Massive F3 Crash Parabolica

Massive F3 Crash Parabolica

Author
Discussion

Eric Mc

107,447 posts

210 months

Sunday 8th September
quotequote all
It increasingly seems that some of the current safety measure put in place are causing more problems than they are solving.

Kraken

1,109 posts

145 months

Sunday 8th September
quotequote all
Not sure if you could say that a sausage kerb is really a safety measure. More of a measure to make sure people don't cheat.

Eric Mc

107,447 posts

210 months

Sunday 8th September
quotequote all
Kraken said:
Not sure if you could say that a sausage kerb is really a safety measure. More of a measure to make sure people don't cheat.
The kerbs are there to stop people running wide into the run off areas and using them as part of the track. The run off areas were installed as a safety measure. In previous years they were either gravel, catch fencing or non-existent.

So, a safety measure has led to kerbs and that accident.

I'm also pretty sure people are carrying massive speed into and out of Eau Rouge because the widening of the track at that point encourqages it. They are also driving through that zone in a much more aggressive manner than in past years - again because of the widening of the track for "safety" purposes.

You make a track apparently safer and drivers will try to use that to gain an advantage. That's the nature of the beast.

Petrolsniffed

862 posts

10 months

Sunday 8th September
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
The kerbs are there to stop people running wide into the run off areas and using them as part of the track. The run off areas were installed as a safety measure. In previous years they were either gravel, catch fencing or non-existent.

So, a safety measure has led to kerbs and that accident.

I'm also pretty sure people are carrying massive speed into and out of Eau Rouge because the widening of the track at that point encourqages it. They are also driving through that zone in a much more aggressive manner than in past years - again because of the widening of the track for "safety" purposes.

You make a track apparently safer and drivers will try to use that to gain an advantage. That's the nature of the beast.
It feels to me that they should just punish those who go outside the track with time fines. Do it too many times and you are disqualified. Far safer and sensible deterrent

Teddy Lop

1,594 posts

12 months

Sunday 8th September
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
The kerbs are there to stop people running wide into the run off areas and using them as part of the track. The run off areas were installed as a safety measure. In previous years they were either gravel, catch fencing or non-existent.

So, a safety measure has led to kerbs and that accident.

I'm also pretty sure people are carrying massive speed into and out of Eau Rouge because the widening of the track at that point encourqages it. They are also driving through that zone in a much more aggressive manner than in past years - again because of the widening of the track for "safety" purposes.

You make a track apparently safer and drivers will try to use that to gain an advantage. That's the nature of the beast.
we know why the kerbs are there, it's the appalling lack of judgement or complete ignorance of using a sausage kerb to police a high speed corner that's being questioned. Unpopular as the concept is Peroni does have a very legitimate claim in my eyes as this was utterly avoidable.

Is this top flight motorsport I'm watching or jackass?

audi321

4,026 posts

158 months

Sunday 8th September
quotequote all
I've watched it a few times now, and it must be an optical illusion. I just don't see a kerb at all? It's like he has some kind of Knight Rider turbo boost button!

He goes crazy high which doesn't seem comparable to the speed he's going - very weird!

Are there any other camera angles?

cuprabob

7,915 posts

159 months

Sunday 8th September
quotequote all
Teddy Lop said:
Is this top flight motorsport I'm watching or jackass?
I see what you did there smile

coppice

5,486 posts

89 months

Monday 9th September
quotequote all
Petrolsniffed said:
Yeah, lets have sensible thinking, like holding idiots to account who allow these incidents to become possible. I mean, even if there were not clear evidence of it happening before, there is, then it is not beyond the capability of even a modest brain to think that allowing those to be on a track that could result in such an incident is endangering lives. Maybe we should get a grip and wait for when there are further incidents?
Do grow up rather than kneejerking idiotic comments ; I suspect if the kerb had been lower ,and a big crash had ensued, you'd have been advocating 'jail time ' (are you American ?) for the person who hadn't prescribed a sausage kerb.

