FIA to force F1 car noses to be redesigned in rule change.
Discussion
www.grandprix.com/ns/ns16729.html
Hmmmmm well I never, in all the years of open wheel racing I've never once thought about cars getting airbourne when wheels touch
The usual thing with open wheel racers is not to hit other in the first place something the "best drivers in the world" should be able to do. Or have they been watching too much BTCC.
I do seem to recall something similar mooted a few years ago that turned an F1 car into an Interserie car, effectively an open wheel car running mud guards and even more recently a rear end design that put a horizontal bar/carbon thing across both rear wheels.
With front ends being designed to a rule will there be anything external left for an F1 designer to actually design?
I can only recall 5 incidents in the last 10 years involving wheel over wheel accidents that resulted in an airborne car, none of which caused any injury and all could have been avoided.
1993 - Riccardo Patrese going over the back of Berger's Ferrari at Estoril because Berger was squeezing him into the pitwall.
1994 - Christian Fittipaldi's full flip at Monza in 1994 after touching team mate Fabrizzio Barbazza's car as they were both weaving to beat each other accross the finish line and Barbazza weaved into Christian.
1995 - Eddie Irvine falling asleep at the wheel of his Jordan and not noticing Damon Hill's Williams, flipping him over at slow speed at Estoril in 1995.
1996 - Martin Brundle braking just a little later than needed at Melbourne and cartwheeling over everyone else into the Turn 3 kitty litter.
2001 - Luciano Burti doing a similar thing to Brundle at Hockeheim at the very first corner.
Yes it happens but surely not often enough to warrant more rule changes. Shall we wrap each driver who's paid over £2million a year to race F1 in bubble wrap to ensure their ultimate saftey and maybe move the spectators 2 miles from the trackside for their complete saftey too? The drivers are the best in the world so they should be able to avoid doing this, but racing is dangerous that's why they are paid so much. Although if their environment is made so safe as to render them immune from accidents then the teams could drop their salaries, instantly saving money....Oswald Jnr will be pleased. Less so the drivers.
Soon to be seen on a Grand Prix ticket near you:-
"WARNING! Motorsports used to be dangerous, despite the organisers taking all reasonable precautions unavoidable periods of saftey can happen. In respect of these you are present at your own risk."
>> Edited by FourWheelDrift on Monday 1st May 14:09
Grand Prix.com said:
The FIA Institute has announced that it is planning a series of tests this summer to learn more about wheel over wheel accidents.
The tests will be carried out at the Transport Research Laboratory in Crowthorne, Berkshire, and the FIA hopes that they will reveal ways to stop cars flying after wheel-to-wheel impacts. The tests will also be used to simulate nose-to-wheel impacts. The big concern at the moment is that a wheel-over-wheel crash will result in accidents involving marshals and spectators.
The tests will be performed on an external rolling road which will simulate and measure the effects of cars colliding with one another at around 100mph. The FIA is being helped out in these tests by Red Bull Racing and Toyota. If the tests reveal a safer design for front wings and noses, it is likely that there will be rule changes in the future to reduce the risks of such crashes.
Hmmmmm well I never, in all the years of open wheel racing I've never once thought about cars getting airbourne when wheels touch
The usual thing with open wheel racers is not to hit other in the first place something the "best drivers in the world" should be able to do. Or have they been watching too much BTCC. I do seem to recall something similar mooted a few years ago that turned an F1 car into an Interserie car, effectively an open wheel car running mud guards and even more recently a rear end design that put a horizontal bar/carbon thing across both rear wheels.
With front ends being designed to a rule will there be anything external left for an F1 designer to actually design?
I can only recall 5 incidents in the last 10 years involving wheel over wheel accidents that resulted in an airborne car, none of which caused any injury and all could have been avoided.
1993 - Riccardo Patrese going over the back of Berger's Ferrari at Estoril because Berger was squeezing him into the pitwall.
