The safety thread, racing and on the road

[Scotracer]

Safety is paramount, but the topic of slowing the cars down really sticks in my side. A few things....

Runoff. If it were up to me, fast and classic circuits which were deemed unsafe and consequently removed from the calendar would simply have more runoff area. There would be an adequate amount of tarmac so drivers could recover from mistakes, then a gravel trap in case of failures, then the aforementioned tecpro barrier. There is a reason the drivers want to win at monaco, monza, spa and silverstone--they are classic, fast (well not monaco) and un-fooled around with. When was the last time you heard a driver say "If I could win one GP this season, it would be Bahrain." For me the spectacle (the grandstand placement) isn't really an issue because you can put the grandstands around any part of the corner. If you think of it as 360 degrees, you can't put the stands in about 20-60 degrees of that circle given the nature of the corner, but you still have a huge amount of area for stands.

Slowing the cars. A few drivers have expressed the opinion, which I share, that F1 cars should be the fastest, most technologically advanced racing machines in the world, and when you mess with the cars you mess with that image. Plenty of members here have expressed their fears that F1 is so close to GP2 and so have drivers. Here in the states Ricardo Zonta set the lap record around Laguna Seca in his Toyota's F1 car and the record was quickly broken by the Champ Cars during their preseason testing--if you ask me that's just wrong!

Cornering speed. I'm no expert here, but I was thinking about Eau Rouge and how we don't really see huge shunts there anymore even though the cars of today and the past couple of years are much faster. Today's cars are taking it flat out no problem and getting through without a problem, whereas slower cars (think Jacques Villeneuve and his old BAR ) would crash more often. Anyway, basically what I like are the ole greats. I think it would just be sooo cool to watch modern day F1ers going round the old osterreichring and classics like that.

My rant is done I'm not picking on anyone or anything, I'm just expressing my dream for F1 circuits

Bingo. I have constant worries about the speed of current F1 cars. Even though I know the V8 powered cars are still ridiculously fast, I have this impression that they are somehow slow. F1 should be the fastest racing cars in the world. They were in the past, and they should be in the future. Jarno Trulli was quoted stating how much he hated the V8 engines and that they made the sport too easy. And by the looks of it, he's correct. The cars seem to be far too forgiving with far fewer crashes in a race weekend than we used to have. The cars are glued to the road with much more grip than power. Even with next years regulations, the cars will be even more drivable. The FIA needs to take a good look at what F1 is...and what it should be. When I go to the circuit, I go to see the fastest cars in the world driven by the best drivers in the world. Well, the past 4 years we've had successive slow-downs of the cars. Whilst this isn't perceptible to the audiences on TV or at the track...it's still a subconscious knowledge that they can, have and SHOULD be faster than they are.

So looking at F1 right now:

-Drivers unhappy with level of performance
-This makes the sport less of a challenge
-Fans unhappy with the removal of the V10 engines
-Ever increasing track safety means fans can't get anywhere near the track on certain corners (like Turn 8 at Instanbul and Copse at Silverstone)
-Lesser series quickly catching up in terms of both performance and some (ALMS) has more innovation
-Fans yearning for the past, and this will only increase next year with the removal of downforce.
-The cars being more and more homologated and restricted down to the point where a 2006 car could probably do alright now

What has F1 become? Since 1998 it's been on a steady knife-edge down to the point we're at today where we have no inspirational drivers (I really miss the Shumacher vs Hakkinen days) battling for the title with tooth and nail, in the fastest cars on the planet developed by the best engineers.

Grr.

[Ogami musashi]

.

This I do not understand. Please elaborate!

The recent LMP accident occured not in the same situations, some occured in braking because of a lack of grip while some of them occured in turns following a spin; Others occured because of traffic.

One thing in common is that once the loss of control was set the cars started to take off.
This is due to their bodywork and flat floor designs that create lift.
You always had this, even during the group C era, those prototype cars use to take off in some cases.

The speeds worsen the effects, but they don't take off because of speed.

My point was that increasing cornering speed requires wider run offs to provide similar safety. If a car goes out of control due to driver error or component failure worst case is impact at high speed without energy absorbing barriers at an angle of low crash absorption of the car.

To avoid that kind of scenaria hundreds of hectars have been dedicated to run offs and millions been spend for energy absorbing barriers. the barriers only cost money. The run offs also force the grand stands further and further away from the tracks. So this is not beneficial to the spectacle.

One of the attractions of Monaco is the closeness you can get to the track. It is no coincidence that Monaco is the slowest track on the calendar. So in terms of spectator value average lap speed isn't always the thing to go for.

Yes run off are bigger and bigger but if you think about it, around a track not every part is a high speed corner.

Let's take Spa which is a high speed track. The vast majority of public area are close to the track, just separated by the service raw.
Yes Pouhon has a run off area larger than the track itself but the grandstand is positioned at the enter of the turn so you're not so far, and just beyond the grand stand you have another public area.

So logically, if you want to slow down cars and that it is not a need for you to see cars going fast, when you go at a track position yourself in slow parts.