I don't know how long you have watched motor sport, nor whether you attend live events but anybody with even a loose grasp of motor raving history would know that accidents happen. often in new and unpredictable ways. In my time I've seen us go from little run off , to gravel , to catch fencing, to Tarmac and now , in the wake of the Spa incident , there is talk of gravel again. Same with kerbs- we've seen normal street kerbing at Monaco, flattened kerbs , sausage and dragons teeth and doubtless we'll find other variations on the theme -maybe draining all that inconvenient water at Monaco....

motco

12,272 posts

191 months

Monday 9th September
quotequote all
If it was big enough to almost fire him into the woods, why didn't he drive around it? He was hardly that out of control it seemed.

Petrolsniffed

862 posts

10 months

Monday 9th September
quotequote all
coppice said:
Do grow up rather than kneejerking idiotic comments ; I suspect if the kerb had been lower ,and a big crash had ensued, you'd have been advocating 'jail time ' (are you American ?) for the person who hadn't prescribed a sausage kerb.

I don't know how long you have watched motor sport, nor whether you attend live events but anybody with even a loose grasp of motor raving history would know that accidents happen. often in new and unpredictable ways. In my time I've seen us go from little run off , to gravel , to catch fencing, to Tarmac and now , in the wake of the Spa incident , there is talk of gravel again. Same with kerbs- we've seen normal street kerbing at Monaco, flattened kerbs , sausage and dragons teeth and doubtless we'll find other variations on the theme -maybe draining all that inconvenient water at Monaco....
why so patronising? The back in my day shout is hillarious. But then at best it's a week attempt at Reductio ad absurdum. If anyone needs to grow up it's the people who throw out ste like "are you American" or "anyone with even a loose grasp" as points to dismiss someone's option.

Also knee jerking? Do you suggest people should wait for a few more similar incidents to make the relevent changes. The doctors were very quick to diagnose the broken vertebrae, perhaps they should have waited a few days before making a knee jerk diagnosis

Yes accidents happen, it is the job of those in the sport to minimise the risk wherever possible. It would be interesting to understand the due diligence on the curbs introduction at that specific point. At best it's negligence.


24lemons

2,284 posts

130 months

Monday 9th September
quotequote all
Teddy Lop said:
Eric Mc said:
The kerbs are there to stop people running wide into the run off areas and using them as part of the track. The run off areas were installed as a safety measure. In previous years they were either gravel, catch fencing or non-existent.

So, a safety measure has led to kerbs and that accident.

I'm also pretty sure people are carrying massive speed into and out of Eau Rouge because the widening of the track at that point encourqages it. They are also driving through that zone in a much more aggressive manner than in past years - again because of the widening of the track for "safety" purposes.

You make a track apparently safer and drivers will try to use that to gain an advantage. That's the nature of the beast.
we know why the kerbs are there, it's the appalling lack of judgement or complete ignorance of using a sausage kerb to police a high speed corner that's being questioned. Unpopular as the concept is Peroni does have a very legitimate claim in my eyes as this was utterly avoidable.

Is this top flight motorsport I'm watching or jackass?
It’s the law of unintended consequences isn’t it? The powers that be have been chasing their tails trying to come up with ways of discouraging the use of tarmac run offs for competitive advantage. Penalties or sausage kerbs are crude and reactionary measures put in place to solve a problem that is entirely of the rule makers making.

As Eric points out, even if the drivers have no intention of exceeding the track limits, the knowledge that there is a nice big safety net surely affects the way that a corner is approached. The drivers in top line motorsport are all extremely capable of driving quickly within defined track limits, just watch any street race. The difference comes from knowing that they can get away with pushing their luck.

Reading the comments from numerous racing drivers from around the world after this weekend’s incident, it seems there is very little support for these run offs and the feeling seems to be that at the very least, a border of gravel and grass. Will create a self regulating track boundary, even if there is tarmac behind that.


Kraken

1,109 posts

145 months

Monday 9th September
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
Kraken said:
Not sure if you could say that a sausage kerb is really a safety measure. More of a measure to make sure people don't cheat.
The kerbs are there to stop people running wide into the run off areas and using them as part of the track. The run off areas were installed as a safety measure. In previous years they were either gravel, catch fencing or non-existent.

So, a safety measure has led to kerbs and that accident.

I'm also pretty sure people are carrying massive speed into and out of Eau Rouge because the widening of the track at that point encourqages it. They are also driving through that zone in a much more aggressive manner than in past years - again because of the widening of the track for "safety" purposes.

