Anthione Hubert crash analysis
Discussion
Very informative and respectfully done (no fatal impact imagery). Sheds a lot of light on the incident
https://youtu.be/dE5nq6lqI9g
To which I said- Good video. I've always pointed out catch fencing used in the late 70's in f1, was supremely effective at stopping and catching cars. The only problems with it are that it traps the driver in the car so can be a problem for fires and that it only works once and has to be rebuilt after a crash. However fire prevention and removal is vastly better today. Marshall's are much better trained and faster to react. Barriers can also be quickly rebuilt and races paused with safety cars. Nothing at all like the 70's.
With a few tweaks and maybe a better modern material (perhaps even made out of a form of rubber/plastic that stretches on impact, softening it's deceleration ability and allowing it to spring back into shape after an impact) I think catch fencing, in front of a tecpro barrier, is the most effective. It also harshly penalises drivers for mistakes acting as a deterrent to running off and keeping it planted.
I also think it's about time carbon fibre was banned. It shatters and splinters too easily leaving tiny shards that can easily be missed on a clean-up ready to cause punctures. Aluminium is a much better material to make wings and winglets out of because it is maluable and bends rather than breaks. And if it does break, it's in a few big pieces. If all cars are forced to use it there is no performance issue. F1 may even drive technology in carbon-aluminium composites or something.
https://youtu.be/dE5nq6lqI9g
To which I said- Good video. I've always pointed out catch fencing used in the late 70's in f1, was supremely effective at stopping and catching cars. The only problems with it are that it traps the driver in the car so can be a problem for fires and that it only works once and has to be rebuilt after a crash. However fire prevention and removal is vastly better today. Marshall's are much better trained and faster to react. Barriers can also be quickly rebuilt and races paused with safety cars. Nothing at all like the 70's.
With a few tweaks and maybe a better modern material (perhaps even made out of a form of rubber/plastic that stretches on impact, softening it's deceleration ability and allowing it to spring back into shape after an impact) I think catch fencing, in front of a tecpro barrier, is the most effective. It also harshly penalises drivers for mistakes acting as a deterrent to running off and keeping it planted.
I also think it's about time carbon fibre was banned. It shatters and splinters too easily leaving tiny shards that can easily be missed on a clean-up ready to cause punctures. Aluminium is a much better material to make wings and winglets out of because it is maluable and bends rather than breaks. And if it does break, it's in a few big pieces. If all cars are forced to use it there is no performance issue. F1 may even drive technology in carbon-aluminium composites or something.
That's a - I was going to say great but perhaps "most informative" is better - video thank you. I've been wondering about the exact mechanics of the incident (avid aircrash investigation/seconds from disaster etc type viewer) but have not watched any of the footage for obvious reasons, but keen to understand what went wrong and what can be done about it.
Is there a reason beyond sheer speed why Correas car suffered such damage, Huberts car suffered several impacts and the crash structure "did its job" on the first, but Correa had only the one impact?
I've also been pondering if you could design a better barrier. The barrier, or barrier system, needs to trap the car, at least not spit it straight back onto the track. Would a shallow ditch in front of the barrier, big enough for the car to drop in it, help contain the car? The main problem is the barrier needs to do a job at all speeds and at multiple angles of impact. Or maybe a non- return pass-through barrier, like a kind of curtain that sits in front of the actual crash barrier. Or a form of netting designed to give and decelerate, and perhaps even snag to some degree.
Also great to see the halo being demonstrated factually, as opposed to all the dribble forum people come out with, (both against and in defence of it) whenever there's any incident. A lot of my stance is it should, largely, be down to the drivers and I suspect Mr King and Mr Gelael are quite fond of it.
Is there a reason beyond sheer speed why Correas car suffered such damage, Huberts car suffered several impacts and the crash structure "did its job" on the first, but Correa had only the one impact?