My point however was in the vein of the lmp tracks. For a given standard of car safety, speed worsen things, but you can be killed by a debris at many other racing series that don't have those run off areas because what matter how secure is the car, if wheels start to fly..

In monaco when david coulthard had his shunt a wheel flew and rolled for hundreds of meters, hopefully it stayed on track but such a thing is a lethal object if it encounters a person.


"good racing" is always something i disregard, "good racing" will take many forms according to the person.

I love high speed driving and F1 for me is a great thing because it presents driving wise a lot of possibilities, there's so many driving styles among F1 pilots.
But that's my view, some want other things. That's why it is hard to say what is better or not.

[timbo]

I believe that FIA should improve passive safety of the car further and stop rewriting regulations every year to cut speed. They always mention to objective fot regulation change - speed-cut and budget cut, but it comstantly fails both. First of all I don't believe that you can cut speed enough to completely avoid deadly incedents, there's always a chance that something goes wrong. Besides, the measures they take (grooved tyres, less aero) often make car less-driveable and therefore increase danger. As for budget restrictions (like they proposed for engine freeze) it only causes teams too spend more in order to continue developmant. Also, the most competition we have is in the years with stable regulation, while dramatic change results in that only one or two teams get things right.
In my mind FIA should focus on improving passive-safety - more crashtests from diffetent angles etc anf track safety.
I think that trend of returning street circuits is very dangerous. I tried rFactor Valencia 1.0 track and right now it seems VERY dangerous (although I don't know how close they are to the final variant) - several high speed corners with little to no runoff.

[Scotracer]

I believe that FIA should improve passive safety of the car further and stop rewriting regulations every year to cut speed. They always mention to objective fot regulation change - speed-cut and budget cut, but it comstantly fails both. First of all I don't believe that you can cut speed enough to completely avoid deadly incedents, there's always a chance that something goes wrong. Besides, the measures they take (grooved tyres, less aero) often make car less-driveable and therefore increase danger. As for budget restrictions (like they proposed for engine freeze) it only causes teams too spend more in order to continue developmant. Also, the most competition we have is in the years with stable regulation, while dramatic change results in that only one or two teams get things right.
In my mind FIA should focus on improving passive-safety - more crashtests from diffetent angles etc anf track safety.
I think that trend of returning street circuits is very dangerous. I tried rFactor Valencia 1.0 track and right now it seems VERY dangerous (although I don't know how close they are to the final variant) - several high speed corners with little to no runoff.

I tried that last night too...Jesus it's a quick track! After 10-15 laps I was still messing up turn 3. It's a good change though. But problem is, the cars will be topping 320km/h on the long back straight with a very small run off after. Hmm.

[Belatti]

1. There is pretty good scientific knowledge that tarmac slows cars more than gravel traps do.

2. TecPro is better than tyres. Have a look the technology.

Saying tarmac slows cars better than gravel is a very broad statement -- it is completely dependent on circumstances.

For instance, if a car has a brake failure and spears off the track, the rolling resistance on tarmac will be less than that of gravel. Of course, if a car just runs wide but it still travelling forward the driver can brake accordingly (which further proves my point in reducing sizes of run offs).

And I just looked at TecPro -- that's very good technology. The FIA should be subsidising this instead of mandating more strict crash testing and increasing of run off areas. If that stuff had been used, in conjunction with tarmac at Campsa corner at Barcelona, I wonder how Heikki's accident would have turned out.

Totally true.

Whiteblue: don´t forget that if there was gravel instead of tarmac in the 1994 Tamburello curve at Imola, probably Senna would have not die.

What I´m not sure of is, what would have happened to Schumacher if there was tarmac in the 1999 Stowe curve at Silverstone. Maybe he could have brake in the tarmac.

So, it seem to be a difficult task to design a proper run-off area!

What I don´t like about tarmac is that it gives drivers a opportunity to recover from mistakes. Gravel makes all tracks like Monaco, instead of hiting a barrier you get trapped!

[Scotracer]

1. There is pretty good scientific knowledge that tarmac slows cars more than gravel traps do.

2. TecPro is better than tyres. Have a look the technology.

Saying tarmac slows cars better than gravel is a very broad statement -- it is completely dependent on circumstances.

For instance, if a car has a brake failure and spears off the track, the rolling resistance on tarmac will be less than that of gravel. Of course, if a car just runs wide but it still travelling forward the driver can brake accordingly (which further proves my point in reducing sizes of run offs).

And I just looked at TecPro -- that's very good technology. The FIA should be subsidising this instead of mandating more strict crash testing and increasing of run off areas. If that stuff had been used, in conjunction with tarmac at Campsa corner at Barcelona, I wonder how Heikki's accident would have turned out.

Totally true.

Whiteblue: don´t forget that if there was gravel instead of tarmac in the 1994 Tamburello curve at Imola, probably Senna would have not die.

What I´m not sure of is, what would have happened to Schumacher if there was tarmac in the 1999 Stowe curve at Silverstone. Maybe he could have brake in the tarmac.

So, it seem to be a difficult task to design a proper run-off area!

What I don´t like about tarmac is that it gives drivers a opportunity to recover from mistakes. Gravel makes all tracks like Monaco, instead of hiting a barrier you get trapped!

