Run-Off Area Alternatives

[beelsebob]

I cringe at comments about how wimpy drivers have become, sure days of past safety was less and it did take bigger balls but surely you don't want to go back to where a handful of drivers would die each year?

It´s just a load of BS though.

Take Alonso, Kimi and Hamilton for example, they all saw Senna die on TV and yet the next day they were working extremely hard to one day race in F1 (they did not know the sport would be much safer after that, they only had that frame of reference and said "yea i´ll have some of that" and did their absolute best to make sure they one day would get there.

If they were pussies they would have looked at the death of Senna and said "i´m not doing that, i don´t wanna die".

The fact that they are willing to take part in a sport that involves death from time to time does not imply that they want to die, or that they should die when their deaths could be prevented.

Honestly, I think this really is as trivial as enforcement. You paint a white line, a yellow line and a red line around the track. 4 wheels over the white line gets you a 5 second stop go that can be combined with a pit stop. 4 wheels over the yellow line gets you a drive through. 4 wheels over the red line gets you a 10 second stop go that can't be combined with a pit stop.

[SectorOne]

The fact that they are willing to take part in a sport that involves death from time to time does not imply that they want to die, or that they should die when their deaths could be prevented.

It implies that death is part of it, that´s the risk everyone signed up for.
They all saw Senna die and understood that can happen to them, but carried on pushing to be in F1 one day.

All i´m saying is that this "new drivers are pussies" is stupid.

[beelsebob]

The fact that they are willing to take part in a sport that involves death from time to time does not imply that they want to die, or that they should die when their deaths could be prevented.

It implies that death is part of it, that´s the risk everyone signed up for.
They all saw Senna die and understood that can happen to them, but carried on pushing to be in F1 one day.

Every time you walk to the shops, there's a risk you'll be killed on the way. That's a risk you sign up for. Doesn't mean you don't want that risk to be lowered whenever it's reasonable to lower it.

[SectorOne]

Doesn't mean you don't want that risk to be lowered whenever it's reasonable to lower it.

Which is so far away from the discussion point it´s insane but yes true.

[Moxie]

I'm going to jump in with a very non traditional idea...

Bushes! Carefully chosen bushes like arbor vitae or boxwood. These bushes are composed of lots of tiny twigs rather than thicker branches that could become piercing hazards. Many rows of these bushes would catch a car gently as the thousands to tiny twigs break but at the same time it would be nearly impossible for a car to drive back out of the thicket.

The drawbacks would be that not all plants grow at all venues. I do believe that a botanist would be capable of choosing appropriate plants for most venues. The other drawback is that once a car ruins a a section of bush is cannot be quickly replaced to an as new configuration.

[Ciro Pabón]

Well, what about if the bushes were made of legos or plasticine? Or perhaps a candy mountain?

Now, if you want to arrive to actual figures about the size of runoff areas, you have to use the envelope of trajectories and a friction factor.

G-G diagram, basis of possible trajectories, Charlie


I suppose I'm "ruining" discussions based on opinions, because, sadly, in engineering you HAVE to measure things and arrive to properly designed objects: you know, wishful thinking is not the base of design.

That's why we have to have a certificate to be able to design, like doctors need one to operate: people's lives depend on your ability.

Original ideas are not allowed, original work it is.

So, if you actually measure the friction factor of twigs and arrive to a solution that proves that cars will stop before they hit something or somebody, be my guest.

Once you do that you have to show the owner of the track that your solution is cost efficient and spectators are not located one mile away from the track because that's the distance cars need to be stopped. That's why leca or gravel is not used anymore.

In case someone is interested on why paved runoff areas are used, well, why don't you read the experts? It must be the fourth time I post the following text, copying and pasting:

I don't see why asphalt runoffs are a matter of opinion. They are necessary.

The fact is that leca (gravel) traps are dangerous.

"Gravel traps on road racing courses should be paved over so drivers can steer, brake and recover" -- John Fitch --

Now, if you know a little about barriers, you know who Mr. Fitch is and then you agree with him. If you don't know who he is, perhaps you can find very quickly.

Jhon Fitch in the 60's before receiving the Kenneth Stonex Award from the Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, for his lifelong contributions in the field of roadside safety


Now, from a really old TRB magazine, I find this (which I've already posted five years ago, pardon me for being so insistent):

"The entire series of tests on gravel traps indicate a deceleration of only 0.5 G, or the rate of moderate braking for a passenger car.

The full scale study determined that even this modest rate does not begin until the car has slowed to 50 mph. This compares to a 3 to 4 G braking capability for Formula One cars on a paved surface. Then there are the lesser problems of cars being eliminated from races due to damage caused by the gravel, or by simply getting stuck."

