According to Michael Schmidt's blog at Auto Motor und Sport (AMuS) the metal part penetrated the tub from below and belonged to the front wing. Apparently the use of ballast on the wing was instrumental for the penetration as was the lack of a penetration shield in the bottom of the tub. There is yet no official reaction of the FIA about this frightening safety gap.WhiteBlue wrote:Penetration of the monocoque is not a good thing either. In any case it warrants an investigation with the aim of preventing such things to happen again. A penetrating object could have hit an artery and caused Glock to bleed out in a few minutes.axle wrote:I don't think Broke is the right word. It was an aluminium item that caused the injury. This limits it to a part of the suspension or the steering column. So the monocoque might have been penetrated but not broken if you see what I mean. Broken to me means snapped off or split into more than 1 piece. Where as penetration is single point damage.WhiteBlue wrote:Glock's accident wasn't such a trivial thing. Did anybody ask himself why a driver got wounded on the leg? My impression (and that was first spotted by Sky commentator Jaques Schulz) was that the monocoque actually broke. It is not supposed to do that. In my view that accident must be investigated if the structural integrity of the tub was exceeded.
Source in German language:
http://blog.auto-motor-und-sport.de/sch ... er-jahres/