1994 - Christian Fittipaldi's full flip at Monza in 1994 after touching team mate Fabrizzio Barbazza's car as they were both weaving to beat each other accross the finish line and Barbazza weaved into Christian.
1995 - Eddie Irvine falling asleep at the wheel of his Jordan and not noticing Damon Hill's Williams, flipping him over at slow speed at Estoril in 1995.
1996 - Martin Brundle braking just a little later than needed at Melbourne and cartwheeling over everyone else into the Turn 3 kitty litter.
2001 - Luciano Burti doing a similar thing to Brundle at Hockeheim at the very first corner.
Yes it happens but surely not often enough to warrant more rule changes. Shall we wrap each driver who's paid over £2million a year to race F1 in bubble wrap to ensure their ultimate saftey and maybe move the spectators 2 miles from the trackside for their complete saftey too? The drivers are the best in the world so they should be able to avoid doing this, but racing is dangerous that's why they are paid so much. Although if their environment is made so safe as to render them immune from accidents then the teams could drop their salaries, instantly saving money....Oswald Jnr will be pleased. Less so the drivers.
Soon to be seen on a Grand Prix ticket near you:-
"WARNING! Motorsports used to be dangerous, despite the organisers taking all reasonable precautions unavoidable periods of saftey can happen. In respect of these you are present at your own risk."
>> Edited by FourWheelDrift on Monday 1st May 14:09
Well there was the incident last weekend as well which is probably why it is all current news.
I think they may as well go for full bodywork - retro, like the 50's Mercs. Either that or kart style all round protection bars and in-fills.
Driver safety is easy - do away with them. Make it a remote control game. And spectator safety would be acheivable 110% if all races took place at one of the new circuits where the spectators are kept at least half a mile from the trackside.
As for marshall safety, well, if it's remote control and modern circuit wall to wall concrete and tarmac you wouldn't need any marshalls. If an incident leaves the track obstructed just reprogram for a new track layout and integrate the obstruction by calling it a chicane, or something.
My guess is that far more people are killed and injured in accidents travelling to and from the races than are ever likely to be involved in on track incidents. So the ultimate step would be to ban spectators and simply broadcast the races on TV. Give it a few years and the whole thing could probably be done with computer graphics which, as the technology matures, should make for a very cheap race program indeed.
By which point if Silverstone ends up as a main access road to a huge housing estate it will matter not one bit.
I think they may as well go for full bodywork - retro, like the 50's Mercs. Either that or kart style all round protection bars and in-fills.
Driver safety is easy - do away with them. Make it a remote control game. And spectator safety would be acheivable 110% if all races took place at one of the new circuits where the spectators are kept at least half a mile from the trackside.
As for marshall safety, well, if it's remote control and modern circuit wall to wall concrete and tarmac you wouldn't need any marshalls. If an incident leaves the track obstructed just reprogram for a new track layout and integrate the obstruction by calling it a chicane, or something.
My guess is that far more people are killed and injured in accidents travelling to and from the races than are ever likely to be involved in on track incidents. So the ultimate step would be to ban spectators and simply broadcast the races on TV. Give it a few years and the whole thing could probably be done with computer graphics which, as the technology matures, should make for a very cheap race program indeed.
By which point if Silverstone ends up as a main access road to a huge housing estate it will matter not one bit.
It has just occurred to me that if they play this right they could introduce speed control at the same time. If they made the front of the car tall and square, like a brick wall or a 60's/70's saloon car, as part of the 'safety' attributes required to protect the spectators from this almost non-existent risk, they could probably cut speeds by a considerable amount as well.
FourWheelDrift said:
Oh yes I seem to have blanked that incident out of my mind. Well that move was just plain old stupity, F1 drivers should be the best in the world and Ide clearly isn't
Ah yes, but the FIA Institute is just following the fashion for reducing everything to the level established by the lowest common denominator. Exactly the same as they have done for pedestrian safety resulting in all cars looking more and more identical. Next I suspect they will mandate that cars are colour coded according to safety ratings.
