- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
I don't know what was damaged, but here a few costs.LM10 wrote: ↑23 Jul 2021, 20:11Horner:
„ Given the severity of the incident and the lenient penalty, we are reviewing all data and have the right to request a review. We are therefore still looking at the evidence and considering all of our sporting options.
The other significant factor is the cost-cap element of this. That crash has cost us approximately $1.8million and an accident like that has massive ramifications in a budget cap era.“
I think you should re-visit your sources before recommending them.darkpino wrote: ↑23 Jul 2021, 10:47I’m very curious what your source is to this?LaplacesDemon wrote: ↑23 Jul 2021, 10:21Unless Max was perfectly rigid and solidly bolted to the survival cell he would not have felt whatever sensors read.
It was a big shunt but people should stop throwing the 51g around because:
a. It does not represent what different parts of the driver's body experience.
b. It is meaningless unless the duration is stated.
I’d otherwise recommend to read the Wiki-page regarding G-forces: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-force If you are interested in some more in depth stuff I can also recommend some study books regarding science/physics, just send me a private message and I’ll send you a list
As last thing I’d like to add: 51G is an absolute number which may or may not tell you anything (regarding your experience on this). I’ve seen some data that this was the second biggest impact in an F1 crash since 2015 with ofcourse Grosjean’s crash of last year being the hardest. Maybe if you can’t put the 51G’s in context, that bit of info will. (I didn’t check the source on it so I’m not 100% sure if it’s right mind you)
Let me begin by saying I have no degree what so everLaplacesDemon wrote: ↑23 Jul 2021, 23:54
Unless Max was perfectly rigid and solidly bolted to the survival cell he would not have felt whatever sensors read.
..
If you keep your arm rigid (for example try pressing your elbow against your body) the system's frequency increases, the period decreases and the dynamic amplification increases.
Doh!
Now i am sure, some would come here and argue, seat absorbed all the impact, the driver sitting on it had no impact whatsoever."A huge amount of credit must go to the safety standards of these cars, the Halo and the barrier systems because the impact was such that it actually broke Max's seat," Horner said.
Thanks a lot for the clear explanation. Let’s be clear I’ll never act or at least want to be interpreted as being the holy grail who has all the information, I just share what is my knowledge and yes I of course can be wrong also.LaplacesDemon wrote: ↑23 Jul 2021, 23:54I think you should re-visit your sources before recommending them.darkpino wrote: ↑23 Jul 2021, 10:47I’m very curious what your source is to this?LaplacesDemon wrote: ↑23 Jul 2021, 10:21
Unless Max was perfectly rigid and solidly bolted to the survival cell he would not have felt whatever sensors read.
It was a big shunt but people should stop throwing the 51g around because:
a. It does not represent what different parts of the driver's body experience.
b. It is meaningless unless the duration is stated.
I’d otherwise recommend to read the Wiki-page regarding G-forces: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-force If you are interested in some more in depth stuff I can also recommend some study books regarding science/physics, just send me a private message and I’ll send you a list
As last thing I’d like to add: 51G is an absolute number which may or may not tell you anything (regarding your experience on this). I’ve seen some data that this was the second biggest impact in an F1 crash since 2015 with ofcourse Grosjean’s crash of last year being the hardest. Maybe if you can’t put the 51G’s in context, that bit of info will. (I didn’t check the source on it so I’m not 100% sure if it’s right mind you)
I have a degree in mechanical engineering and have worked in F1 for most of my adult life.
What I have stated can be easily verified in any standard textbook such as Harris' Shock and Vibration.
If you don't have that handy you can have a look here:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... R66DOCgfzU_
You can think of it in this way:
Let's say you are carrying a cup of tea up a flight of stairs and you are trying not to spill it. Each step you take is an impact load of 51g.
If you keep your arm relaxed (compliant) the acceleration of the cup is much lower and it won't spill. That is because the period of the system is large (low frequency) compared to the period of the impact load.
If you keep your arm rigid (for example try pressing your elbow against your body) the system's frequency increases, the period decreases and the dynamic amplification increases. You will spill the tea because the acceleration of the cup is almost identical to the acceleration of your foot.
In simple words a compliant system needs more time to "feel" a dynamic load.
In this case your foot is the chassis and the cup is the driver's head.
This is the behaviour Tim has tried to explain only that for impact loading the usual plot is dynamic amplification vs period ratio. Transmissibility is used when the loading is cyclic (vibration) but the physics behind these two quantities is exactly the same.
It was a serious crash, I never read somewhere that it’s not. What I did read and even was suggested from the Redbull team that is was murderous, etc, and that 51G by itself would say enough. It is not. Duration is one aspect that is missing, the actual forces to the driver are one (for instance the initial peak could be 51, but before it’s transmitted to the driver, could well be 40. From the other side it could also be higher.darkpino wrote: ↑24 Jul 2021, 09:56Thanks a lot for the clear explanation. Let’s be clear I’ll never act or at least want to be interpreted as being the holy grail who has all the information, I just share what is my knowledge and yes I of course can be wrong also.LaplacesDemon wrote: ↑23 Jul 2021, 23:54I think you should re-visit your sources before recommending them.darkpino wrote: ↑23 Jul 2021, 10:47
I’m very curious what your source is to this?
