FORMULA ONE - 2020

That one just horrified me.  Him popping out of the flames had me screaming.  Holy carp the shots showing the halo wedged in the armco blew me away.  

I'm glad he went into armco instead of the concrete wall they replaced it with, not sure anyone was happy to see that put in place (other than the marshals behind it).

In reply to Keith Tanner :

Agree , but there was an entry there for track access. If the wall he hit were parallel to the track it would have been a better angle,BUT then the overlapping wall behind it would be at an angle and it was just happenstance that the accident happened where it did. A hundred yards later and he would hit  the second wall at a poor angle of attack. It will be interesting to see what the FIA does to barrier design and location as a result of this.

adam525i (Forum Supporter) said:

I'm glad he went into armco instead of the concrete wall they replaced it with, not sure anyone was happy to see that put in place (other than the marshals behind it).

I wonder if they will look to the west, and see the Safer Barriers that NASCAR and Indycar uses.  For much higher speed accidents.  It would be an easy install for many of these walls.

In reply to alfadriver (Forum Supporter) :

Are Safer Barriers in use on road courses? Off the top of my head I couldn't name anywhere, but they may well be.

The guy that actually started putting the flames out came from across the track and he did enough so that the medical car guy could get in there and help Grosjean out. I think the other guy (the one that was just on the other side of the barrier) approached the accident and started spraying at the ground and doing zero to stop the fire that was engulfing a driver. 

DeadSkunk (Warren) said:

In reply to alfadriver (Forum Supporter) :

Are Safer Barriers in use on road courses? Off the top of my head I couldn't name anywhere, but they may well be.

In places like that, they should be.  It's not that they are overly complicated walls....

What was up with the car hosing fire/sparks from its left side?

In reply to adam525i (Forum Supporter) :

The concrete would probably have been better.  The cars are tested for frontal impact into a solid surface, as it was the nose of the car split the barrier instead of being stopped.

DeadSkunk (Warren) said:

In reply to Keith Tanner :

Agree , but there was an entry there for track access. If the wall he hit were parallel to the track it would have been a better angle,BUT then the overlapping wall behind it would be at an angle and it was just happenstance that the accident happened where it did. A hundred yards later and he would hit  the second wall at a poor angle of attack. It will be interesting to see what the FIA does to barrier design and location as a result of this.

Understood, I'm suggesting a better geometry. Viewed from the direction of travel, the "front" wall (the one that was hit) protrudes into the runoff area. If it were straight and the back wall were at an angle, most of that angled wall would be shielded by the front wall. You'd only have a gap wide enough for the road. That would still be an angled section of barrier, but it would be much smaller and further away from the track. So you'd have a smaller amount of barrier at that angle and more runoff room. It would still be possible to hit that angled section but it would be a lower probability and there's very little downside.

Hey, look, I made a visual aid! Circle is roughly where the impact occurred. Red lines are what I would rather see done with the barriers. Note that this is not intended to be used for actual construction plans, it is to illustrate the concept so pointing out that wall #1 needs to be 2 pixels shorter is missing the point.

I am finding it funny how people are amazed that the car was "ripped in half".  If you look at how a modern formula car is built, the engine, gearbox, wing, etc are, as a unit, attached to the front half of the car by several plates and bolts.

In reply to triumph7 :

It's incredibly rare for an F1 car to have a accident where it breaks in half.  That's why it's so amazing.  Yes, it is supposed to fail that way, but even though it's supposed to do that, when do you ever see it happening?  So the accident was pretty hard- or at least the front of the car speared into the barrier so suddenly that the rear kept going.

Ok, is Grosjean going to be back for the next race, or the one after that? I doubt it, but who is going to step into that seat? Hulkenberg? Haas has two drivers listed as their backup/reserve drivers but I don't think either have enough experience in an F1 car for Haas to stick them in there. Also, is Lewis going to reach 100 Poles this season?