FourWheelDrift said:
I still think it's a knee jerk reaction
I suspect the word "knee" is superfluous.
Or are you suggesting that that Ide had some form of physical problem at the time of the incident?
Motorsport does not begin and end with Formula 1. On terrestrial TV since Friday, I have seen:
- Two incidents in British F3
- Two incidents in GP2
- One in IRL
A browse through Autosport over the past couple of years will show up many incidents, including many in FBMW, and Japanese driver killed when his car was launched into the starting gantry, and one F3 car ending up in the spectator area at Thruxton's Club Chicane. I also note a startline incident from the Imola GP2 race that could/should have killed or maimed Luca di Grassi were it not for the nose structure developments that followed Senna's death.
I've been in the pitlane when the red flag is flown. I've seen the medical car leave black lines as it races to the incident. I've counted the cars back in to work out who's not come back, and seen a friend realise his father is amongst the missing. Trust me, it's not quite so much fun right then.
Motor racing is dangerous, but reasonable steps can be taken. These include design modifications and penalising drivers who deliberately endanger others. Nose-to-wheel and wheel-to-wheel incidents are quite common and very dangerous. Just from my own observations, a simple and reasonable modification would be to add an impact shroud flush to the back of the rear tyres. You wouldn't even notice it. It would eliminate the 'kick-up' off the rear tyre that I believe is the most common mechanic and extremely dangerous. It would dramatically reduce the risk of a car entering spectator areas - the alternative is to move those areas back another 50 yards, or close them completely. Such a device to me is an eminently reasonable and sensible rule change that would save lives, and I would support it wholeheartedly.
- Two incidents in British F3
- Two incidents in GP2
- One in IRL
A browse through Autosport over the past couple of years will show up many incidents, including many in FBMW, and Japanese driver killed when his car was launched into the starting gantry, and one F3 car ending up in the spectator area at Thruxton's Club Chicane. I also note a startline incident from the Imola GP2 race that could/should have killed or maimed Luca di Grassi were it not for the nose structure developments that followed Senna's death.
I've been in the pitlane when the red flag is flown. I've seen the medical car leave black lines as it races to the incident. I've counted the cars back in to work out who's not come back, and seen a friend realise his father is amongst the missing. Trust me, it's not quite so much fun right then.
Motor racing is dangerous, but reasonable steps can be taken. These include design modifications and penalising drivers who deliberately endanger others. Nose-to-wheel and wheel-to-wheel incidents are quite common and very dangerous. Just from my own observations, a simple and reasonable modification would be to add an impact shroud flush to the back of the rear tyres. You wouldn't even notice it. It would eliminate the 'kick-up' off the rear tyre that I believe is the most common mechanic and extremely dangerous. It would dramatically reduce the risk of a car entering spectator areas - the alternative is to move those areas back another 50 yards, or close them completely. Such a device to me is an eminently reasonable and sensible rule change that would save lives, and I would support it wholeheartedly.
HiRich said:
Motorsport does not begin and end with Formula 1.
No. But then why start with regulations at that level?
HiRich said:
Motor racing is dangerous, but reasonable steps can be taken. These include design modifications and penalising drivers who deliberately endanger others.
Design changes - make the wheel enclosed then? Can't think of a reason not to .... The Tyrrell P34 would havce been a good example of an engineering solution to the problem of front to rear wheel contact but the rules were changed ...
I agree with penalising drivers who repeatedly cause accidents, especially if it seems deliberate. M Schumacher in the past for example. Total exclusion from all future racing might work?
HiRich said:
Nose-to-wheel and wheel-to-wheel incidents are quite common and very dangerous. Just from my own observations, a simple and reasonable modification would be to add an impact shroud flush to the back of the rear tyres. You wouldn't even notice it. It would eliminate the 'kick-up' off the rear tyre that I believe is the most common mechanic and extremely dangerous.