I've also been pondering if you could design a better barrier. The barrier, or barrier system, needs to trap the car, at least not spit it straight back onto the track. Would a shallow ditch in front of the barrier, big enough for the car to drop in it, help contain the car? The main problem is the barrier needs to do a job at all speeds and at multiple angles of impact. Or maybe a non- return pass-through barrier, like a kind of curtain that sits in front of the actual crash barrier. Or a form of netting designed to give and decelerate, and perhaps even snag to some degree.
Also great to see the halo being demonstrated factually, as opposed to all the dribble forum people come out with, (both against and in defence of it) whenever there's any incident. A lot of my stance is it should, largely, be down to the drivers and I suspect Mr King and Mr Gelael are quite fond of it.
Edited by Teddy Lop on Saturday 14th September 12:29
I don’t think that a return to catch fencing is the answer. Inevitably cars were left at the side of a track where there was a potential for a second car to college with it. It also took ages to repair.
What I think might be possible to engineer is the type of system of arrester wires like they use on aircraft carriers. I am thinking of low-level Kevlar cable designed to tear apart like a seat belt but set low so that front wheels pass over it but catches the car perhaps 3-4m before it hits the TechPro barrier. Any supports would need to be designed to sheer in the event of a direct hit, but that would be needed as part of the design, in any event.
It might be difficult to repair quickly
What I think might be possible to engineer is the type of system of arrester wires like they use on aircraft carriers. I am thinking of low-level Kevlar cable designed to tear apart like a seat belt but set low so that front wheels pass over it but catches the car perhaps 3-4m before it hits the TechPro barrier. Any supports would need to be designed to sheer in the event of a direct hit, but that would be needed as part of the design, in any event.
It might be difficult to repair quickly
rdjohn said:
I don’t think that a return to catch fencing is the answer. Inevitably cars were left at the side of a track where there was a potential for a second car to college with it. It also took ages to repair.
What I think might be possible to engineer is the type of system of arrester wires like they use on aircraft carriers. I am thinking of low-level Kevlar cable designed to tear apart like a seat belt but set low so that front wheels pass over it but catches the car perhaps 3-4m before it hits the TechPro barrier. Any supports would need to be designed to sheer in the event of a direct hit, but that would be needed as part of the design, in any event.
It might be difficult to repair quickly
problem with any kind of arrester wire is the decapitation risk to an open cockpit, although I don't think there any open cockpits left in F1 support, the circuit has to provide for all users, bikes as well.What I think might be possible to engineer is the type of system of arrester wires like they use on aircraft carriers. I am thinking of low-level Kevlar cable designed to tear apart like a seat belt but set low so that front wheels pass over it but catches the car perhaps 3-4m before it hits the TechPro barrier. Any supports would need to be designed to sheer in the event of a direct hit, but that would be needed as part of the design, in any event.
It might be difficult to repair quickly
I am thinking 10cm above ground level. A high level wire was yet another problem with catch fencing, however the Halo would now mitigate this.
No, I am thinking of something that would be caught by the leading edge of the floor in F1, or generally a trailing hooked on other race cars.
I suspect with this accident the barrier is used tyres and belting. TecPro is much better at absorbing energy, but is a lot more expensive - until you have a death like this.
No, I am thinking of something that would be caught by the leading edge of the floor in F1, or generally a trailing hooked on other race cars.
I suspect with this accident the barrier is used tyres and belting. TecPro is much better at absorbing energy, but is a lot more expensive - until you have a death like this.
mattikake said:
I've always pointed out catch fencing used in the late 70's in f1, was supremely effective at stopping and catching cars. The only problems with it are that it traps the driver in the car so can be a problem for fires and that it only works once and has to be rebuilt after a crash. However fire prevention and removal is vastly better today. Marshall's are much better trained and faster to react. Barriers can also be quickly rebuilt and races paused with safety cars. Nothing at all like the 70's.
With a few tweaks and maybe a better modern material (perhaps even made out of a form of rubber/plastic that stretches on impact, softening it's deceleration ability and allowing it to spring back into shape after an impact) I think catch fencing, in front of a tecpro barrier, is the most effective. It also harshly penalises drivers for mistakes acting as a deterrent to running off and keeping it planted.
