Driver safety and component failures

[WhiteBlue]

I must say that I'm surprised that no official or public reaction has occurred after the second wheel rim failure of McLaren in less than one year.

when Red Bull appeared to have a safety component failure at Sepang they had to provide all kind of assurances to the FIA why they thought their suspension was safe. it looks like McLaren isn't subjected to similar levels of scrutiny and control of safety components regarding wheel rims.

when you read the comments about wheel development it sounds like they have really gone over the top with light weigting the wheels. this is a classical case where impact testing and forcing a minimum structural integrity would do some good.

[CMSMJ1]

I would say that the wheels are not the problem and that the brake shrouds and cooling setup is the culprit.We see failures where a foreign object has lodged between the hub and the rim adn scored through the metal.

Not a lot to be done about that apart from to remove the hub cooling shrouds and go back to classic ducts and vents.

It is a part of F1 design that will not transfer to road cars and could easily be junked in favour of "clean" looking wheels.

[WhiteBlue]

wouldn't stronger rims stand up to some of this problems?

whatever is eventually identified as the cause for these accidents there should be action. it is simply unacceptable that the life and health of the drivers are put at more risk than inevitable.

I am aware that competitors will not take action but the federation has an obligation to investigate this and introduce the proper restrictions to prevent it.

they do it for dangerous wings and for the Red Bull suspension issue. why are they not doing something on the rim failures. it is so terrible to loose control of a racecar and become a passenger with potentially going to be hurt in some seconds. that isn't something F1 needs. there is nothing positive in it.

F1 does not need performance on any price.

[CMSMJ1]

I agree but stronger rims = Heavier rims which pose their own problems in a car crash situation when they become detached etc

The problem is that debris is caught and is allowed to grind the rims away. I have not seenm as many worrying rim failures since these new cooling designs were implemented.

It may be that McLaren's design is flawed and it needs to be amended to stop the possibility of debris entering between the hub and rim.

Perhaps regulate an area that has to be free of "bodywork" between the axle/uprght and the rim itself?

It is too dangerous to carry on at present.

[WhiteBlue]

apparently there are other indications that the wheel strength isn't what it is supposed to be

The Speed TV guys made the point that the wheels are made to such fine tolerances that it almost beggars belief. For example, the simple act of removing a tire from the wheel is enough to necessitate the rim be x-rayed before another tire is fitted.

I agree though that lighter wheels make less dangerous balistic objects. but shouldn't they be prevented to become that in the first place?

[Ted68]

Lighter wheels have been a pursuit of all racing teams since the outset of the sport. The lighter the wheel, the better it follows the road and reqires less energy to both accelerate and slow it's mass. And since F1 is the pinnacle of the sport it stands to reason to have the closest tolerances and lightest components. The failure of the Macca's wheel is no different than the failure of the Renault's engine. The limit was pushed, the limit was exceeded. All of this after-the-fact hand-wringing and the "we had a problem, we must have a blame!" mindset is how we ended up with spec racers in the first place. Racing ain't safe, folks.

[Saribro]

The failure of the Macca's wheel is no different than the failure of the Renault's engine.

The difference is that Alonso ended up rolling to a standstill next to the track, while Heikki ended up unconscious under a tire barrier, it's hardly a trivial matter.

[WhiteBlue]

The failure of the Macca's wheel is no different than the failure of the Renault's engine.

The difference is that Alonso ended up rolling to a standstill next to the track, while Heikki ended up unconscious under a tire barrier, it's hardly a trivial matter.

I agree. tyres, wings, steering mechanisms, brakes and wheels are safety components that require higher safety legislation than engines as Saribro has pointed out. this has been recognised in the past. motor racing is dangerous, so lets not be complacent about avoidable risks. I'm sure Heikki appreciates that people were not complacent and improved the tubs and barriers after 1999.

[guy_smiley]

I agree with Ted that F1 pushes limits until they go beyond them, and in that respect, Heikki's wheel is indeed no different than Alonso's engine or Kimi's rear wing failure at Hockenheim 2004 BUT it is the end result that is different. As saribro pointed out, Alonso crawls to a halt while Heikki and Kimi spear off track at high speeds. But I would hardly say that the FIA and the GPDA and anyone else involved are being complacent about any aspect of driver safety...I think that, of course, Heikki and all the other drivers greatly appreciate every single change that has been made to the cars and tracks in the name of safety, but (as you all pointed out) F1 is and will always be dangerous, and every single GP weekend we see 22 drivers lined up on the grid.

(although for the rest of the season there might only be 20 )

Thanks for listening!