OK. So how do you ensure it does not become just another piece of debris flying around when the inevitable bump, dangerous or otherwise, occurs? And what makes it a better solution than enclosed bodywork?
It would dramatically reduce the risk of a car entering spectator areas - the alternative is to move those areas back another 50 yards, or close them completely. Such a device to me is an eminently reasonable and sensible rule change that would save lives, and I would support it wholeheartedly.[/quote]
Given the number of races and the relatively low number of accidents involving spectators on a per race mile basis (rather than per TV broadcast minutes) the risk seems pretty low as it is. Quite how it can be made dramatically lower by rear wheel shrouds seems to need some further exlpanation. (ABout the risk, not the mechanics of the shroud.)
Would you also recommend it for all other open wheel formula and as a retro fitment for historic racers? I have just spent a weekend watching some presumably rather sensible and affluent Bentley owners (among others) battling wheel to wheel without even roll cages or seatbelts. Should they have safety cages, belts and HANS devices forced upon them along with wheel shrouds?
If not making rules changes to the commercial formulae only will affect relatively few racing miles in the overall scheme of things, which hardly justifies a 'safety' label hanging from them.
Only the headline of the original article refers to F1 - the bulk refers to a general investigation of single-seaters. It would be logcal to develop it on the leading formula then trickle it down through the system, as has happened with impact structures, roll hoops, etc.
The idea of a shroud/guard behind the rear wheel is one idea that I believe would significantly reduce the risk in the majority of cases - an 80:20 rule. I see it as a 'reasonable' change that would offer the most benefit for least impact (cost, impact on the formula concept). However, if the FIA decide that the best solution were to be fully-enclosed wheels, and had the data to justify such a decision, then the sport would have to change.
(the next bit is not based on data, which I expect the FIA to collate, but my observations)
I believe that wheel-wheel & nose-wheel impacts are one of the key areas that safety investigations have not studied. I believe the primary mechanic is that of the trailing car hitting the rear wheel of the leading car. The critical issue is where the rotation of the leading car's tyre imparts an upwards force into the front of the trailing car, resulting in it becoming a projectile. My observations are that in similar incidents where the trailing car hits a non-moving part (e.g. the gearbox), the risk of 'take-off' is significantly reduced. The results of take-off are apparent - no deceleration (at high speed an F1 exceeds 1g deceleration, even with brake failure), random path, significantly increased potential to clear safety systems (fences, tyre barriers, pit wall), leading to significantly increased risk to drivers, personnel & spectators.
My logic is therefore that by eliminating, or at least reducing, that vertical input, the probability of take-off is reduced (which I believe is amongst the most dangerous scenarios). a partial shroud (perhaps 2-4 o'clock on the tyre) has the potential to deliver that reduction.
There is an increased risk of debris. There is time to react to debris. There is no time to react to your car heading skywards. My belief is that this is a lower risk problem, and can be mitigated by the design and material specification. There is no reason for the shrouds to be carbon fibre - in fact there is a good argument that they shouldn't be.
The probability of an airborne incident is quite low (though there are several per year in the UK professional series). The risk is very high. Risk is different from probability - it also takes into consideration the results. Death, lawsuits, increased insurance premiums for teams & circuits, loss of permits. Do not forget that racing has been banned for 51 years in Switzerland due to one accident. How do you think the global companies involved in F1 would feel having their brand associated with carnage? Post-Senna, many big names admitted that the sport had got complacent about safety. Lucky escapes were dismissed as freak occurrences. Yet questions were asked in many countries about the future of the sport.
A repeat of Le Mans '55 is far from inconceivable. I see notable risk potential at Silverstone at Copse, Stowe and Woodcote for a catastrophic airborne accident. I can remember Ricardo Zonta parking a BAR at the foot of the Stowe grandstand (totally clearing the debris fence), and the potential is still there for such an incident to happen on a race weekend rather than in testing. There are many circuits where this could happen. If 300 million people see it, the sport will have almighty trouble, especially if it becomes clear that the problem could have been reasonably prevented.