You ignore the main reason catch fencing was banned and that was the poles that held the catch fencing. They were deadly. With a few tweaks and maybe a better modern material (perhaps even made out of a form of rubber/plastic that stretches on impact, softening it's deceleration ability and allowing it to spring back into shape after an impact) I think catch fencing, in front of a tecpro barrier, is the most effective. It also harshly penalises drivers for mistakes acting as a deterrent to running off and keeping it planted.
Catch fencing replacement is not something that can be done quickly.
rdjohn said:
I am thinking 10cm above ground level. A high level wire was yet another problem with catch fencing, however the Halo would now mitigate this.
No, I am thinking of something that would be caught by the leading edge of the floor in F1, or generally a trailing hooked on other race cars.
I suspect with this accident the barrier is used tyres and belting. TecPro is much better at absorbing energy, but is a lot more expensive - until you have a death like this.
How would the arrester wires be anchored? No, I am thinking of something that would be caught by the leading edge of the floor in F1, or generally a trailing hooked on other race cars.
I suspect with this accident the barrier is used tyres and belting. TecPro is much better at absorbing energy, but is a lot more expensive - until you have a death like this.
I have always wondered how well protected drivers would be in these cars if they were t-boned. They should go back to the days when the sidepods extended past the driver to just behind the front wheels. At least then there is a deformable structure between the driver and another car coming in from the side. As currently all they have is the carbon fibre side to the chassis. You only have to look at Gilles Villeneuve's crash at Imola in 1980 on entry to the Tosa corner, to see how the sidepods helped absorb the impact.
The fact fatalities are so rare already speaks volumes about just how good current safety standards for both circuits, cars and medical provisions.
You can’t prevent everything though. Something different will happen that was either totally unforeseen, deemed so low risk or just plain unlucky. Put multi cars capable of high speeds in the straights and corners all trying to be the fastest, you are going to inevitably have incidents.
I thought tecpro was a newer and better solution but the costs keep getting mentioned as a barrier to greater use. I can understand it’s use would be risk assessed in terms of placement. Could I predict a high speed accident through Eau Rouge? I think the likelihood is high as are the consequences. Therefore should that have better investment in solutions.
However it is likely the tyres actually did their job, the probable issue was a secondary impact which occurred ‘off’ the track. So does this fall into the unlucky bracket? Had the other car not left the circuit, no secondary impact and perhaps a different outcome.
You can’t prevent everything though. Something different will happen that was either totally unforeseen, deemed so low risk or just plain unlucky. Put multi cars capable of high speeds in the straights and corners all trying to be the fastest, you are going to inevitably have incidents.
I thought tecpro was a newer and better solution but the costs keep getting mentioned as a barrier to greater use. I can understand it’s use would be risk assessed in terms of placement. Could I predict a high speed accident through Eau Rouge? I think the likelihood is high as are the consequences. Therefore should that have better investment in solutions.
However it is likely the tyres actually did their job, the probable issue was a secondary impact which occurred ‘off’ the track. So does this fall into the unlucky bracket? Had the other car not left the circuit, no secondary impact and perhaps a different outcome.
Teddy Lop said:
Is there a reason beyond sheer speed why Correas car suffered such damage, Huberts car suffered several impacts and the crash structure "did its job" on the first, but Correa had only the one impact?
Do you mean the failure of the front of the monocoque? Potentially it may have failed from "twisting" after penetrating the tub of Hubert's car.Europa1 said:
rdjohn said:
I am thinking 10cm above ground level. A high level wire was yet another problem with catch fencing, however the Halo would now mitigate this.
No, I am thinking of something that would be caught by the leading edge of the floor in F1, or generally a trailing hooked on other race cars.
I suspect with this accident the barrier is used tyres and belting. TecPro is much better at absorbing energy, but is a lot more expensive - until you have a death like this.
How would the arrester wires be anchored? No, I am thinking of something that would be caught by the leading edge of the floor in F1, or generally a trailing hooked on other race cars.