[bettonracing]

I agree that there are more critical components in that their failures result in an out of control car (at high speed) and I do think these need to be addressed and not ignored as just 'part of a dangerous sport'. The problem with "2ndary critical components" like engine/ gearbox failures is that they become more serious when cars are bunched together in popularly desired 'wheel to wheel racing'.

With this in mind, the steps toward more reliable engines & gearboxes (5 year freeze, 4 race rule) make alot more sense.

Food for thought:
It is relatively easy to calculate/ measure the loads experienced in wishbones and determine if they're too weak. How does one prove that the upright to rim clearance was designed too small? Especially considering the problem happened at 2 out of 18 (19?) tracks? Or better yet, 2 occurences out of dozens of off-road excursions (which technically aren't design requirements?...)

Regards,

H. Kurt Betton

[megz]

It was a freak and unlikely accident, lets be honest, the chances of a stone being flicked up and then landing and being caught between the wheel rim shield and wheel rim are pretty low. Especially when Heikki hardly followed someone through or out of a gravel trap. It was unlucky, it was an awful accident, it was dangerous; But lets be honest, are rims designed to be etched by stones? No.

You cannot design any part of an F1 car to be completely bullet proof when faced with any kind of situation. It's ridiculous to think that a road car is designed with that in mind as well. Anthony Davidson hit a Gopher while on track in Canada last year, thankfully it didn't get thrown into his helmet and knocked him out, it got splayed onto his front wing which broke at the pillar mounts. Had it knocked him out he would have been a passenger in very high speed accident, F1 cars haven't been equipped with bull bars and higher ground clearance to avoid these accidents are they? no. It was such an unlikely accident.

It's the same thing here, but rather than Heikki being knocked out by a small mammal he had a stone a TINY stone tear through his wheel rim after it got caught in what must be only a few mm wide gap. It failed, he crashed, it could have happened anywhere on the circuit. It was just unfortunately on a high speed bend.

[WhiteBlue]

It was a freak and unlikely accident, lets be honest, the chances of a stone being flicked up and then landing and being caught between the wheel rim shield and wheel rim are pretty low. ...

so what do you say to Hamilton's accident at the Nürburgring last year. it looked exactly the same. freak as well?

if both accidents had the same cause, which is quite possible such failures need to be looked at and the root cause eliminated.

[guy_smiley]

Yes, that's quite obvious...Like you, whiteblue bmw, the first thing I thought of was Hamilton at the Nurburgring last year, but I would hope that none of us think that McLaren would just sit on their thumbs after either of these incidents! If I remember correctly, the 'official' blame was placed on a faulty airgun for Hamilton's crash, while it looks like this time, as megz said, they are blaming a small pebble (although I'm not sure if McLaren have yet confirmed that). Anyway, it looks like McLaren are set to blame these incidents on two different things.

Now, everyone can believe whoever they want to: Ron and Martin's press statement or themselves. Personally, I'm mainly with you whiteblue bmw: it does seem very suspicious, but I don't believe McLaren would put it's drivers in danger (especially after the first incident), and there's a small chance that the incidents really were caused by different things.

But to echo everyone else, the important thing is that Heikki is in good shape!!

Thanks for listening...Smiles all 'round!

[Miguel]

I'm not really sure Hamilton's and Kovalainen's accident are actually the same. They do look the same, and both involve failure of the front outside wheel in a high speed corner. However, didn't Hamilton's wheel fail because of a faulty gas gun? From what I remember, that gun didn't secure the wheel nut well enough (better than Hungary 2006, though) and the vibrations eventually caused failure. We also have to consider that front rim shields in the Macca are a 2008 improvement.

As a side note, wing failure seems much worse IMHO. Kimi's accident in Hockenheim was not nice, and thank god it didn't happen in the fast righthander (Mobibl 1 according to wikipedia). And Ratzenberger was killed after a front wing failure, if I recall correctly.

[Chaparral]

It was a freak and unlikely accident, lets be honest, the chances of a stone being flicked up and then landing and being caught between the wheel rim shield and wheel rim are pretty low. ...

so what do you say to Hamilton's accident at the Nürburgring last year. it looked exactly the same. freak as well?

if both accidents had the same cause, which is quite possible such failures need to be looked at and the root cause eliminated.

One could quite easily assume you may be in the anti Mclaren/Dennis brigade would that be correct - certainly if I apply your opening post to this follow up that would seem to apply. Yes something broke in both instances however Im sure Mclaren intentionally dont send drivers out in cars that are engineered to the degree that they fall apart due to taking the tolerance thing to the limits - unlike what Colin Chapman used to do in (all) his designs - please some sense [-X