You make a track apparently safer and drivers will try to use that to gain an advantage. That's the nature of the beast.
Thanks for enlightening me. After nearly 50 years following motorsport and 30 years competing in it I had no idea that they used to have gravel traps and they replaced them with tarmac run offs.

Chicken and egg.

768

4,929 posts

41 months

Monday 9th September
quotequote all
Are we going to see more of this with the 2021 regs relying more on ground effect? Or not?

Eric Mc

107,447 posts

210 months

Monday 9th September
quotequote all
What was pretty amazing was the altitude he reached. I presume these cars have a flat floor "plank" like the F1 cars do. Did the lip of the plank catch the kerb and then act like a spring in firing the car into the air?

The kerb was pretty low but it had to have a sharp edge to do what it did, I would think.

I remember about 20 years ago Charlie Butler Henderson got launched by kerbs at Thruxton. He got pretty high but nothing like this accident.


andygo

5,448 posts

200 months

Monday 9th September
quotequote all
Once the car went upside down I would imagine the same aero that worked to push the car downwards would still be working, even though by that time 'down' had become 'up'.

Maybe that accounts for the take off height gain to some extent.

Eric Mc

107,447 posts

210 months

Monday 9th September
quotequote all
Not sure how effective these wings are as lifting devices.

768

4,929 posts

41 months

Monday 9th September
quotequote all
Same thing isn't it? Just a different orientation. Although there are obviously a few niggles with pitch, stability, thrust, a lack of control surfaces, etc, etc.

coppice

5,486 posts

89 months

Monday 9th September
quotequote all
Petrolsniffed said:
hy so patronising? The back in my day shout is hillarious. But then at best it's a week attempt at Reductio ad absurdum. If anyone needs to grow up it's the people who throw out ste like "are you American" or "anyone with even a loose grasp" as points to dismiss someone's option.

Also knee jerking? Do you suggest people should wait for a few more similar incidents to make the relevent changes. The doctors were very quick to diagnose the broken vertebrae, perhaps they should have waited a few days before making a knee jerk diagnosis

Yes accidents happen, it is the job of those in the sport to minimise the risk wherever possible. It would be interesting to understand the due diligence on the curbs introduction at that specific point. At best it's negligence.
Why so patronising ? Because you weren't there , you saw a piece of video and waded in by suggesting there has been negligence , if not criminal liability . Because the sport has many examples of accidents , some of which, after proper investigation,merit change , and others which are regarded as one offs , or inherent risk .

So what about the risk every single seater runs of becoming airborne if its wheel hits the car in front ? That can be mitigated - bit at the cost of the aesthetics of the car - what is your take ? Or on the fact that some single seaters have haloes but others don't?

Eric Mc

107,447 posts

210 months

Monday 9th September
quotequote all
768 said:
Same thing isn't it? Just a different orientation. Although there are obviously a few niggles with pitch, stability, thrust, a lack of control surfaces, etc, etc.
Also lift to weight effects. The wings of an aeroplane are designed to generate enough lift to make the vehicle rise off the ground - and keep rising. The more speed, the more lift.

Wings on a car do not have to generate a force that is greater than the force of gravity holding the car on the road. They are just there to assist gravity, not fight it.

If an F1 car (or any other winged car) was run upside down along the ground, would it lift off (with or without a conveyor belt)?

Petrolsniffed

862 posts

10 months

Monday 9th September
quotequote all
coppice said:
Why so patronising ? Because you weren't there , you saw a piece of video and waded in by suggesting there has been negligence , if not criminal liability . Because the sport has many examples of accidents , some of which, after proper investigation,merit change , and others which are regarded as one offs , or inherent risk .

So what about the risk every single seater runs of becoming airborne if its wheel hits the car in front ? That can be mitigated - bit at the cost of the aesthetics of the car - what is your take ? Or on the fact that some single seaters have haloes but others don't?
fking hell pal. You want to knee jerk off one comment and then ask me to make recommendations for every aspect of the sport?

So for the record, you do not believe there is any negligence in the deployment in this situation? You know, the incident a thread was started over? Once we nail this maybe we can share email and discuss every other aspect of the sport? Perhaps you could take me to dinner to debate it? Or would you want clarification of my nationality first?