2021 Red Bull Racing F1 Team

[Jolle]

More than that, the belts keep you from moving around. Of course the seat is molded to the driver and supports the torso, but tight belts also insure you are not bracing against the wheel. A six point harness in a single seater really limits movement and it's not possible to strap yourself in, so have a crew person you really like fasten the crotch straps.......

... and more so, with the tight belts the eigen frequency of the whole body (of the spine, around 6 Hz) is shifted upwards, depending on mass and stiffness of the body cell. This way excessive shock vibrations at the eigen frequency of the spine is avoided.

For labor spaces normally the ISO 2631-1 standard is used to evaluate possible health risk due to shock and vibration. I assume this standard (or any labor space related standard) is not applicable for a F1 cockpit...

I'm not sure how tight belts would limit the frequency of movement of your spine as your spine is embedded in relatively soft tissue. Isn't it more to limit the movement of a single vertebrae relative to its neighbour ?
The problem with your head moving relatively to your body is, as I understand, supposed to be taken care of by the HANS. Ever tried one ? It feels really awkward...
As for tight belts... My personal experience is in touring cars. You really want to be slowed down with the car otherwise your chest will take a decent hit against the belts when you slam the brakes. In formula cars however I remember when one of Montoyas friends (I think from Indycar) tried a F1 car. He was not aware of the stopping power and was too losely belted. He slid down the cockpit so far they hardly could see his helmet.

Belts are used for securing you when you are racing, although drivers themselves need it far less then passengers (because they know when a brake point is coming) and the have you push yourself back on the brake pedal. But, this is all a byproduct from the real use of belts, and that is accidents. Started off as a way ri stay secured and not be spiked by the steering wheel or decapetated by the windscreen, now, it’s also to dampen the high impact loads because of the flex/stretch on extreme loads.
After a crash, belts are (just like helmets) scrapped.

In a crash, there is enough flex that you have to calculate for two separate masses when it comes to frequencies and impact forces.

[Big Tea]

... and more so, with the tight belts the eigen frequency of the whole body (of the spine, around 6 Hz) is shifted upwards, depending on mass and stiffness of the body cell. This way excessive shock vibrations at the eigen frequency of the spine is avoided.

For labor spaces normally the ISO 2631-1 standard is used to evaluate possible health risk due to shock and vibration. I assume this standard (or any labor space related standard) is not applicable for a F1 cockpit...

I'm not sure how tight belts would limit the frequency of movement of your spine as your spine is embedded in relatively soft tissue. Isn't it more to limit the movement of a single vertebrae relative to its neighbour ?
The problem with your head moving relatively to your body is, as I understand, supposed to be taken care of by the HANS. Ever tried one ? It feels really awkward...
As for tight belts... My personal experience is in touring cars. You really want to be slowed down with the car otherwise your chest will take a decent hit against the belts when you slam the brakes. In formula cars however I remember when one of Montoyas friends (I think from Indycar) tried a F1 car. He was not aware of the stopping power and was too losely belted. He slid down the cockpit so far they hardly could see his helmet.

Belts are used for securing you when you are racing, although drivers themselves need it far less then passengers (because they know when a brake point is coming) and the have you push yourself back on the brake pedal. But, this is all a byproduct from the real use of belts, and that is accidents. Started off as a way ri stay secured and not be spiked by the steering wheel or decapetated by the windscreen, now, it’s also to dampen the high impact loads because of the flex/stretch on extreme loads.
After a crash, belts are (just like helmets) scrapped.

In a crash, there is enough flex that you have to calculate for two separate masses when it comes to frequencies and impact forces.

Taking the 'weight' on your arms is fine when you weigh 120 lb and at 1 G but it doubled with each G.
Most could handle 240 lb, very few 480 and not even Arnie at 600.

[Jolle]

I'm not sure how tight belts would limit the frequency of movement of your spine as your spine is embedded in relatively soft tissue. Isn't it more to limit the movement of a single vertebrae relative to its neighbour ?
The problem with your head moving relatively to your body is, as I understand, supposed to be taken care of by the HANS. Ever tried one ? It feels really awkward...
As for tight belts... My personal experience is in touring cars. You really want to be slowed down with the car otherwise your chest will take a decent hit against the belts when you slam the brakes. In formula cars however I remember when one of Montoyas friends (I think from Indycar) tried a F1 car. He was not aware of the stopping power and was too losely belted. He slid down the cockpit so far they hardly could see his helmet.

Belts are used for securing you when you are racing, although drivers themselves need it far less then passengers (because they know when a brake point is coming) and the have you push yourself back on the brake pedal. But, this is all a byproduct from the real use of belts, and that is accidents. Started off as a way ri stay secured and not be spiked by the steering wheel or decapetated by the windscreen, now, it’s also to dampen the high impact loads because of the flex/stretch on extreme loads.
After a crash, belts are (just like helmets) scrapped.

In a crash, there is enough flex that you have to calculate for two separate masses when it comes to frequencies and impact forces.