As to where it should be employed, this comes down to the grey areas of risk assessment and what the administrators assess as acceptable. One of the series I am involved in is historic (and I also am involved with the VSCC), so I am fully conversant with the various arguments. Safety is subjective - if it weren't, then let's be honest, ALL open cockpit cars should have a four-point roll cage running forward to the dashboard bulkhead.
In the case of a shroud, the problem is directly proportional to the width of the tyre. Such a solution, if adopted, should be applied to international and national professional series where the risk is deemed significant. That means F1 right down to FBMW, for all cars new or existing that register for the series from the introduction date. FFord run narrow tyres that may be deemed an acceptable risk.
For amateur series, the established precedent is that the organisers have significant leeway. I would argue that any wide-tyre series should at least read and consider the FIA's recommendations - this would include ClubF3, Historic F5000 and the various post-historic F1 options, plus many minor series. Ultimately, they they have the authority to mandate, recommend or ignore. Such series are normally lower in performance than the current professional series, and are therefore likely to fall within the safety envelope that each circuit is licensed for. If not, the circuit always has the right to refuse them the race.
The idea of a shroud/guard behind the rear wheel is one idea that I believe would significantly reduce the risk in the majority of cases - an 80:20 rule. I see it as a 'reasonable' change that would offer the most benefit for least impact (cost, impact on the formula concept). However, if the FIA decide that the best solution were to be fully-enclosed wheels, and had the data to justify such a decision, then the sport would have to change.
(the next bit is not based on data, which I expect the FIA to collate, but my observations)
I believe that wheel-wheel & nose-wheel impacts are one of the key areas that safety investigations have not studied. I believe the primary mechanic is that of the trailing car hitting the rear wheel of the leading car. The critical issue is where the rotation of the leading car's tyre imparts an upwards force into the front of the trailing car, resulting in it becoming a projectile. My observations are that in similar incidents where the trailing car hits a non-moving part (e.g. the gearbox), the risk of 'take-off' is significantly reduced. The results of take-off are apparent - no deceleration (at high speed an F1 exceeds 1g deceleration, even with brake failure), random path, significantly increased potential to clear safety systems (fences, tyre barriers, pit wall), leading to significantly increased risk to drivers, personnel & spectators.
My logic is therefore that by eliminating, or at least reducing, that vertical input, the probability of take-off is reduced (which I believe is amongst the most dangerous scenarios). a partial shroud (perhaps 2-4 o'clock on the tyre) has the potential to deliver that reduction.
There is an increased risk of debris. There is time to react to debris. There is no time to react to your car heading skywards. My belief is that this is a lower risk problem, and can be mitigated by the design and material specification. There is no reason for the shrouds to be carbon fibre - in fact there is a good argument that they shouldn't be.
The probability of an airborne incident is quite low (though there are several per year in the UK professional series). The risk is very high. Risk is different from probability - it also takes into consideration the results. Death, lawsuits, increased insurance premiums for teams & circuits, loss of permits. Do not forget that racing has been banned for 51 years in Switzerland due to one accident. How do you think the global companies involved in F1 would feel having their brand associated with carnage? Post-Senna, many big names admitted that the sport had got complacent about safety. Lucky escapes were dismissed as freak occurrences. Yet questions were asked in many countries about the future of the sport.
A repeat of Le Mans '55 is far from inconceivable. I see notable risk potential at Silverstone at Copse, Stowe and Woodcote for a catastrophic airborne accident. I can remember Ricardo Zonta parking a BAR at the foot of the Stowe grandstand (totally clearing the debris fence), and the potential is still there for such an incident to happen on a race weekend rather than in testing. There are many circuits where this could happen. If 300 million people see it, the sport will have almighty trouble, especially if it becomes clear that the problem could have been reasonably prevented.