Maybe the answer is a hybrid run off? For the first 5-10 metres of the run-off have gravel so that any silly mistakes are punished severely but after have tarmac as a safety net for the ability to recover. I don't know how the cars would react to that, but it's an option.

[WhiteBlue]

1. There is pretty good scientific knowledge that tarmac slows cars more than gravel traps do.

2. TecPro is better than tyres. Have a look the technology.

Saying tarmac slows cars better than gravel is a very broad statement -- it is completely dependent on circumstances.

For instance, if a car has a brake failure and spears off the track, the rolling resistance on tarmac will be less than that of gravel. Of course, if a car just runs wide but it still travelling forward the driver can brake accordingly (which further proves my point in reducing sizes of run offs).

And I just looked at TecPro -- that's very good technology. The FIA should be subsidising this instead of mandating more strict crash testing and increasing of run off areas. If that stuff had been used, in conjunction with tarmac at Campsa corner at Barcelona, I wonder how Heikki's accident would have turned out.

Totally true.

Whiteblue: don´t forget that if there was gravel instead of tarmac in the 1994 Tamburello curve at Imola, probably Senna would have not die.

What I´m not sure of is, what would have happened to Schumacher if there was tarmac in the 1999 Stowe curve at Silverstone. Maybe he could have brake in the tarmac.

So, it seem to be a difficult task to design a proper run-off area!

What I don´t like about tarmac is that it gives drivers a opportunity to recover from mistakes. Gravel makes all tracks like Monaco, instead of hiting a barrier you get trapped!

There are - as people have argued - situations that tend to be better with gravel. But the safety research by the FIA has shown that in the overwhelming number of accident cases speed is better reduced by tarmac with special tungsten abrasives. So they have scientific evidence to go by. Unfortunately I do not have the published studies but I guess they are available from the FIA Institute if you write them. I just remember that the issue was dealt with in a big meeting when they demonstrated the state of the art at the Paul Ricard circuit. This is considered the safest F1 track of all.

Regarding Tamburello there is no point to discuss any type of run off surface with the old layout. There is simply not enough place. A river runs behind the wall where Berger and Senna had those shunts. The onbly way to eliminate the risk was to put a chicane there as they eventually did in 94.

[Scotracer]

Saying tarmac slows cars better than gravel is a very broad statement -- it is completely dependent on circumstances.

For instance, if a car has a brake failure and spears off the track, the rolling resistance on tarmac will be less than that of gravel. Of course, if a car just runs wide but it still travelling forward the driver can brake accordingly (which further proves my point in reducing sizes of run offs).

And I just looked at TecPro -- that's very good technology. The FIA should be subsidising this instead of mandating more strict crash testing and increasing of run off areas. If that stuff had been used, in conjunction with tarmac at Campsa corner at Barcelona, I wonder how Heikki's accident would have turned out.

Totally true.

Whiteblue: don´t forget that if there was gravel instead of tarmac in the 1994 Tamburello curve at Imola, probably Senna would have not die.

What I´m not sure of is, what would have happened to Schumacher if there was tarmac in the 1999 Stowe curve at Silverstone. Maybe he could have brake in the tarmac.

So, it seem to be a difficult task to design a proper run-off area!

What I don´t like about tarmac is that it gives drivers a opportunity to recover from mistakes. Gravel makes all tracks like Monaco, instead of hiting a barrier you get trapped!

There are - as people have argued - situations that tend to be better with gravel. But the safety research by the FIA has shown that in the overwhelming number of accident cases speed is better reduced by tarmac with special tungsten abrasives. So they have scientific evidence to go by. Unfortunately I do not have the published studies but I guess they are available from the FIA Institute if you write them. I just remember that the issue was dealt with in a big meeting when they demonstrated the state of the art at the Paul Ricard circuit. This is considered the safest F1 track of all.

Regarding Tamburello there is no point to discuss any type of run off surface with the old layout. There is simply not enough place. A river runs behind the wall where Berger and Senna had those shunts. The onbly way to eliminate the risk was to put a chicane there as they eventually did in 94.

Isn't that the material used at the HTTT at Paul Richard? If so, why hasn't that been used at more F1 circuits?

[Belatti]

Regarding Tamburello there is no point to discuss any type of run off surface with the old layout. There is simply not enough place. A river runs behind the wall where Berger and Senna had those shunts. The onbly way to eliminate the risk was to put a chicane there as they eventually did in 94.

I know, but was just wondering that maybe deep gravel stops better a car running longitudinally than tarmac. A car running transversally stops better with tarmac and besides that you don´t have big "turn over" danger like gravel does. So it´s a compromise (if that is what happens but these is only me guessing )

[zgred]

I guess this is the dummy for the rescue/medical team exercises - Canadian GP 2010.

[autogyro]

Track safety is always in the end a cost issue.
I was involved with an idea I suggested for a flexible surface for run off areas.
The surface was designed to be sucked up under a car in a high speed run off, braking the car with friction on the undertray.
I was even offered some old formula cars to fire at a test section to prove the system.
The cost was to much for further development.
Because cost is the final defining issue, all safety systems on tracks and the road are compromises.