Vice-Pesident
- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
A violent crash during Saturday's qualifying session for the Indianapolis 500 had resulted in several fractures for Sebastian Bourdais. A small correction of oversteer sent him straight into the wall, badly damaging his car that immediately burst in flames as well.
Vice-Pesident
Thanks for that jj, I've been meaning to respond for a while.jjn9128 wrote: ↑14 May 2018, 10:39Similar to F1, ~1.2m. Using the Indycar rulebook requires a bit of maths and some guestimates.
The car is 201.7" (5123mm) long and the wheelbase is between 117.5-121.5" (2984-3086mm), so front and rear overhangs combined are 80.2-84.2" (2037-2139mm). The TE of the rear wing mainplane (RWMP) is 161.96-162.06" (4114-4116mm) behind the "O-line" which I assume is the front of the chassis? The "O-line" to the TE of the FWMP is 13.675-13.775" (347.3-349.9mm) so that would seem to checkout using the pic below, and would mean the nose cone is ~750mm long - which it is. Eyeing it, the trailing edge of the RWEP are ~800mm behind the rear axle line, so the front overhang must be ~1.2m. The tip of the nose isn't quite 2x the nosebox length from the front axle line, so that also seems to confirm ~1.2m!!
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DdCWpIPWsAAE6ro.jpg
https://image.slidesharecdn.com/dallara ... 1340186066
Well the maximum length needs to be one which will absorb the impact limits set by the organiser without compromising weight. A shorter crash structure will be heavier because it needs to attenuate the same energy in a shorter distance.Blaze1 wrote: ↑25 Jul 2018, 22:14Thanks for that jj, I've been meaning to respond for a while.
With my design I'm trying to figure out (without calculation, just estimates based on past and current shapes) what the maximum length of the frontal crash structure needs to be. In 2014 the minimum length was 850mm and some team struggled to make it that short with a significant weight penalty because of the newly introduce low nose (but high chassis). In 2017 the minimum length has increased by 200mm to 1050mm. I don't think this was done for safety, more likely for weight reduction purposes.
I'm also wondering whether the rule stipulating that the drivers feet must be behind the front wheel centre line is relevant today.
My understanding is that the drivers feet while resting on the pedals cannot be ahead of the front axle, however the 300mm box can be and this fits in with my question about nose length, because I'd have to compromise nose length if placing the 300mm box ahead of the front axle.jjn9128 wrote: ↑26 Jul 2018, 11:00Well the maximum length needs to be one which will absorb the impact limits set by the organiser without compromising weight. A shorter crash structure will be heavier because it needs to attenuate the same energy in a shorter distance.Blaze1 wrote: ↑25 Jul 2018, 22:14Thanks for that jj, I've been meaning to respond for a while.
With my design I'm trying to figure out (without calculation, just estimates based on past and current shapes) what the maximum length of the frontal crash structure needs to be. In 2014 the minimum length was 850mm and some team struggled to make it that short with a significant weight penalty because of the newly introduce low nose (but high chassis). In 2017 the minimum length has increased by 200mm to 1050mm. I don't think this was done for safety, more likely for weight reduction purposes.
I'm also wondering whether the rule stipulating that the drivers feet must be behind the front wheel centre line is relevant today.
I think the 2017 F1 nose length increase was an aerodynamic rule for the front wing sweep - it moved the tip above the new neutral section position (also 200mm further forwards). The drivers feet have to be 300mm behind the front axle which allows all the suspension and pedal box to be housed behind the front bulkhead - preventing them being pushed into the drivers feet in an impact.
I'm not quite sure I understand...Blaze1 wrote: ↑26 Jul 2018, 11:38My understanding is that the drivers feet while resting on the pedals cannot be ahead of the front axle, however the 300mm box can be and this fits in with my question about nose length, because I'd have to compromise nose length if placing the 300mm box ahead of the front axle.
I thought that was the purpose of the safety box and thought a frontal structure/bulkhead could also prevent intrusion?
The drivers feet/the foremost pedal when inoperative, must be no less than 300mm from the front bulkhead and situated behind the front axle. Currently the front bulkhead of most chassis' is perhaps around 50mm ahead of the front axle, meaning the drivers feet are around 250mm behind the front axle. In my design the drivers feet are at (or just behind) the front axle and the 'safety box' starts from the front axle and ends 300mm ahead of it. With a front overhang of 1100mm (my design), this leaves 800mm for the nose and 700 - 650mm for the front crash structure (The missing 100 - 150mm is the nose tip which wouldn't form part of the crash structure, as it's very acute and could pose a penetration risk). My concept like yours, features both a low nose and a low monocoque vs low nose high monocoque currently used in F1, so this geometry should ease the design.jjn9128 wrote: ↑26 Jul 2018, 20:39I'm not quite sure I understand...Blaze1 wrote: ↑26 Jul 2018, 11:38My understanding is that the drivers feet while resting on the pedals cannot be ahead of the front axle, however the 300mm box can be and this fits in with my question about nose length, because I'd have to compromise nose length if placing the 300mm box ahead of the front axle.
