no, I'm saying your last few points of argument are faulty, because of the data you are using to support them.
- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
no, I'm saying your last few points of argument are faulty, because of the data you are using to support them.
You are saying, if there are no "in driver" censors, "in car" sensor impact cannot be used to say that is the same impact on the driver. That was the point of argument and now you are moving away from it. The article says, they use the car impact number as a reference to assess the driver.
That’s not exactly true. The foam in the cockpit and helmet is meant to provide zero moving space as every little mm of moving space while stationary becomes cm’s in a 51G crash. That’s also what an HANS device is for: to provide not more than X space in a crash for movementdans79 wrote: ↑23 Jul 2021, 06:27
https://us.motorsport.com/f1/news/honda ... -/6633616/Note it says in-car, not in Max.In-car sensors estimated that the impact registered at 51G, which was the biggest crash of Verstappen's career.
Max didn't experience 51G, unless you have proof that he had a G sensor on/in him.
The entire point of the side impact structures, the foam around the cockpit, and even the foam in his helmut is to reduce the load Max experiences.
No, I'm moving away from nothing.Ryar wrote: ↑23 Jul 2021, 07:09You are saying, if there are no "in driver" censors, "in car" sensor impact cannot be used to say that is the same impact on the driver. That was the point of argument and now you are moving away from it. The article says, they use the car impact number as a reference to assess the driver.
Yes, but its soft and compresses. When it compresses it increases the deceleration time, and thus decreases the force exerted. The foam does the same as the crash structures, it increases the deceleration time and absorbs energy.darkpino wrote: ↑23 Jul 2021, 07:29That’s not exactly true. The foam in the cockpit and helmet is meant to provide zero moving space as every little mm of moving space while stationary becomes cm’s in a 51G crash. That’s also what an HANS device is for: to provide not more than X space in a crash for movement
There’s more protection in the cockpit than belts alone. The drivers wear padding on their knees to prevent jarring injuries during an impact, and have a cockpit surround fitted after they are belted-in. The surround is a thin composite shell filled with urethane foam. The foam materials have energy absorption properties that perform better in specific temperature ranges. Thus, the FIA issues an official temperature before each session, and the headrest best suited to that temperature band is fitted. Thus, if the ambient temperature is above 30°C, you’ll see headrest material that is blue; below 30°C and it’s pink (there’s also a light blue foam used on very cold days in winter testing – and at the Nürburgring recently).
It has become an inherent culture to simply keep arguing even from the obvious wrong side of an argument. It's bonkers that someone believes the car suffers 51g and driver didn't, if any, simply to downplay the other side.darkpino wrote: ↑23 Jul 2021, 07:59Thats true but very marginal as far as I know. I’m not even aware if there are tests been carried out regarding that, the seatbelts do stretch but that didn’t help ofcourse in this case.
To cut it short, it nonsense to say that the car faced 51G’s but the driver didn’t. This is exactly where also this safety device is for (the G meter with the light on top of the survival cell)
Thank you @darkpino, very helpful!! Good information from someone who has the right knowledge about this.darkpino wrote: ↑23 Jul 2021, 07:29That’s not exactly true. The foam in the cockpit and helmet is meant to provide zero moving space as every little mm of moving space while stationary becomes cm’s in a 51G crash. That’s also what an HANS device is for: to provide not more than X space in a crash for movementdans79 wrote: ↑23 Jul 2021, 06:27
https://us.motorsport.com/f1/news/honda ... -/6633616/Note it says in-car, not in Max.In-car sensors estimated that the impact registered at 51G, which was the biggest crash of Verstappen's career.
Max didn't experience 51G, unless you have proof that he had a G sensor on/in him.
The entire point of the side impact structures, the foam around the cockpit, and even the foam in his helmut is to reduce the load Max experiences.
The side impact structures are there to indeed lower the impact just like a normal road car has those, but then still the 51G’s measured in the survival cell is pretty certain also the force the driver faced.
Source: I’ve worked till 2012 in several (drag)racing teams, been working in automotive also till that point and also educated in automotive
Indeed.Wouter wrote: ↑23 Jul 2021, 09:06Thank you @darkpino, very helpful!!darkpino wrote: ↑23 Jul 2021, 07:29That’s not exactly true. The foam in the cockpit and helmet is meant to provide zero moving space as every little mm of moving space while stationary becomes cm’s in a 51G crash. That’s also what an HANS device is for: to provide not more than X space in a crash for movementdans79 wrote: ↑23 Jul 2021, 06:27
https://us.motorsport.com/f1/news/honda ... -/6633616/
Note it says in-car, not in Max.
Max didn't experience 51G, unless you have proof that he had a G sensor on/in him.
The entire point of the side impact structures, the foam around the cockpit, and even the foam in his helmut is to reduce the load Max experiences.
The side impact structures are there to indeed lower the impact just like a normal road car has those, but then still the 51G’s measured in the survival cell is pretty certain also the force the driver faced.
Source: I’ve worked till 2012 in several (drag)racing teams, been working in automotive also till that point and also educated in automotive
F1 drivers do have g-force sensors on/in them - but I have no idea if that is where this measurement is from. The following has been standard equipment for many years now
https://www.electronicsweekly.com/made- ... 1-2013-04/Measuring 3mm wide, the tiny chip in question features some “serious engineering” that could potentially help save lives and has been produced by STMicroelectronics working in conjunction with the FIA Institute. According to the report, it’s an accelerometer of the type that you might find in a smartphone or tablet, but it has been specifically designed for use in sport, with the FIA Institute adapting the sensor for use by racing drivers. Inside their very ears!
You beat me to it… but I thought I’d post anyway incase anyone wanted to read, apologiesTim.Wright wrote: ↑23 Jul 2021, 09:17They have accelerometers in the drivers earplugs.
Chassis accelerations *can* be wildly different to the driver head accelerations in an accident. Depends on intensity and duration of the impact among other things.
Unless Max was perfectly rigid and solidly bolted to the survival cell he would not have felt whatever sensors read.Ryar wrote: ↑23 Jul 2021, 05:16Right. Max was in the air, levitating inside the cockpit when the car hit the barrier.
I’m very curious what your source is to this?LaplacesDemon wrote: ↑23 Jul 2021, 10:21Unless Max was perfectly rigid and solidly bolted to the survival cell he would not have felt whatever sensors read.
It was a big shunt but people should stop throwing the 51g around because:
a. It does not represent what different parts of the driver's body experience.
b. It is meaningless unless the duration is stated.
https://www.fia.com/news/biometric-gloves-set-f1-debutRyar wrote: ↑23 Jul 2021, 07:09You are saying, if there are no "in driver" censors, "in car" sensor impact cannot be used to say that is the same impact on the driver. That was the point of argument and now you are moving away from it. The article says, they use the car impact number as a reference to assess the driver.