Technical comments only: car to car crash safety

[izzy]

Okay, i'd like to add something here.

A thing to concider, about 'driver protection'.

...brings the question: would it have made 'much' more difference in the outcome, or would we have seen a bianchi/schumacher like end result?

this is a great post that deserves some recognition. BUT in safety it's a continuum - it's not truly an argument that something might not have worked enough to save this one victim (multiple impacts as you say). The basic physics of crashes are quite straightforward: it's all about TIME. They all decelerate from 300 to 0, it's a question of over how many milliseconds.

If you increase the milliseconds, you reduce the g and the injury risk - the severity and the survivability. So more crush structure, aligned front side and rear, means, over time, fewer severe injuries for our racing drivers. Necessarily. Everybody in FIA knows this of course, it's a question of priorities, and now car-to-car is going to get more priority, at last. Those big old sidepods look like a great start to me, thanks for posting.

[Manoah2u]

Okay, i'd like to add something here.

A thing to concider, about 'driver protection'.

...brings the question: would it have made 'much' more difference in the outcome, or would we have seen a bianchi/schumacher like end result?

this is a great post that deserves some recognition. BUT in safety it's a continuum - it's not truly an argument that something might not have worked enough to save this one victim (multiple impacts as you say). The basic physics of crashes are quite straightforward: it's all about TIME. They all decelerate from 300 to 0, it's a question of over how many milliseconds.

If you increase the milliseconds, you reduce the g and the injury risk - the severity and the survivability. So more crush structure, aligned front side and rear, means, over time, fewer severe injuries for our racing drivers. Necessarily. Everybody in FIA knows this of course, it's a question of priorities, and now car-to-car is going to get more priority, at last. Those big old sidepods look like a great start to me, thanks for posting.

Thanks for the aknowledgement.

The problem lies with several points to address, but to be honest, most of them really aren't that spectacular.
It is first of all fear and unwillingness to change.

I know there are millions invested in how cars operate today. But, if we concider 2021 is going to see a 'renewal', just after we got a pretty hefty renewal this year, emulating a bit even though not as extreme as the changes from 2008 to 2009, and then 2014 aswell, then i don't think the excuse 'it costs money' is something to use.

funny enough, the examples mentioned in the post before, actually have less turbulent wake and as such are an absolute racing improvement. it also 'refreshes' f1 design and as such opens oppertunities for a 'shift' in hierarchy.

the end verdict, imho, is clear: it's because nobody wants to change out of fear they're not in the same position as they are in now, which will potentially cost them money and sponsors. and to be honest ,as for the small teams complaining, they're full of it too. Williams screamed murder before, untill 2014 saw them in a privilidged position and they were all boasting again. and exactly because they dont want to invest or 'change' they're back at the tail end again.

i know chances are slim it'll happen, with the 2021 renewal approaching fast. but i'd say a return to (full) ground effect with wing-like shapes like the arrows, brabham or atleast longer sidepods like the lotus for example would be massive improvements in driver protection. the thing is, there has not been enough force met to cause such a change, and honestly, i doubt this incident was enough.

[Jolle]

I think if you look at the data, where these types of crashes happend in racing, other than ovals, you get the data how to reduce the risk.

some that come to mind are this one of course, Johnny Herbert at Branch Hatch in F3000 and Rob Slotermaker in touringcars at Zandvoort. All three the first crash was on a barrier that was too close to the track, compared with the speed. In Herberts case it was on a straight, that's why he got of lucky, the speed difference wasn't that great (plus carbon chassis made huge steps). Slootermnaker was t-boned at the Slootermakers corner on Zandvoort, after he hit the barrier on the inside with his TransAm.

Ovals have a whole different dynamic, with cars coming up from the infield after a good shunt.

On the current f1 circus there are just a handful corners where this kind of crash could happen, unfortunately, Zandvoort has half of them.... (slotenmaker and Bos uit)