This post is partly in response to a few people (Christiaan and others) who questioned or wondered about the safety of a champcar. Actually, I have no problem with examining accidents if the intent is to find ways of making the cars or circuits safer. I was offended because I felt the critisism was directed at CART just because it was CART and not F1. I have looked through the BB and have not found one person who has questioned the safety of the Sauber. I do not deny it was a bad crash, but there is absolutely no excuse for the roll bar being torn away. Maybe if Diniz had been killed, there would have been more discussion on the topic but at the very least, I hope the FIA takes a hard look at the Sauber and the F1 rules to ensure that the next driver that lands on his head has sufficient protection.
Was Sauber's Roll Bar Sufficient?
Started by
BADGER
, Sep 28 1999 01:02
10 replies to this topic
Advertisement
#2
Zoe
-
- 7,721 posts
- Joined: July 99
Member
Posted 28 September 1999 - 14:55
What are the rules on crash testing the roll bar on an F1 car? I have read reports on how the tub (monocoque) is crash tested, but nothing on the roll bar structure. Is it designed to withstand a head-on impact, or what are the test procedures?
What really amazed me was that the roll bar was completely ripped off; not only the roll bar itself, but also the structure where it is mounted to. I always thought that this was an integral part of the monocoque??
Does anyone remember the crash of Gugelmin in France (in the Leyton-House)? He did a full looping over I think Bergers car, landed with full force on the roll bar and slid quite a few metres up-side down on the tarmac before coming to rest. The roll bar wasn't broken, as a matter of fact he did start the race again afterwards!
Zoe
What really amazed me was that the roll bar was completely ripped off; not only the roll bar itself, but also the structure where it is mounted to. I always thought that this was an integral part of the monocoque??
Does anyone remember the crash of Gugelmin in France (in the Leyton-House)? He did a full looping over I think Bergers car, landed with full force on the roll bar and slid quite a few metres up-side down on the tarmac before coming to rest. The roll bar wasn't broken, as a matter of fact he did start the race again afterwards!
Zoe
#3
Christiaan
-
- 1,834 posts
- Joined: May 99
Tech Forum Host
Posted 28 September 1999 - 17:49
Badger, When Diniz crashed I instantly thought of you and that ridiculously stupid email you sent me. I agree with you that there was absolutely no excuse that the roll bar was torn away and I think FIA should investigate why that happened. Sauber or FIA are 100% liable for either building a faulty car or not setting stringent safety rules for such accidents.
#4
BADGER
-
- 142 posts
- Joined: March 99
Member
Posted 29 September 1999 - 00:46
Christiaan, I was just wondering why I did not see you questioning the safety of the Sauber car as quickly as you wondered about the safety of the Cart car. At the time, I could not find anyone on the BB questioning the safety of the Sauber even though it apparently has a serious safety problem. Correct me if I misquote you Christiaan, but did you not say "I really really wonder. Do people have to die before safety becomes a priority?" Apparently for you, someone does have to die before you question the safety of the car because you did not post anything questioning the safety of the Sauber. Why is it you made no mention of this failure but you felt it reasonable to question the safety of a CART car even though that crash was not survivable? The reasonable conclusion is that you either only care when someone dies or you just were going out of your way to bash CART. Oh, thanks for thinking about me.
#5
Christiaan
-
- 1,834 posts
- Joined: May 99
Tech Forum Host
Posted 29 September 1999 - 15:40
Well Badger, my sporadic participation in this forum is due to my limited internet access. I moved out of my free 24hr 128kbs LAN internet access apartment. So that is why I was slow to respond. As I said, I do agree that not enough attention has been given to the matter. And now its no more a case of wondering.... I know!
#6
Elio
-
- 22 posts
- Joined: September 99
New Member
Posted 30 September 1999 - 13:24
Zoe, the FIA F1 Technical Regulations, in article 17, stipulates statics load test for the roll structures.
...Under the load, deformation must be less than 50mm, measured along the loading axis and any structural failure limited to 100mm below the top of the rollover structure when measured vertically.
- Test for the principal roll structure (rear): A load equivalent to 12kN laterally, 45kN longitudinally and 60kN vertically, must be applied to the top of the structure through a rigid flat pad which is 20cm in diameter and perpendicular to the loading axis.
During the test, the roll structure must be attached to the survival cell...
