Alfa Romeo C42

[shady]

I wonder if it was the way the blade attaches to the monocoque which failed - I would be interested to find out how they resolve that in a weeks time.

[ScrewCaptain27]

I wonder if it was the way the blade attaches to the monocoque which failed - I would be interested to find out how they resolve that in a weeks time.

That’s what it looks like to me; by looking at the pictures you can see where it attaches to the monocoque and traces of what looks like adhesive. It broke off instantly and cleanly.

[Stu]

What we don’t know is the force of impact in comparison with the FIA tests. Alarming as it may be, there has to be a failure point (they use it to help disperse or reduce impact energy in other areas of the car).

There is a valid argument to make regarding integrating this piece into the halo and, therefore, making the rollover structure a standard item; however another (more rearward) mounting would be required for a lateral brace on the monocoque (otherwise it would have a tendency to bend over in a big enough impact).
This would conceivably ‘fatten up’ the shoulder area of the cars.

[Remevs]

Looks like the roll over blade is a solid lump bonded to a solid lump bonded to the top of the tub. You can see what appears to be the remains of a bonding agent on the stump here. Seems like a poor piece of design that meets a test but has little extra capacity beyond that.

https://i.ibb.co/hCtqMFT/image-2022-07-05-221111358.png

Probably it's only tested to compression, and under a shear load it simply got teared away. If you do a real hoop, it will never happen, because for a shear load at the tip, you will always end with a compression in one side and traction in the other. Also some shear component in both sides, but much smaller.

It will have passed the tests - but if it's been subjected to a load greater than the tests then failure is always a possible outcome.

Even a hoop will fail given sufficient load in a certain direction. And then there are the fixings and the item the fixings are attached to. Look at Grosjean's crash - that tore the car apart and ripped the tub (to expose the fuel tank) and that's the strongest item in the car after the engine block and the halo device.

Umm actually the fuel tank is attached behind the tub/survival cell and the part that broke in Grosjean's was designed to do so and split at that point, the tub is the strongest part of the car and was not broken in that incident.

[Just_a_fan]

Probably it's only tested to compression, and under a shear load it simply got teared away. If you do a real hoop, it will never happen, because for a shear load at the tip, you will always end with a compression in one side and traction in the other. Also some shear component in both sides, but much smaller.

It will have passed the tests - but if it's been subjected to a load greater than the tests then failure is always a possible outcome.

Even a hoop will fail given sufficient load in a certain direction. And then there are the fixings and the item the fixings are attached to. Look at Grosjean's crash - that tore the car apart and ripped the tub (to expose the fuel tank) and that's the strongest item in the car after the engine block and the halo device.

Umm actually the fuel tank is attached behind the tub/survival cell and the part that broke in Grosjean's was designed to do so and split at that point, the tub is the strongest part of the car and was not broken in that incident.

Umm actually the fuel tank is inside the tub/survival cell.

The engine mountings ripped out of the tub exposing the fuel tank bladder. That's why the rules were changed this year to require the engine mountings to fail more easily. We saw the result of that rule change in Monaco where Schumacher's car split in half apparently quite easily - it was intended that it should in order to protect the fuel tank enclosure.

[Tzk]

What we don’t know is the force of impact in comparison with the FIA tests. Alarming as it may be, there has to be a failure point (they use it to help disperse or reduce impact energy in other areas of the car).

Motorsport.com stated that the impact was twice as powerful than the FIA tests. So the hoop failing was ineviteable. But you're absolutely right that everything will fail at a certain point. It's all about the force applied.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/zhou ... /10335407/

[carisi2k]

The FIA crash tests probably could be beefed up anyways, like you said there are situations which they still don't test that they probably should. They unironically should consult Indycar, who have cars of a similar mass and also have had rollover crashes at high speed, including landing on the roll hoop and sliding a significant distance on the structure. At least find out what their tests and specs are, because that chassis has been in use for a decade and has had more than enough incidents to gather data from.

Indycar don't have those issues on the road circuits so much. It is the ovals where they have those sorts of issues and that is because they basically run no front or rear wing. Personally I suspect the problem is probably with the I beam and so I think that for 2023 the ibeam should be banned and force Alfa to use what everybody else does.

[Sevach]

Alfa's FW endplate "dip" looks very elegant imo.

[christian.falavena]

New floor in Hungary. Anyone has seen it?

[vorticism]

[vorticism]

Note RW endplates

[vorticism]

Note endplate. Zandvoort:


Piola

[organic]

Note endplate. Zandvoort:

https://cdn-7.motorsport.com/images/mgl ... tail-1.jpg
Piola

Some closeups of the low downforce wing. That endplate at Zandvoort is also very different - interesting

[Blackout]

AMuS

[vorticism]