I’d otherwise recommend to read the Wiki-page regarding G-forces: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-force If you are interested in some more in depth stuff I can also recommend some study books regarding science/physics, just send me a private message and I’ll send you a list
As last thing I’d like to add: 51G is an absolute number which may or may not tell you anything (regarding your experience on this). I’ve seen some data that this was the second biggest impact in an F1 crash since 2015 with ofcourse Grosjean’s crash of last year being the hardest. Maybe if you can’t put the 51G’s in context, that bit of info will. (I didn’t check the source on it so I’m not 100% sure if it’s right mind you)
I have a degree in mechanical engineering and have worked in F1 for most of my adult life.
What I have stated can be easily verified in any standard textbook such as Harris' Shock and Vibration.
If you don't have that handy you can have a look here:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... R66DOCgfzU_
You can think of it in this way:
Let's say you are carrying a cup of tea up a flight of stairs and you are trying not to spill it. Each step you take is an impact load of 51g.
If you keep your arm relaxed (compliant) the acceleration of the cup is much lower and it won't spill. That is because the period of the system is large (low frequency) compared to the period of the impact load.
If you keep your arm rigid (for example try pressing your elbow against your body) the system's frequency increases, the period decreases and the dynamic amplification increases. You will spill the tea because the acceleration of the cup is almost identical to the acceleration of your foot.
In simple words a compliant system needs more time to "feel" a dynamic load.
In this case your foot is the chassis and the cup is the driver's head.
This is the behaviour Tim has tried to explain only that for impact loading the usual plot is dynamic amplification vs period ratio. Transmissibility is used when the loading is cyclic (vibration) but the physics behind these two quantities is exactly the same.
Now back to your explanation, this is indeed very clear and something that I’m aware of but it doesn’t explain why the 51G’s isn’t ‘so bad’ or why people are taking it too seriously. When coming back to your explanation it could very well be that the arm of the driver witnessed less force than the 51G’s talking about but in my opinion that’s not interesting. The interesting part is the head and the body, I’ve worked with drivers who had there seatbelts pretty loose (not very safe) and drivers who wanted them as tight as possible. I assume that in F1 as they are all professionals the belts are always really tight so that makes the body pretty much 1 with the safety cell and therefore the force that the safety cell faces is pretty much all the force the body also faces.
If the belts or loosened a bit you run into way other problems which are not Point of discussing now (imo) as the crash was backwards.
Last thing I want to mention (I think I’m repeating myself but just to be sure). I’ve seen a list of forces measured in F1 crashes since 2015 and only Grosjeans crash with 67G’s (absolute number) was above this crash of Verstappen. I think we all agree Grosjean had a massive crash, but yet here some are talking about the crash of Verstappen as if it wasn’t too bad? The guy had to go to hospital to take a CT scan, they’re not doing that just for fun.
TL;DR: I think we should stop denigrating the crash. If it’s not your favourite driver: fine. But if you truly are a motorsport/F1 fan you’re respecting (in my opinion) every drivers health when it comes to it.
Zero, if you are a Big Tea drinker. May be that's a little over estimation?
Hard to clap with a cup in one hand too
Why rethink it? Cause in your opinion the big budget teams shouldn't face the same pressures as the rest? The knock down effect is people know that a team like Williams will turn a profit in the future. This then makes that team more valuable. It then gets bought by someone with deeper pockets. They then bring up its spending to max CAP levels and hires those layoffs from RBR. Across the board, the lower level teams have been hiring those layoffs.Hoffman900 wrote: ↑23 Jul 2021, 19:43I really think F1 needs to rethink this.
Like I said about Bottas / Russell crash, big crashes affecting some upgrades are one thing, but shunts like these might start getting into the arena of having to furlough / layoff people, and that would be a terrible byproduct of all of this. I don’t care what team it is… if it starts heading down that path, then that is wrong.
The big teams have side projects or possibly even ghost projects to keep flexible, they won’t have to fire people. Small teams not hitting the budget cap is a whole other story. When a HAAS gets totalled, they have to find funds to buy a new car from Dalara or Williams who have to shift their limited resources.Hoffman900 wrote: ↑23 Jul 2021, 19:43I really think F1 needs to rethink this.
Like I said about Bottas / Russell crash, big crashes affecting some upgrades are one thing, but shunts like these might start getting into the arena of having to furlough / layoff people, and that would be a terrible byproduct of all of this. I don’t care what team it is… if it starts heading down that path, then that is wrong.
The accent of Steve Jones!