Each time I replay these videos I can't believe that Grosjean survived that crash.  Huge high-speed impact, instant fireball, shredded chassis embedded in the barrier... yet he is immediately able to get out of his belts and restraints then climb out and get away to safety.  It's unbelievable.

Based on the Instagram video that Grosjean posted from hospital, I don't expect to see him back this season. Surely Haas has a backup driver who is itching for a break, or maybe they'll stick some kid with a famous last name in the car for a couple of races and get all the clicks.

I'm curious about the comments (here and in other spots) about if it weren't for the Halo, he would have been knocked unconscious or similar.  Seems to me like if it weren't for the Halo, he would have very likely been ... decapitated?  

I'm similarly curious as to whether a concrete barrier would have been better or worse.   

In reply to Keith Tanner :

Agreed. That makes sense.

The Haas reserve driver is Pietro Fittipaldi, he's Emerson Fittipaldi's grandson.  So it looks like both of Keith's predictions are combined. :)

They interviewed the F1 Medical Car driver (Van de Mevwe i think) and he appeared to be relieved he was not knocked unconscious and was able to make it out of the car under his own power, they were preparing to fight the fire to extract what they hoped would be an intact body.  To a person everyone involved with the Sky sports broadcast believed he would not have survived if not for the Halo.  Looking at pictures of the impact its obvious if not for the safety cell and the Halo this would have been the first fatality in F1 under Liberty Media ownership.

NorseDave said:

I'm similarly curious as to whether a concrete barrier would have been better or worse.   

With or without the fire? I think the drills they do for rapid exiting paid off.

I'd guess the impact was somewhat gradual as the car pierced the gap in the armco. It slowed as it stripped off the wings and front suspension as the monocoque wedged between the rails. There was plenty of mass there still connected to pile drive the cockpit between the rails til it overloaded the cockpit to motor connection.

I'd be most concerned with a sideways impact element, it seems like there must have been some at play to separate them.

On a concrete barrier it would have used it's crumple zone and spun off the wall, but the approach angle was really nasty and I'd guess it would have taken more than the crumple zone. (NO FIRE)

I think they lay on the fuel tank? or does it extend into the pods? Probably multiple tanks or bladders?

In reply to loosecannon :

Codus is probably right, but Hulkenberg has more points this year than both Haas drivers combined

It will be interesting to see what happens ahead of next weeks race, if the armco will be fixed or if a different solution is used. I can't see how hitting a solid concrete wall would be better than what happened, that armco absorbed a lot energy and brought that car to rest with Romain still conscious and able to extract himself.

I know the crashes and cars are very different but I can't help but think of Greg Moore's fatal crash in 99, he went into a concrete wall at high speed and it was unforgiving. Even Kubica's crash in 07 comes to mind, his tub did not survive that crash (his feet were completely exposed after the initial impact) but it did save his life. You can see how little energy was actually absorbed in both cases by how fast the car was still moving after the initial impacts, very different to the armco.

Just to put the frontal crash testing into perspective that all tubs must pass, the tubs are ran into a solid wall at 15 m/s (54 km/h) and must not exceed certain g loads measured on the tub and crash dummy as well as have the damage limited to the nose cone. 

The crash tests start on page 83 for the current years technical regs, it looks like the standards get tougher for the new cars in 2022.

https://www.fia.com/regulation/category/110

DeadSkunk (Warren) said:

I expect the G-force number will be mighty impressive, too. 

53 Gs I think I saw?  Thats a peak force, not sustained, but still.  Col Stapp only did 46.

In reply to adam525i (Forum Supporter) :

Just a couple more thoughts on my post, a bouncing car coming off a solid wall probably would have spread the fuel around more resulting in a bigger fire but less concentrated around the driver which is good. A bouncing car can also lead to crashes like we saw at spa last year in the F2 race. 

bentwrench said:

I think they lay on the fuel tank? or does it extend into the pods? Probably multiple tanks or bladders?

It's from 2012, but I don't imagine the basic packaging has changed dramatically.