Transportation Research Record 1233, 1989, Design and Testing of Roadside Safety Devices

1989. It's not exactly yesterday's news.

So, if you wish to decelerate mildly (and wildly) a car, use a gravel trap.

Is that or invention a new barrier: it's probably easy to do, why should we waste time with expensive tests and fancy university professors?

[Moxie]

I can't speak for everyone else who posts in this forum, but I would whole heartedly agree that proper studies should be performed before any of these amateur ideas (including my own) are implemented. A little casual brainstorming and bull$h1t may just be the trigger that gives one of the pros a good idea.

I believe that in this thread I posted a response that stated that I have no problem with the runoff areas. Allowing the cars to run back on is the problem. This problem can be easily solved with fair and consistent application of rules regarding leaving the racing surface. Unfortunately F1 and the FIA have proven capable of administering neither fairness nor consistency.

[strad]

gravel has a history of making cars flip

[mep]

That is really how you ruin tracks and even worse the racing on them.
http://i.imgur.com/mbDP0SK.jpg

Its fine to have tarmac run off areas for safety but we need to realise that its better to have a stripe of low grip surface in between. This can be real grass or artificial grass. If the design is done a little smart then there are no steps either. The tarmac can have some inclined ramp on its sides. Its really that simple!

[theblackangus]

I'm going to jump in with a very non traditional idea...

Bushes! Carefully chosen bushes like arbor vitae or boxwood. These bushes are composed of lots of tiny twigs rather than thicker branches that could become piercing hazards. Many rows of these bushes would catch a car gently as the thousands to tiny twigs break but at the same time it would be nearly impossible for a car to drive back out of the thicket.

The drawbacks would be that not all plants grow at all venues. I do believe that a botanist would be capable of choosing appropriate plants for most venues. The other drawback is that once a car ruins a a section of bush is cannot be quickly replaced to an as new configuration.

Funnily enough, my local track was sold, and the new owners planed soy bean everywhere that was not track.
A few cars went off this last event and the soy certianly stopped them much faster than the old mowed grass, and no one had any damage to their cars from incidents. Also in the places where people did go off the soy was mostly undamaged too except where torn up by tires.

Sadly this isnt likely a good use for a variety of reasons.
1. I would guess a motorcylcer would get pretty beat up sliding through all that stuff.
2. As you said the effictiveness is degraged some on each use, which likely isnt really an acceptable trade off.

Not very scientific, however there was some real world results.

To Ciro's point:
There would need to be alot of testing of anything besides paved run off, as we have billions of hours of testing how brakes and tires work on various types of pavement and that is pretty flawless.

The only issue with pavement I see is how do you help someone when the car is not able to brake properly?
Pavement is pretty poor in those scenarios, and that is something I would like to see improved.

Pavement helping really assumes that the car *can* brake when on the paved run off. I would like to see a solution that can help both scenarios. IMHO it would seemt that the order of importance to stop a vehicle would be as such:
1. Help stop vehicles in a state of failure (no brakes, upside down, etc).
2. Help stop vehicles that are under control/mechanicaly sound but have overshot.
3. Any beneficial effects to help spice up the racing.

[CBeck113]

Simple idea: FiA creates reentry points in every turn. The runoff zones can be asphalt, but if the driver doesn't use the reentry point, he gets a penalty (drive through?). Advantage: no compromise on safety with very low costs involved...and the judges have a bit more work. Everybody happy? Didn't think so...
my other idea would be triangular curbs, which drop down when you drive over them from the track side, but stay up from the other, forcing the drivers to use an entry point...expensive, lots of work on every track necessary, and could be dangerous if the driver thinks he can save it but can't...

[SectorOne]

Here´s my alternative, green is astro-turf, black is very abrasive asphalt.
If the driver feels he will overshoot he can pick one of the black lines to slow down, the astroturf lines are there to stop driver´s keeping high lateral loads and shoot back on the track. Now he has to slow down on the black stuff enough so that he won´t get loose control over the car as he tries to navigate back on circuit again.

so instead of a fairly high speed u turn outside the track limits it will be more of a V shape where he slows down, turns the car and safely makes his way up on the circuit again.

[beelsebob]

This is a terrible plan. There are several routes straight to the accident that don't involve any running on tarmac at all. This would be a driver killer.

[SectorOne]

There are several routes straight to the accident that don't involve any running on tarmac at all. This would be a driver killer.

you´re talking about if a car has crashed into the barrier already and another one is heading straight for it?

[beelsebob]

There are several routes straight to the accident that don't involve any running on tarmac at all. This would be a driver killer.

you´re talking about if a car has crashed into the barrier already and another one is heading straight for it?

No, I'm talking about a car who's driver loses control at 33% of points in that corner. At 33% of points, the car is going to go straight on, passing only over astroturf, and straight into the barrier at high speed.