- Second roll structure (front): A vertical load of 75kN must be applied to the top of the structure through a rigid flat pad which is 10cm in diameter and perpendicular to the loading axis...
I think a big study on this year structure weakness is necessary. In M. Schumacher crash, the tube was broken about 30 cm (10 in), behind the pedals in the middle on the survival cell, now in a less hard accident another security element fails. Is it a problem of these particular cars?, or a desing problem?
...Under the load, deformation must be less than 50mm, measured along the loading axis and any structural failure limited to 100mm below the top of the rollover structure when measured vertically.
- Test for the principal roll structure (rear): A load equivalent to 12kN laterally, 45kN longitudinally and 60kN vertically, must be applied to the top of the structure through a rigid flat pad which is 20cm in diameter and perpendicular to the loading axis.
During the test, the roll structure must be attached to the survival cell...
- Second roll structure (front): A vertical load of 75kN must be applied to the top of the structure through a rigid flat pad which is 10cm in diameter and perpendicular to the loading axis...
I think a big study on this year structure weakness is necessary. In M. Schumacher crash, the tube was broken about 30 cm (10 in), behind the pedals in the middle on the survival cell, now in a less hard accident another security element fails. Is it a problem of these particular cars?, or a desing problem?
#7
Christiaan
-
- 1,834 posts
- Joined: May 99
Tech Forum Host
Posted 30 September 1999 - 15:28
Its a design fault. The car was going only 95km/h and was subjected impulse more than its FIA requirement. What it the car was even faster, maybe only 50 km/h faster. Diniz would be dead man! FIA is responsible for that crash!
#8
MPH
-
- 19 posts
- Joined: August 99
New Member
Posted 01 October 1999 - 04:54
It is not necessarily a design fault. It could be a manufacturing fault.
#9
Christiaan
-
- 1,834 posts
- Joined: May 99
Tech Forum Host
Posted 04 October 1999 - 12:17
According to Sauber, the bar was designed up to specs but was exerted beyond its designed capacity. Sound like Sauber did what they were asked, only FIA asked them to do the wrong thing. Design fault
#10
Yelnats
-
- 2,026 posts
- Joined: May 99
Member
Posted 09 October 1999 - 06:34
Speed is not a critical element in this type of failure as contact with a rigid object at this speed SHOULD cause failure of components. A totally indestructable/rigid car would kill a driver more surely than the present design with all it's flaws, due to the huge forces imposed on the only flexible element in the car, the driver!
It's the mode of failure that is critical and I think in this case the design parameters imposed by the FIA are to simplistic.
A two stage failure would be more effective in protecting the driver. If the top portion of the roll hoop were constructed of a deformable material it would provide a shock absorbing feature that would allow the lower portions to survive and shield the driver.
Also the survival collar should be made active and extend above the driver when a severe impact or overturn is detected. This would provide much superior protection to the present systems and demonstrate the FIA's commitment to driver survival better than it's present policy of strewing chicanes all over the WDC circuits.
It's the mode of failure that is critical and I think in this case the design parameters imposed by the FIA are to simplistic.
A two stage failure would be more effective in protecting the driver. If the top portion of the roll hoop were constructed of a deformable material it would provide a shock absorbing feature that would allow the lower portions to survive and shield the driver.
Also the survival collar should be made active and extend above the driver when a severe impact or overturn is detected. This would provide much superior protection to the present systems and demonstrate the FIA's commitment to driver survival better than it's present policy of strewing chicanes all over the WDC circuits.
#11
Christiaan
-
- 1,834 posts
- Joined: May 99
Tech Forum Host
Posted 15 October 1999 - 16:02
Q. Pedro, after that spectacular roll on the first lap at the Nurburgring it's nice to see you here. How did you feel on the day after that race?
Pedro Diniz: Not very well, really! I am happy to be here, too. As everyone saw on TV, what happened in that race was not very nice. It was a racing accident -- I think Alexander [Wurz] reacted automatically to avoid Damon Hill's car, which had virtually stopped in the first corner. The only worrying thing is that the roll hoop should not have broken off the way it did. It could have been very dangerous and I was very lucky. Only a few weeks ago a similar thing happened [at the same corner] in a Formula 3 race, and the guy involved is now completely paralyzed. The FIA will have to look into the whole thing and try to make the roll hoops safer, because that could have been very serious for me.
