I would not trust that conclusion. The fuel tank is not seen on any picture, the column holding the barrier ruptured the car exactly there the tank would be and the fire was really big.
I would not trust that conclusion. The fuel tank is not seen on any picture, the column holding the barrier ruptured the car exactly there the tank would be and the fire was really big.
Exactly.
Most anyone’s access outside of the FIA and the Haas team on data is just based on photographs and repeating speculation as shared by the commentators.
You absolutely want the car to break in half. That's a good thing. You also want the the fuel cell to go with the rear half, not the driver's half. Indy Car figured that out a while ago and they routinely have impacts much more severe than Formula One.
You don’t want the car to spit in half! Having an impact with a 250 kg mass or a 800 kg makes a big difference in the type of structures around the track. You want big impacts take as long as possible to have the lowest G’s possible.
What you want is if the impact so high or on a weird angle that the car will break apart, it’s done in a controlled manner, not like with Grosjean, where it took pieces of the tub with it.
It didn't take pieces of the tub with it? It literally broke apart like it's designed, although it seems to have caught some fuel lines (I'm not sure the fuel cell was damaged others it would have been a much larger fire).
Re: Chassis Improvements - Grosjean accident
Posted: 30 Nov 2020, 19:09
by Hoffman900
If people want examples of what compromised fuel cell fires look like:
* note: everyone lived in all of these.
I know the stock car cars typically carry 22gal of fuel (83L).
You absolutely want the car to break in half. That's a good thing. You also want the the fuel cell to go with the rear half, not the driver's half. Indy Car figured that out a while ago and they routinely have impacts much more severe than Formula One.
You don’t want the car to spit in half! Having an impact with a 250 kg mass or a 800 kg makes a big difference in the type of structures around the track. You want big impacts take as long as possible to have the lowest G’s possible.
What you want is if the impact so high or on a weird angle that the car will break apart, it’s done in a controlled manner, not like with Grosjean, where it took pieces of the tub with it.
It didn't take pieces of the tub with it? It literally broke apart like it's designed, although it seems to have caught some fuel lines (I'm not sure the fuel cell was damaged others it would have been a much larger fire).
You don’t want the car to spit in half! Having an impact with a 250 kg mass or a 800 kg makes a big difference in the type of structures around the track. You want big impacts take as long as possible to have the lowest G’s possible.
What you want is if the impact so high or on a weird angle that the car will break apart, it’s done in a controlled manner, not like with Grosjean, where it took pieces of the tub with it.
It didn't take pieces of the tub with it? It literally broke apart like it's designed, although it seems to have caught some fuel lines (I'm not sure the fuel cell was damaged others it would have been a much larger fire).
It ripped out the back of the tub.
If it did that, it would have likely take Grosjean’s belts (and him) with it.
It didn't take pieces of the tub with it? It literally broke apart like it's designed, although it seems to have caught some fuel lines (I'm not sure the fuel cell was damaged others it would have been a much larger fire).
It ripped out the back of the tub.
If it did that, it would have likely take Grosjean’s belts (and him) with it.
The back of the tub behind the fuel tank, not the part behind the driver. That was intact.
If it did that, it would have likely take Grosjean’s belts (and him) with it.
The back of the tub behind the fuel tank, not the part behind the driver. That was intact.
Got it.
So do we know if the fuel cell is suppose to pull away with the rear? It seems like a huge oversight to have it so that stays attached to the driver cell in a break away accident.
When I first immediately saw the impact and fire, and the way in which it wasn't flashing out very quickly, I thought: "That's crazy; I bet the engine has somehow become disconnected from the chassis" and that's exactly what happened, although we had no idea of the details at that point.
This accident is incredibly similar to the one that killed Francois Cevert at Watkins Glen in 1973.
It is not very similar to Martin Donnelly's terrible crash (referenced during telecast by Brundle) in that Martin's Lotus chassis *ITSELF* broke in half around the area where the driver sits.
Grosjean's accident was more common; there are only 6 bolts holding the engine onto the back of the monocoque and it is designed that way for a reason.
The car worked well overall in the crash I would say and the HALO may have saved his life.
The flaw in the system here? The armco guardrail. It shouldn't be used anymore.
I think donnoly was a different case. He was left sitting on the track and none of the car around him.
It was not designed to break in a particular, just made as light as possible.
There was no thought at all for driver protection.
it is here if you want to see it, but it is gross so remove the XXX if you want to see it
I would not trust that conclusion. The fuel tank is not seen on any picture, the column holding the barrier ruptured the car exactly there the tank would be and the fire was really big.
Exactly.
Most anyone’s access outside of the FIA and the Haas team on data is just based on photographs and repeating speculation as shared by the commentators.
Exactly wrong, the fuel tank is integral to the safety cell and remained intact in the collision. It is there, intact, in all the pictures.
Re: Chassis Improvements - Grosjean accident
Posted: 30 Nov 2020, 19:33
by Hoffman900
I saw where the impact was an estimated 50g’s +.
I wonder how many of those are logged in NASCAR and Indy Car over the course of a season. I bet it’s a lot more than they would ever want to let on.
If it did that, it would have likely take Grosjean’s belts (and him) with it.
The back of the tub behind the fuel tank, not the part behind the driver. That was intact.
Got it.
So do we know if the fuel cell is suppose to pull away with the rear? It seems like a huge oversight to have it so that stays attached to the driver cell in a break away accident.
In the regulations the fuel compartment and the battery compartment are integral to the safety cell. Maybe this accident will bring into fruition a 3 part structure.
If it did that, it would have likely take Grosjean’s belts (and him) with it.
The back of the tub behind the fuel tank, not the part behind the driver. That was intact.
Got it.
So do we know if the fuel cell is suppose to pull away with the rear? It seems like a huge oversight to have it so that stays attached to the driver cell in a break away accident.
The fuel cell supposed to sit inside the safety cell, just like any race car. Last thing you want is a 100kg of fuel been thrown without the safety of the survival cell across the track or worse, the public.
If it did that, it would have likely take Grosjean’s belts (and him) with it.
The back of the tub behind the fuel tank, not the part behind the driver. That was intact.
Got it.
So do we know if the fuel cell is suppose to pull away with the rear? It seems like a huge oversight to have it so that stays attached to the driver cell in a break away accident.
The fuel tank is supposed to stay inside the survival cell with the driver. The idea, up until Sunday, was that the whole tub was a big box that kept the sensitive bits (man and fuel tank) safe from damage. The panel between tank and man is a firewall to protect from a fire in the tank enclosure. Of course, it doesn't help if the tank is exposed as on Sunday.
I wouldn't be surprised to see the FIA mandate a revised survival cell requirement, perhaps with additional lay ups to ensure that the tank isn't exposed again.
Of course, the simple answer is to not have exposed armco barrier anywhere. A triple-layer of tyres and a conveyor belt facing would do the job of preventing the sort barrier penetration on Sunday.
The back of the tub behind the fuel tank, not the part behind the driver. That was intact.
Got it.
So do we know if the fuel cell is suppose to pull away with the rear? It seems like a huge oversight to have it so that stays attached to the driver cell in a break away accident.
The fuel cell supposed to sit inside the safety cell, just like any race car. Last thing you want is a 100kg of fuel been thrown without the safety of the survival cell across the track or worse, the public.
I’m not saying toss the cell, I’m saying it stays attached to the rear bit with the drivetrain.
Seems counterintuive to have the mechanical bits sitting there nice and dry as the driver cell is up in flames.
What does 100kg relate to in terms or gallons. Anyone know the weight / volume of the fuel F1 is using?