I thought that was the purpose of the safety box and thought a frontal structure/bulkhead could also prevent intrusion?
Aaaaaah. Gotcha!!Blaze1 wrote: ↑26 Jul 2018, 22:09The drivers feet/the foremost pedal when inoperative, must be no less than 300mm from the front bulkhead and situated behind the front axle. Currently the front bulkhead of most chassis' is perhaps around 50mm ahead of the front axle, meaning the drivers feet are around 250mm behind the front axle. In my design the drivers feet are at (or just behind) the front axle and the 'safety box' starts from the front axle and ends 300mm ahead of it. With a front overhang of 1100mm (my design), this leaves 800mm for the nose and 700 - 650mm for the front crash structure (the missing 100 - 150mm is the nose tip which would be part of the crash structure because it very acute a could pose a penetration risk). My concept like yours, features both a low nose and a low monocoque vs low nose high monocoque currently used in F1, so this geometry should ease the design.
Would the HALO have helped?Just_a_fan wrote: ↑20 Aug 2018, 10:48Saw the Wickens crash live last night on BTSport. Was just thinking to myself how silly that they only have 3 corners on the track and still have a crash before the start (Rahal took out Spencer Pigot). Then after they go green again, bang!, that huge accident. Wickens has some pretty big injuries as might be expected and I'm amazed he wasn't killed. A few inches either way and it could have been another Dan Wheldon moment...
Those superspeedway tracks are dangerous places.
SMP press release says broken legs, arm, pulmonary contusion, and an unspecified spinal injury. Looking at images of where his head ended (even with HANS) I image a possible broken neck, though maybe a compression injury to the lower back like Davidson had at Le Mans a few years back. Hopefully it's not life threatening and then hopefully not paralysing, beyond that hopefully it's not career threatening.Just_a_fan wrote: ↑20 Aug 2018, 10:48Saw the Wickens crash live last night on BTSport. Was just thinking to myself how silly that they only have 3 corners on the track and still have a crash before the start (Rahal took out Spencer Pigot). Then after they go green again, bang!, that huge accident. Wickens has some pretty big injuries as might be expected and I'm amazed he wasn't killed. A few inches either way and it could have been another Dan Wheldon moment...
Those superspeedway tracks are dangerous places.
No, his injuries are all impact related. HANS definitely saved him, as did the new side impact absorption structures. Halo would have reduced the risk of his head hitting the support posts in the catch fencing - which didn't happen (or isn't being reported) in this case.
Not in this crash but could well have saved Wheldon - his head hit one of the safety fence support posts and halo might have prevented that impact altogether.WaikeCU wrote: ↑20 Aug 2018, 11:05Would the HALO have helped?Just_a_fan wrote: ↑20 Aug 2018, 10:48Saw the Wickens crash live last night on BTSport. Was just thinking to myself how silly that they only have 3 corners on the track and still have a crash before the start (Rahal took out Spencer Pigot). Then after they go green again, bang!, that huge accident. Wickens has some pretty big injuries as might be expected and I'm amazed he wasn't killed. A few inches either way and it could have been another Dan Wheldon moment...
Those superspeedway tracks are dangerous places.
Yes, I think Indycar needs the HALO more than F1 does imo, because of higher avg speeds and heavier impacts.Just_a_fan wrote: ↑20 Aug 2018, 11:57Not in this crash but could well have saved Wheldon - his head hit one of the safety fence support posts and halo might have prevented that impact altogether.WaikeCU wrote: ↑20 Aug 2018, 11:05Would the HALO have helped?Just_a_fan wrote: ↑20 Aug 2018, 10:48Saw the Wickens crash live last night on BTSport. Was just thinking to myself how silly that they only have 3 corners on the track and still have a crash before the start (Rahal took out Spencer Pigot). Then after they go green again, bang!, that huge accident. Wickens has some pretty big injuries as might be expected and I'm amazed he wasn't killed. A few inches either way and it could have been another Dan Wheldon moment...
Those superspeedway tracks are dangerous places.
