are asking for another life.

Oh and although safer barriers work well in Indy, they might not be the ideal solution for F1. Due to the low downforce on Indy cars, the cars don’t actually turn so much on an oval, at least less then a F1 car is capable of. Much of the energy is still forward on track instead of right into the barrier at F1. In other words, F1 cars can turn 90 degrees at 250+ km/h while indycars physically cants.

[Hoffman900]

Here is a compilation of stock cars and the Safer Barrier. Several are directly at 90*. Keep in mind those cars weigh 3400lbs with driver and fuel (rules min).

Indy Car has had several big impacts. Slower directly head on (get turned like Romain got turned) or directly in via rear. Usually Indy Cars at 220mph+ get airborn when turned sideways, though they have gotten better at that. Indy Cars have never punctured a wall.

The only way F1 cars hit a barrier 90* or abouts is when they get turned into a barrier. In corners they typically have a lot more runoff.