Taking the 'weight' on your arms is fine when you weigh 120 lb and at 1 G but it doubled with each G.
Most could handle 240 lb, very few 480 and not even Arnie at 600.

F1 is just perverse indeed, talking more about other racing series.

[Wouter]

[SiLo]

I can only assume it's for more info on the process, or to gain more insight into how the stewards think overtaking should be done? There is no way they are going to get some more lenient penalty applied to Hamilton after the fact.

[the EDGE]

I can only assume it's for more info on the process, or to gain more insight into how the stewards think overtaking should be done? There is no way they are going to get some more lenient penalty applied to Hamilton after the fact.

I assume you mean tougher? I don’t think red bull are looking for leniency

[Wouter]

.
https://www.krone.at/2466050

Translated by GT.

After the high-speed crash between Max Verstappen and Lewis Hamilton at Silverstone, Red Bull Racing has called in a lawyer to examine the situation. For motorsport boss Helmut Marko, the question of guilt is clear.

Max Verstappen's serious accident following contact with Lewis Hamilton in the high-speed "Copse" corner at Silverstone continues to heat up tempers. Now Red Bull Racing has handed the matter over to a lawyer. "He is to examine what could be done in such a situation within the framework of sports law," said motorsport boss Helmut Marko.

We are lucky that nothing serious happened to Max. The car is broken and the engine probably too. You can't let that get to you. A suspension would be justified," said Marko.

The Austrian is not at all pleased with the 10-second time penalty for Hamilton: "Ridiculous. But maybe it is also the regulations that you are limited. The rules should probably be revised, including the stewards system.

"They could have given Lewis a drive-through, plus a 10-second penalty, but they didn't."

"Max drove on his line, but Lewis should have gone off the gas. You can't hit your competitor on the rear wheel in one of the fastest corners. The smallest contact has fatal consequences. This was an irresponsible action and Hamilton needs to know what the consequences can be."

.
Just as a heads up, this source is considered one of the most unreliable and disreputable outlets in Europe.

It’s basically worse than tabloid journalism. And it’s pretty easy to tell that it’s likely made up, as if it were true, the lawyer’s name and firm would be listed.

The positive is, since it is likely made up, I can actually retain a modicum of respect for Marko.

.

My evidence here to you was deleted. Here is new evidence that the Krone was right.
.

[Sieper]

I don’t see why that should be off the table. You can only succesfully lodge a protest if you have provided information the stewards did not yet use when making the original judgement. Since this has been accepted redbull has succeeded in doing so.

[PlatinumZealot]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E7TkAqNWYAM ... name=large

Very petty to the point of being pathetic, but I see why they are doing it. They have invested over eight years in this WDC and they are doing everything in their power to destabilize Mercedes in order to secure it.

[selvam_e2002]

Please move on and smash Mercedes.

[godlameroso]

Pettiness is arguing over facts when they're shoved in your face repeatedly. And if Mercedes is willing to fabricate tales of "bendy" wings and use their influence on several media outlets to push the point, then call the matter "boring" when it's shown that they weren't on the level. If that wasn't "petty to the point of being pathetic", then some self awareness is in order.

This isn't being petty it's just fighting fire with fire. It seems using politics to your advantage is ok when Mercedes does it. This is par the course, Mercedes is establishing the rules of engagement, Red Bull is merely responding in kind. Otherwise they're just as happy to leave it all on the track where it belongs.

I'm eagerly awaiting Q2 figures for F1, that'll probably tell you which turn these shenanigans will take.

[godlameroso]

Please move on and smash Mercedes.

Yup, they showed their hand, no mercy.

[the EDGE]

Since this has been accepted redbull has succeeded in doing so.

Not true… according to F1.com, Thursdays hearing is to rule on this evidence

The FIA’s International Sporting Code permits a right to review if “a significant and relevant new element is discovered which was unavailable to the parties seeking the review at the time of the decision concerned”.

If Red Bull do not meet that criteria - and it is unknown at this time what they intend to present - the request will be rejected. Should the stewards feel it meets the criteria, the investigation will be reopened.

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/arti ... HVVo4.html

[dxpetrov]

Since this has been accepted redbull has succeeded in doing so.

Not true… according to F1.com, Thursdays hearing is to rule on this evidence

The FIA’s International Sporting Code permits a right to review if “a significant and relevant new element is discovered which was unavailable to the parties seeking the review at the time of the decision concerned”.

If Red Bull do not meet that criteria - and it is unknown at this time what they intend to present - the request will be rejected. Should the stewards feel it meets the criteria, the investigation will be reopened.

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/arti ... HVVo4.html

No, this actually means that the new evidence is valid and they will examine it in order to open the case.
The same was not allowed to Ferrari when they attempted the same after the famous Canadian GP.
https://twitter.com/Vetteleclerc/status ... 35907?s=19

[LaplacesDemon]

Sorry to interject but who had a 3 year head start and when was that?