As to where it should be employed, this comes down to the grey areas of risk assessment and what the administrators assess as acceptable. One of the series I am involved in is historic (and I also am involved with the VSCC), so I am fully conversant with the various arguments. Safety is subjective - if it weren't, then let's be honest, ALL open cockpit cars should have a four-point roll cage running forward to the dashboard bulkhead.
In the case of a shroud, the problem is directly proportional to the width of the tyre. Such a solution, if adopted, should be applied to international and national professional series where the risk is deemed significant. That means F1 right down to FBMW, for all cars new or existing that register for the series from the introduction date. FFord run narrow tyres that may be deemed an acceptable risk.
For amateur series, the established precedent is that the organisers have significant leeway. I would argue that any wide-tyre series should at least read and consider the FIA's recommendations - this would include ClubF3, Historic F5000 and the various post-historic F1 options, plus many minor series. Ultimately, they they have the authority to mandate, recommend or ignore. Such series are normally lower in performance than the current professional series, and are therefore likely to fall within the safety envelope that each circuit is licensed for. If not, the circuit always has the right to refuse them the race.
OK.
So why not make all formulae use much narrower wheels and so reduce the risk and improve the racing at the same time?
Whilst they are at it the FIA Institute should award a mandatory 0 NCAP stars for all open and soft top vehicles.
Why?
Well with the amount of crap thrown up of the road these days it will not be long before someone is killed or injured by a half brock thrown up by a lorry wheel. May have happened already. A few years ago I was following a truck which suddenly launched half a brick from between its rear wheels. It hit the top right hand corner of the windscreen and required a new screen. Good job the screen was laminated. In an open car, or even a 4 seater cabrio with a fairly raked screen there would have been potential for the thing to have smashed the driver's skull, or maim a rear seat passenger.
There are more soft tops sold in the UK than any other country in Europe apparently and probably lower standards for trucks leaving building sites and quarries. So it stands to reason that the ban should be applied here first.
To be honest I think motor racing will be finished in this country in the next 10 years or so. Squeezed by the green lobby on the one hand and councils and circuit owners moving to stop circuit use and sell off the land for development on the other.
Whether the FIA will ba able to retain control from Paris once the majority of the sport (outside North America) is taking place in Asia may be a moot point. Max the Knife will probably have lost interest by then - he will be fairly elderly - though perhaps he wishes to emulate wee Bernie and carry on well past a normal retirement date.
Fuel cell powered wheelchair racing anyone? Hand power would be too dangerous with all those rotating wheels to shove.
>> Edited by LongQ on Wednesday 3rd May 10:16
So why not make all formulae use much narrower wheels and so reduce the risk and improve the racing at the same time?
Whilst they are at it the FIA Institute should award a mandatory 0 NCAP stars for all open and soft top vehicles.
Why?
Well with the amount of crap thrown up of the road these days it will not be long before someone is killed or injured by a half brock thrown up by a lorry wheel. May have happened already. A few years ago I was following a truck which suddenly launched half a brick from between its rear wheels. It hit the top right hand corner of the windscreen and required a new screen. Good job the screen was laminated. In an open car, or even a 4 seater cabrio with a fairly raked screen there would have been potential for the thing to have smashed the driver's skull, or maim a rear seat passenger.
There are more soft tops sold in the UK than any other country in Europe apparently and probably lower standards for trucks leaving building sites and quarries. So it stands to reason that the ban should be applied here first.
To be honest I think motor racing will be finished in this country in the next 10 years or so. Squeezed by the green lobby on the one hand and councils and circuit owners moving to stop circuit use and sell off the land for development on the other.
Whether the FIA will ba able to retain control from Paris once the majority of the sport (outside North America) is taking place in Asia may be a moot point. Max the Knife will probably have lost interest by then - he will be fairly elderly - though perhaps he wishes to emulate wee Bernie and carry on well past a normal retirement date.
Fuel cell powered wheelchair racing anyone? Hand power would be too dangerous with all those rotating wheels to shove.
>> Edited by LongQ on Wednesday 3rd May 10:16
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff