F1technical.net

I hope you do realise that for an increase in to speed from 320 kmph to 400 kmph, we are talking about the total K.E. of the car increasing by around 60%. Thus a 60% extra energy will be dissipated in a crash. Now, i am not a genius in track safety, but i believe if Rockenfeller's crash in 2011 had dissipated that much more energy then we would not be seeing him in the paddock this coming weekend.
The notion that drivers and organisers these days are scared to see the cars go fast needs some rethinking, to say the least. Racing is dangerous, period. And all involved, have always known it. People die in crashes much slower than the 400 kmph we speak about here. What the governing bodies do is just give the racers a track that they can push hard on and still have a margin of safety enough for them to return home with or with out their car.
So in short, there is nothing wrong with having the 6 km straight, till something goes horribly wrong, that is.

Pierce89 wrote: If a driver thinks its too dangerous, he can say "no".

With that attitude we would still be in the seventies when drivers were saying "yes" to tracks that killed several of them every year. It is just not in their nature to say no. So the sanctioning bodies must determine the level of safety that is appropriate. And generally they are doing ok with it.

WhiteBlue wrote:

Pierce89 wrote: If a driver thinks its too dangerous, he can say "no".

With that attitude we would still be in the seventies when drivers were saying "yes" to tracks that killed several of them every year. It is just not in their nature to say no. So the sanctioning bodies must determine the level of safety that is appropriate. And generally they are doing ok with it.

I'm referring specifically to tracks. I think they should do all they can to make the cars safer, but you can't tell me you wouldn't want to watch a modern F1 race at the Nordschlieffe(SIC?).

Pierce89 wrote:... you can't tell me you wouldn't want to watch a modern F1 race at the Nordschlieffe(SIC?).

Nordschleife is an entirely impossible proposition because we will never find a billionaire who wants to devote all his money to the transformation of the track. And even then you will not be able to run an F1 race there because it would contradict FiA specifications for maximum lap length that Bernie had written into the regulations to bend all the tracks to his TV requirements. So we can forget it for more that one compelling reason.

Some things we will never get back like Norschleife, Hockenheim or Tamburello. And that is generally ok with me. I like the drivers to be as safe as you can reasonably make them. Le Mans is a dangerous affair compared with an F1 race. You are much more likely to get injured or die if you drive there than driving in F1. One of the guys who have done both said he would never go back to Le Mans because it is so much more dangerous than F1. F1 is probably so immensely popular because it is motor sport on the highest level with an incredible level of safety thanks to people like, Jackie Stewart, Sid Watkins and Max Mosley.

WhiteBlue wrote:

Pierce89 wrote:... you can't tell me you wouldn't want to watch a modern F1 race at the Nordschlieffe(SIC?).

Nordschleife is an entirely impossible proposition because we will never find a billionaire who wants to devote all his money to the transformation of the track. And even then you will not be able to run an F1 race there because it would contradict FiA specifications for maximum lap length that Bernie had written into the regulations to bend all the tracks to his TV requirements. So we can forget it for more that one compelling reason.
.

So what does this have to do with my statement? Would you enjoy the chance to see modern F1 cars racing the Nordschiefe? I'd be willing to bet most here would want to watch it.

There's plenty of other stuff to watch there, particularly 24 hours of nurburgring (though part of that runs on the GP circuit). Sure I would like to watch F1 there, but that's trumped by my desire to not see somebody crash at bergwerk; even in a modern F1 car, there's a good chance of serious injury or death.

Similar line of reasoning is why I'm not keen on watching them go 400 km/h at sarthe.

wesley123 wrote: And thus, as an effect have a larger chance of taking off, as well as events like the Toyota last year happening at a much higher speed.

Huntresa wrote:And this shows how little air you actually need to make the car flip all the way over

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8snP33Ga3X4

Toyota didn't take off due to lack of downforce. Modern LMPs don't do that. They do it at when they go completely sideways (or because of a collision), so the DF/drag setup designed to produce DF going straight or a reasonable yaw angles is a completely irrelevant factor in this argument.

wesley123 wrote:

MadMatt wrote:Huntresa this is when the cars were ran very close to the ground and were very sensitive to even small incidence on the attitude of the car. Nowadays the only way (or so) to make the car flip is if they are at very high speed with big yaw angle, like when a tyre exploade at the back or if the car is hit on the side at the rear. I doubt situations like what Mercedes experienced in 1999 will reproduce again.

I think they will, teams will run ultra low downforce packages again(like in the '80s) which just take off earlier with the lower df as there is less force pushing the car down

Again, they ONLY take off due to aero lift when skidding completely sideways, I don't any track configuration would make the engineers consider designing aero for going at 90 degrees yaw! ...but regulations may.

I for one think that cutting downforce will make other areas of Le Mans (and other tracks) much safer. But I'm not sure removing chicanes on Hunaudières is the most sensible way to achieve that.

Pandamasque wrote: Toyota didn't take off due to lack of downforce. Modern LMPs don't do that. They do it at when they go completely sideways (or because of a collision), so the DF/drag setup designed to produce DF going straight or a reasonable yaw angles is a completely irrelevant factor in this argument.

True it didn't take off due to lack of downforce, but the point we are driving at is that the speeds at which these accidents happen will come down if the straights are shorter. And with that the chances of serious injury. There is a huge difference between a car taking off at 300 kmph and 400 kmph.

Relevance. From what I can tell, this series is far more focussed on production car relevance than most series. With that in mind, not many of us can buy a legal car and drive it over 300km/h on public roads, let alone flat out long highways. What we can do is corner well, take off quickly, brake well and get great fuel mileage. In this respect, chicanes at LeMans are useful. It show's me what a car can do relevant to how I can use it - braking, cornering, accelerating, fuel economy - therefore, I think they have a place and are useful.

Good points there, except imo the take off thing which as I also said, only happens those days because of the car yawing past 45°. And again, flaps like in Nascar might help in that sense if anything else needs to be done on that side. I also think that the point of relevance made by Cam is not really correct. Come on, how as a customer can I identify myself to the Audi R18. I don't. Not only because of the design, but in that specific because of the engine! I won't buy a diesel engine just because the regulations are made in a way to make it "better" than the petrol engines.

LeMans has always been a prototype thing (not only for me I think). The GT2 and GT3 categories are not what has made the History of LeMans. It is all about the GT40s, 917s, R8s and so on. These cars are made for speed. And yes it is for sure much more dangerous to drive at 400 than at 330. But then why not removing the first chicane only or the second chicane only? That would still make the cars go faster, retain the "chicane challenge" that some members are pointing, and it would not allow the cars to go faster than F1 speed with the V10 at Monza.

I really have the feeling we lack something exciting at LeMans those days. Not car-wise (although debatable) but track wise. The Dunlop section is nicer to see than what it used to be when it was just all flat out, and I really like the Indianapolis section, but the chicanes in the straight ruin the track imo. And no I'm not a fan boy or a 13 years old. Maybe nostalgic but what was written here is not full of no-sense.

Pandamasque wrote:

wesley123 wrote: And thus, as an effect have a larger chance of taking off, as well as events like the Toyota last year happening at a much higher speed.

Huntresa wrote:And this shows how little air you actually need to make the car flip all the way over

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8snP33Ga3X4

Toyota didn't take off due to lack of downforce. Modern LMPs don't do that. They do it at when they go completely sideways (or because of a collision), so the DF/drag setup designed to produce DF going straight or a reasonable yaw angles is a completely irrelevant factor in this argument.

Never said the Toyota took off due to a lack of df. I said events like Toyota last year would happen at a mach higher speed without chicanes(or the 2011 Audi accidents for example.)

wesley123 wrote:

MadMatt wrote:Huntresa this is when the cars were ran very close to the ground and were very sensitive to even small incidence on the attitude of the car. Nowadays the only way (or so) to make the car flip is if they are at very high speed with big yaw angle, like when a tyre exploade at the back or if the car is hit on the side at the rear. I doubt situations like what Mercedes experienced in 1999 will reproduce again.

I think they will, teams will run ultra low downforce packages again(like in the '80s) which just take off earlier with the lower df as there is less force pushing the car down

Again, they ONLY take off due to aero lift when skidding completely sideways, I don't any track configuration would make the engineers consider designing aero for going at 90 degrees yaw! ...but regulations may.

Really? I can remember the Mercedes(for example) driving forward when taking off, the same goes for all the other cars that took off on the straight.[/quote]

Drive the LeMans track in some simulator and you might notice that it is one of the most boring tracks you can think of. It is basically just waiting until the long straights ends, interrupted by the chicanes. Removing the chicanes makes the track even duller.
Tracks like Nordschleife or Spa are exciting because they combine high speed with corners. Especially the Nordschleife is a very interesting track. It has sections where one corner follows the next without any interruption by a straight. But also it has very tricky high speed sections with bends you can take flat out just on the limit of everything. LeMans is technically not demanding compared to that. It just seems to have a very good “brand image”. It might come from the big crash 1955. Or be due that some of the cars cannot be driven on a track like Nordschleife.

wesley123 wrote:

Again, they ONLY take off due to aero lift when skidding completely sideways, I don't any track configuration would make the engineers consider designing aero for going at 90 degrees yaw! ...but regulations may.

Really? I can remember the Mercedes(for example) driving forward when taking off, the same goes for all the other cars that took off on the straight.

Really. My point is that after a few notable take-offs by the likes of Merc, BMW and Panoz in late '90s early '00s underfloor regulations were specifically changed in order to prevent that. Since then no LMP took off while driving forwards, as far as I know. So you may as well base your argument on incidents from the 70-s.

I suggest reading this one: http://issuu.com/racecargraphic/docs/v2 ... tudy.final

Sadly we just had another fatal accident in Le Mans. It shows that safety isn't on a level that we are used to from F1. This discussion of removing chicanes is going in the totally wrong direction. Le Mans needs to ask other questions. Why did Allan Simonsen have to die? Those are the questions we should ask ourselves.

Without saying that this IS the reason that killed Simonsen, but for me the organisers of Le Mans just didn't walk the track carefully enough and analyse the potential dangerous areas of the track.

How can ACO explain, that there were now tyre barriers in a potential run off area and trees right behind the barrier in Simonsen's crash?
How come there is a gap in the barriers where the race track and the Mulsanne Straight meet at Tertre Rouge?
Why are there only concrete barriers at some of the Porsche curves?
Why is there only one line of tyre barriers at many places and no safer barriers?

http://blog.axisofoversteer.com/2013/06 ... nsens.html
http://goo.gl/maps/StMOC

I think ACO should really have this track checked by an independent group that works out where what kind of barriers are needed and where bigger run off areas are mandatory!