I suspect with this accident the barrier is used tyres and belting. TecPro is much better at absorbing energy, but is a lot more expensive - until you have a death like this.
mcdjl said:
Any form of barrier/car/bike/ person catcher needs to be anchored from behind. If its anchored from the front surface as any kind of wire would be then that forms hard points that will be hit. Yes, they could be shearable but then they'd almost certainly shear when the wire caught whatever.A wire 10cm above the ground and far back enough to catch and stop something, but not act as a cheese wire for anything sounds difficult to engineer to me. While granting that aircraft are bigger, heavier and faster than F1 cars they have 3 wires to try and catch and the wires run out a long way: https://youtu.be/lM8GJaFeG0U?t=137 and they still miss them.
Arrester wires for aircraft are designed to stop an aircraft approaching at a defined angle at a defined height. Good luck making something like that work at a race track.EagleMoto4-2 said:
I have always wondered how well protected drivers would be in these cars if they were t-boned. They should go back to the days when the sidepods extended past the driver to just behind the front wheels. At least then there is a deformable structure between the driver and another car coming in from the side. As currently all they have is the carbon fibre side to the chassis. You only have to look at Gilles Villeneuve's crash at Imola in 1980 on entry to the Tosa corner, to see how the sidepods helped absorb the impact.
They all have standardised crash tubes on each side, generally just above and below the radiator inletsGeorge29 said:
EagleMoto4-2 said:
I have always wondered how well protected drivers would be in these cars if they were t-boned. They should go back to the days when the sidepods extended past the driver to just behind the front wheels. At least then there is a deformable structure between the driver and another car coming in from the side. As currently all they have is the carbon fibre side to the chassis. You only have to look at Gilles Villeneuve's crash at Imola in 1980 on entry to the Tosa corner, to see how the sidepods helped absorb the impact.
They all have standardised crash tubes on each side, generally just above and below the radiator inletsGiven the root cause of the crash was Alesi’s puncture and subsequent spin, it would be interesting to know when the tyre deflated and would somekind of TPMS policed by the FIA, forcing the driver with the puncture to slow down to VSC speeds have helped?
It's not just solid protection but crumple zones that are required for side impacts. The energy of the initial impact needs to be absorbed or it will just be that soft squishy human that has to do it. The impact has to decelerate to stop internal organs being bashed around inside the body.
mattikake said:
It's not just solid protection but crumple zones that are required for side impacts. The energy of the initial impact needs to be absorbed or it will just be that soft squishy human that has to do it. The impact has to decelerate to stop internal organs being bashed around inside the body.
In the case of a high speed impact to the side of the car in order to reduce the deceleration of the intruding object (eg car) the only way to reduce the deceleration would be to widen the chassis of the target car. Whichever way you look at it, slowing a relatively pointy object down from >100mph to zero in a couple of feet is going to hurt something just from the g's involved.Relatively simple frontal impacts of a car into barrier allow for deformable crash structures to work plus drivers seat belts will stretch significantly.
As is often said, it's not the crash, it's the stopping that hurts.
My son was racing in Australian Formula Ford a couple of years ago at Phillip Island, in the wet. A back marker had spun and allowed the car to roll back on track, broadside to approaching cars.
My son hit the offside back wheel with his nearside front, flat out. He never even had time to come off he throttle. From the photos we have he was thrown about the cockpit as the belts stretched and the car deformed around him. He was unhurt, but a bit concussed.
Shudder to think of the outcome if he had hit the car in the cockpit.
Edited by andygo on Thursday 19th September 15:03
Edited by andygo on Thursday 19th September 15:05
Edited by andygo on Thursday 19th September 15:06
mattikake said:
It's not just solid protection but crumple zones that are required for side impacts. The energy of the initial impact needs to be absorbed or it will just be that soft squishy human that has to do it. The impact has to decelerate to stop internal organs being bashed around inside the body.
That is what the carbon crash tubes are designed to do. They aren’t solid, they’re hollow so they crumple in effect, removing the energy out of the impact. Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff