Driver safety and component failures

[WhiteBlue]

Such cases often have complex causes and it is imaginable that not all contributing factors have been identified or communicated. Some people opined that low weight wheel design is at fault. If a team can identify a contributing factor that fits better in the PR picture they can simply leave the other one out. McLaren do not have a particular track record lately for sticking to the facts as we have seen in November last year with the publications of Mr. Bishop in the Renault affair. I can imagine that they would stay mum about something that doesn't fit the corporate image when they have some other explanation that could also apply.

I would agree that all teams run a certain risk of safeties getting thin and accidents occuring. we have seen this during the tyre war. they pushed the tyre performance to a point where failures occurred more often than they do now. I don't want to characterise McLaren particularly for such mentality but there are differences in the risk taking between teams. for instance I believe that Peter Sauber would not have let Kimi drive with a flatspotted tyre that eventually tore the suspension apart and nearly caused a very dangerous collision.

On the other hand I dont't think that McLaren would deliberately put a driver at risk if they definetely know of a faulty component. between those extremes you find all shades of grey. seldomly there is a clear cut case when you look at such risks. they have to be weighted against the need for performance and those decisions do involve the mentality of the team principal.

If I have some criticism it applies more to the FIA for not being consistent. I believe they have treated the problem at McLaren more lenient than the one at Red Bull.

[Miguel]

Well, let's recall what happened. I'm doing this by heart, so if you see anything missing, please tell me.

Red Bull:

1. Webber's rear right (please correct me) whishbone breaks during AUS qualy
2. Webber's rear suspension breaks after an apparently innocent "kiss" during the AUS race.
3. DC's car dismantles itself after an incident with Massa during AUS race
4. DC's front left whishbone breaks after going over a (rather small)

McLaren:

1. Hamilton's front right tire instantly deflates and makes him "crash in style" at high speed. Ugly. The team blamed a loose wheelnut and proceeded to fasten Alonso's one as well
2. Kovalainen's front left tire deflates after a rim failure. Very nasty accident.

So far, WhiteBlue is right in that McLaren failures caused way nastier accidents than RedBull. Furthermore, it seems that the RB4 may have been stregthened, since it kept in one pice after colliding with Button in Bahrain. I also agree that McLaren should be questioned about the rims... but as peacefully and friendly as possible. Not in an inquisitorial way. I still think both accidents are unrelated. Cosmic coincidence does happen after all.

In any case, let's recall the Australian Grand Prix. We had Toyota carbon fibre everywhere after Glock's crash. I'm sure some folks found CF in their underpants that evening. We had the RBR self-dismantling show. And we had the Kubica retirement after Nakajima hit him. Personally, I was shocked to see Kubica retire (diffuser damage seemed to be the worst that could have happened to him).

So, in my opinion, the FIA should state that "Teams are reminded that the safety of their drivers directly depends on the structural reliability of the cars". And they should also take a rim enquiry.

If the facts here are wrong, please tell me, and I'll edit them to reflect the truth as accurately as possible.

[WhiteBlue]

... I also agree that McLaren should be questioned about the rims... but as peacefully and friendly as possible. Not in an inquisitorial way. ....

I totally agree. =D> =D>

[Chaparral]

... I also agree that McLaren should be questioned about the rims... but as peacefully and friendly as possible. Not in an inquisitorial way. ....

I totally agree. =D> =D>

OK Im assuming that you have so fair cop - I just say dont lets not go the sensationalist journo route with this - its a crash nothing more nothing less - its just amazing that with F1 as it is today we find this incident and the Mosley rubbish worth discussing - there are far more interesting topics to discuss if you know where to look

[Scuderia_Russ]

The same thing happened to us at Dijon last year in Practice for the V de V race. We have under 10mm clearance between the caliper and rim. the rim was completely machined in half. The deflated tyre stayed on which helped our guy keep control of it. Have never seen anything like it before.

[flynfrog]

The same thing happened to us at Dijon last year in Practice for the V de V race. We have under 10mm clearance between the caliper and rim. the rim was completely machined in half. The deflated tyre stayed on which helped our guy keep control of it. Have never seen anything like it before.

I had a rock jam the wheel nothing like having a right front tire lock to help you turn

In one direction

[WhiteBlue]

Production error caused Heikki crash
8 May, 2008 McLaren has finally got to the bottom of the cause of Heikki Kovalainen's huge crash during the Spanish grand prix two weeks ago. Engine partner Mercedes-Benz's racing chief Norbert Haug has told German publications that the left front wheel rim broke due to a production error.

It had already emerged that the brand new wheel in question had only turned a few laps out of the box before it failed. “A formula one rim is very complicated and comprises of several different alloys. Something has apparently gone wrong,” he is quoted as saying by Bild newspaper.

McLaren's wheels are externally produced by the Japanese supplier Enkei, who are believed to now be reviewing the production and testing practices for its F1 products. The German magazine Auto Motor und Sport reports that the wheels fitted to Lewis Hamilton's car at Barcelona were from a different Enkei batch. Source: GMM

So we now get confirmation that indeed one of the McLaren wheel failures has a similar problem as the Red Bull suspension failure. Manufacturing fault of a safety component which could be inherently dangerous due to a design and process being taken to the limit. Is it acceptable that every 2nd or 3rd race a driver becomes a passenger in an F1 car due to such problems?

[ReubenG]

I find it surprising and disturbing that a manufacturing flaw is being identified as the cause of said rim failure. I would expect that components destined for use in F1 would be subjected to rigorous non-destructive inspection (X-rays, ultrasound etc) before delivery to the teams, who I would then expect to have their own internal inspection.

I agree that teams, factories and sub-contracted suppliers have a responsibility to the drivers and the fans to provide cars and components that are as deficient from manufacturing flaws as possible. Components, be they in-house manufactured or sub-contracted, should be subjected to some kind of inspection / safety test. My problem is with the practicality of this - where does one draw the line as to what is a "safety related" component, and what is a "performance component" that teams can seek to optimise and hence risk failure during a race? For example, brakes are clearly very necessary for driver safety. However, brake optimisation and performance in F1 is also crucial to race success. Many F1 fans are familiar with Michael Schumacher's Silverstone crash and the offending bleed nipple that failed. Yet I recall several incidents (generally at the Canadian Grand Prix) where drivers retire because their brakes have worn / faded to the point of uselessness. The only difference between these "failures" is the speed at which they happen - one acute and un-announced, the other giving plenty of prior warning to the driver. Which brings me back to the Kovalainen incident - failures and the ensuing crashes of that type tend to be caused by an acute failure, which generally are caused by manufacturing flaws/ design problems that are extremely difficult to detect. More detailed inspection will mean more costly components - I'm not sure how F1's cost-cutting brigade will respond to that.

So despite my extended rant, I don't have much to offer as a solution....

[WhiteBlue]

It immediately comes to mind that weight saving engineering could be pushing the boundaries of manufacturing technologies here. One possible action would be a destructive load test with a load of 120 or 130% of what is tolerable now. This is pretty much like the tub crash testing they do. if engineers know they will not be able to get those 20% anyway they will not employ over complex manufacturing methods that can go wrong so easily.

More concerning is the fact that both wheel rim failures of McLaren were eventually caused by the wheel nut coming loose. So we cannot exclude at this time that they kidded themselves about the root cause of Hamilton's Nürburgring accident. It looks more and more that those were very similar failures indeed.

It has been established that, owing to a process fault during manufacture, the outer clamp surface of the wheel was given a clear lacquer coating. As a consequence of this fault, the clamp load that attached the wheel was not to specification. In running, the consequent loss of load caused the wheel to fret and distort, leading to its eventual failure.

so we have an incorrect coating causing the wheel to come loose and that led to over heating of the wheel and failure. why are they now calling the wheel nut a clamp? they said the nut came loose in the hamilton accident as well. why did that one come loose? same coating fault?

[meves]

Are they saying that the laquer applied to teh wheel was thicker than specified so when the wheel nut was attached it was effectively over-tightened causing the increased load on the wheel and the wheel to fracture?

If that is the case, aren't the wheel nuts/clamps set to a certain torque setting or when the lock is applied to the wheel nut/clamp does it have to be a certain distance down the spindle?

[WhiteBlue]

I don't know the particulars of the wheel nut design but the whole thing sounds very strange. They think they found the fault but they also thought this the last time only to have a very similar failure occur. what will the FIA do to prevent this to happen more often?

[Ciro Pabón]

1. Factors of safety

I don't know what the 120% is called in english, but in spanish is called "factor of safety"...

I don't think that designing a structural component for 100% of the load gives you more safety: engineers deal with the real world, where things are serendipitous. Maybe I've worked with soil too much, but materials are materials: they are what nature throws at you.

The correct way to determine factors of safety is to investigate the natural variation in material's properties (and the variation in loads!) at the lab.

For a 100% margin of safety to be accepted you need a perfectly homogeneous material that never varies and a load that is fixed at the gram level: this will happen in paradise (along with free beer for everybody and mute, orphaned, gorgeous husbands/wiwes).

2. Safety at FIA

FIA is doing whatever they can for safety. I know no other series where safety is taken so seriously and with such an impeccable record. Mosley can be a bettle headed guy for some things, but not for safety. He has taken all the proper steps recommended by guys with years of expertise, like the ICAO guys that work with commercial aviation.

There are problems with some tracks: Kovalainen could have been killed at some other tracks, which have not been improved because of their "historical value" (translation: the owners are cheap because they don't share the fortunes of FOMA). However, that's certainly no McLaren's fault, no matter how bad you think they are.

3. How to carry an accident investigation

ICAO is probably the organization with a greater expertise in accident analysis. Yes, things could be even better, but I already talked about paradise. They have strict rules about how to carry a research about an accident. I'll quote the relevant parts, including why you should not make a public investigation:

3. Principles of protection
3.1 Safety information should qualify for protection from inappropriate use...
3.3 A formal procedure should be established to provide protection to qualified safety information, in accordance with specified conditions.
3.4 Safety information should not be used in a way different from the purposes for which it was collected.

Allow me to paraphrase, I couldn't find the exact source and the papers of the workshop I attended are buried in my attic:

If the research is made public, many people that would talk freely under the guidelines quoted, would be inhibited, because they would think of the consequences. It's similar to a whistleblower system or a witness protection program.

4. My opinion

So, do not expect FIA to make public the conclusions, unless it's evident to the investigators that a judge must know about it (for disciplinary purposes). This is quite a thorny issue, as many of you can imagine.

I've researched many accidents (vehicle crashes, of course) and I'll say two things:

- The results would be made public in a general way and certainly, not the day after the crash happened.
- FIA is investigating the accident, I bet my right hand on it.

WhiteBlue, I edited Chaparral comments (after I encouraged people at other forums to participate here, because we have peer review in place... ). I did it to avoid fights because of personal issues, but I have to agree with him: to look for McLaren faults is to "look upriver for the drowned man", as we say in spanish.

[WhiteBlue]

... However, that's certainly no McLaren's fault, no matter how bad you think they are....

Ciro, you are not adressing the main point here. McLaren had two high speed crashes from wheel failures following the wheel nut coming loose. The striking similarity of the accidents was recognised the same minute they happened by Marc Surer in his comment on Premiere TV. They even made an ad hoc movie of it showing the left side of the Barca and the right side of the Nürburgring crash simultaneously in a specialy cut sequence.

I have dealt with faulty design for many years in my life (being responsible for quality and service) and it never ceased to amaze me how much wishfull thinking is employed by manufacturers when it comes to fault analysis. considering the likeness of the accident trigger (wheel nut) I am surprised nobody seems to pick it up.

[Ciro Pabón]

All right, so Mr. Surer has an eagle eye. How did he noticed that the wheel nut came loose? I have not been able to get a video from the left side of the car, please, be kind to show it to us.

I checked and rechecked the video from Kovalainen camera: I can see nothing before the brake cover exploded, or so I think.

I actually took the trouble to download the video and run it in a video editing software to check it frame by frame, but, of course, anything I can say about it is bull... manure. Same goes for Mr. Surer's imagination, unless he has more info that you haven't shared with us.

That was my conclusion when this thread opened, so I did not post my pictures, but here you have them.

All is well (no wheel movement that I can discern) and suddenly there is contact with the INNER part of the tyre.


... and the tyre bends (mmmm.... I don't know what to say: loose wheel nut or flat tyre?)


He might be right, I don't fight that.

However, I don't know how to put it better: accidents are NEVER researched in a hurry, and certainly, not following journalists recommendations.

If it is a problem to be worried, OK, we all agree. Why do you assume that McLaren and FIA are not worried about it?

I may be not the only one losing the point here. My point is: to blame McLaren without further knowledge is cheap and one-sided. I'm sure you won't fall for that...

And everybody here knows that I can say that in the role of "the guy that doesn't root for a team".

[mcdenife]

Well said Ciro, bravo =D> =D>