mx_tifosi wrote:
Isn't that what the HANS device is for? But as we saw with Kubica, the head is way too exposed to and moved too much at those speeds and levels of impact.
I've always understood the HANS device was for Basal Skull Fractures. Or the overextension of the neck. Not side to side impacts. The way Roberts' head violently pinballed on the cockpit sides was very very scary. I feared he had life threatening injuries from that alone. The helmets must be extraordinary! Also seeing his left hand curl into a ball and then his arm going limp made my heart skip a beat.
Seas wrote:Of course, FIA have to improve all the time, but nobody can see all possibilities to an accident. We are all complaining that modern tracks are lost juice of old times. Tracks are all the time safer, but you can’t have track with juice like Spa and safe like Malaysia. You can’t have everything. But of course, FIA have to make it safer. That is F1, 200mph.
Modern circuits aren't safe at all. They lack same cheap barriers as the oldest circuits. Heikki Kovalainen Bahrain test 2007 - hits unprotected armco, huge crash. Narain Karthikeyan crashes heavily in Sepang few years back. How come? Ultra modern circuits, hundreds of millions $ spent on them and a straying cars hit unprotected walls and armcos?
I think that crash was in China and Felipe Massa was really lucky to get through all that debris on that long straight. Sorry for nitpicking
Simon: Nils? You can close in now. Nils?
John McClane: [on the guard's phone] Attention! Attention! Nils is dead! I repeat, Nils is dead, ----head. So's his pal, and those four guys from the East German All-Stars, your boys at the bank? They're gonna be a little late.
Simon: [on the phone] John... in the back of the truck you're driving, there's $13 billon dollars worth in gold bullion. I wonder would a deal be out of the question?
John McClane: [on the phone] Yeah, I got a deal for you. Come out from that rock you're hiding under, and I'll drive this truck up your ass.
m3_lover wrote:I think that crash was in China and Felipe Massa was really lucky to get through all that debris on that long straight. Sorry for nitpicking
Robert Kubica wrote:I was not expecting it, we touched, the front wing went under the car and I had no more control. When I was on the outside of the track on the grass, suddenly I took something which lifted up my car pretty much and I hit the wall.
I was recently looking at my tape of the 1999 Canadian GP. Interestingly, in that race both David Coulthard and Alex Zanardi were penalised for exiting the pit lane on a red light. Their penalty? A ten-second stop-go. Firstly, why is this only a problem at Montreal and nowhere else? And secondly, what changed such that Juan-Pablo Montoya in 2005, and Felipe Massa and Giancarlo Fisichella this year, got black flags for the same offence? EYTL, 21-Jun-07.
manchild wrote:It must have recorded the incident with Trulli's car, the excursion, the liftoff, the collision with Spyker, the impact before it got damaged.
I have often wondered what happens in these situations and why we rarely see the view of the crashing car. I even wondered if only selected cars actually had the cameras fitted or perhaps the incident isn't very clear from the crashing car, maybe its considered too grusome to see from this view, I don't know.
What seems quite likely though is that, with over 40 cameras spread around the circuit, maybe the ones on the cars actually contain their own recording equipment to save space in the directors office and in a crash they can get damaged too, which would also explain why the 'T' bars are the size they are.
Murphy's 9th Law of Technology:
Tell a man there are 300 million stars in the universe and he'll believe you. Tell him a bench has wet paint on it and he'll have to touch to be sure.
I remember reading somewhere the t bar cams are only put on select cars during a GP, i think it was like 3 or 4 cars, and the director can flick between them and stuff, so Kubes' car may not have had one this race...
That was certainly the case a few years ago, probably still is.
Murphy's 9th Law of Technology:
Tell a man there are 300 million stars in the universe and he'll believe you. Tell him a bench has wet paint on it and he'll have to touch to be sure.
Could also be that a camera stuck onto of a car rolling about and crashing at that speed wont actually show much useful footage, just a fast blurred image of sky then grass then tarmac in quick sucession interspersed with a few broken shards of Carbon Fibre.
tbh I think footage from the car, as compelling it maybe, would actually show the viewer very little except from a general sence of chaos.
Silence is golden when you don't know a good answer.
Spencifer_Murphy wrote:tbh I think footage from the car, as compelling it maybe, would actually show the viewer very little except from a general sence of chaos.
I'm interested to see what was going on BEFORE he hit the wall.
Touching Toyota, hitting the curb that launched the car in the air etc.
