Edax wrote:turbof1 wrote:Topic's first post:
What do you think caused this outcome? A concrete wall surely contributed, but is it possible that F1 cockpit protection is not as effective on the angle of Alonso's crash?
Could crash structures be modified to improve their performance for a wider angle? The relatively small damage to the car means there was less energy dissipation, can it be that suspension arms are too stiff and do not dissipate energy efficiently?
I think F1 has a very good place to test lateral crashes so we have plenty of comparison material.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rdd5bNF_20
Looking back at these video's I do get the feeling that the suspension got a lot stronger. It is hard to quantify based on pictures. But If you look at the suspension arms of the BAR that crashed the same race and todays McLaren then it does seem that the suspension arms are beefier and better angled to withstand a lateral impact.
http://richardsf1.com/wp-content/upload ... AR1999.jpg
http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/ima ... cgr4t5.jpg
Another indication would be the amount of suspension failures due to impact with a wall or a car. I have no numbers so this makes it subjective, but I have the idea that suspension failures are becoming more rare. And if they fail it is often just one member like an upright or the connection at the wheel which fails, not a collapse of the complete structure.
nice post, thanks for that overhead shot, that's a very rigid point.
probably the entire field had to be made 'maldonado-proof'
ok but seriously, they indeed seem much stronger than before. Interestingly, i remember there were so many comments on how Formula E cars were so fragile at the suspension - personally i agree to a certain point, but i also think we're accostumed to the 'rigidness' of F1 cars.
Stronger suspension i think has been the result of a combination of factors; Singapore being a good example. I remember the curbs there launching cars, resulting in back issues and indeed also some suspension failures. After a couple of years there, it seems suspension has been made more rigid to be able to withstand this stuff. I remember Alonso @ Abu Dhabi i believe 2 years ago? Going really fast off the track and taking a curb which made him fly and slam on the track.
Surprisingly, the car was intact whilst i believe everybody expected this thing to fall apart.
Instead, the only thing hurt was Alonso's back, and the G-sensor also hit a spike.
Perhaps F1's suspension and 'rigidness' is becoming more of a safety issue to the drivers where the cars are so strongly built that the driver gets the punishment instead. Nobody wants flying wheels and noses, but nobody wants drivers getting hurt from 'stronger' cars either. Perhaps the side impact structures also play a role in overall structural rigidness, but i'm not certain on that one.
The materials used nowadays for so many aspects of the car itself probably are more durable and stronger compared to, let's say, 10 years ago. This includes driveshafts, springs, suspension arms, gearbox, and probably more important ; the entire combination of this all. It could play a crucial role in energy transfer.
Let's, in extremes, take a copper [i have no clue if it's ever been used that way, but that's not the point, it's an example] driveshaft, with plastic suspension arms. When this combination hits the wall, the copper bends and the suspension arms break. The energy thus will not transfer through the mounting points or the gearbox to the rest of the vehicle, thus no big G forces to the rest of the vehicle.
You could say the car is able to 'flex' more.
Now let's replace this copper drivershaft and these plastic suspension arms with 'high-grade' super-enstrenghtend carbon fibre materials [never mind the reason, pick one, like more constant mechanical grip]. The car hits at the same speed at the same angle the same wall. However, because the material is much stronger, it's 'snapping' point is far higher, and the material's nature holds that it is not flexible. Instead, where the driveshaft would 'bend', and the suspension arm would break, it now gets the shock/energy transferred in the form of a moving 'shockwave' through the material where it seeks to find a way 'out'; through the rest of the machine > resulting in far higher G-spikes.
Seems to me, the search for technological advancement and benefit has reached such a level that the side results have been [hopefully and possibly] accidentally overlooked or underestimated.
The solution?
Imho, i can't imagine it being so hard; there's plenty of data around on material 'break' point [math and science] so imho it should be fairly easy to calculate a maximal acceptable G-shock for the suspension arms/rods/wheel mounts, and mandate that the material breaks or fails at a certain level of energy transfer.
This would take energy away from the driver and 'absorb' a potential crash, too.
Let's for example say that 1 or 2 mounting 'joints' of the suspension arms [on each 'tub'] have this 'break point' installed which would make it snap off, absorbing the energy thus protecting the driver, whilst not totally having the suspension snap off so that there will not be flying wheels.
how does that sound?[/quote]
The wishbones are indeed very strong, with very strong pickup points, and in McLarens case they are very horizontal so all energy almost goes directly into the tub. But from the wishbones to the wall there is also a big bit of magnesium (rim), aluminium (the hub) and rubber (the tire). With a big blow, the rim would have caved. From pics it looks like that the front tire isn't even deflated and the rear rim got severed by grinding along the wall. With a big impact the rim would collaps (or the hub), the sticky rubber from the deflated tire would get caught between wall and rim/hub and would shear off the front suspension and act like a crash structure. Or Alonso is so incredibly unlucky that he hit the wall 3 or 4 times bang on the rim, with the wheel flat to the wall without long enough contact to deflate or catch the well with the tire, or he didn't hit the wall that hard....
