Alonso's Crash

[George-Jung]

Yes, Turbo, that's exactly what I'm saying, hence why I find the hurricane comment nothing more but a joke and in reference to what perhaps some media interpreted as they overexergated the wind theory. I'd be quite surprised if any "experts" in this topic ever made such assumptions, nor did McLaren when they voiced the presumption that wind could have played a role. I like to think that here on F1T we have a bit more common sense than that.

I'm not going to make comments on that last line, although its itching .

Well, I think the most important thing we got to know is that Alonso fully recovered and is ready to race. If he ever had 7 tenths, I think mclaren will desperately need them now.

Wasn't it 3tenths?

[Richard]

It was "whatever".

I brought to the team half a second, six-tenths, whatever

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/moto ... 63219.html
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/61742

[SectorOne]

Just to remind everyone what Mclaren said,

‘His car ran wide at the entry to Turn Three – which is a fast uphill right-hander – allowing it to run onto the Astroturf that lines the outside of the track. A consequent loss of traction caused a degree of instability, spitting it back towards the inside of the circuit, where it regained traction and struck the wall side-on. Our findings indicate that the accident was caused by the unpredictably gusty winds at that part of the circuit at that time.’

And Alonso himself,

Alonso: "We had a steering problem in the middle of Turn Three that locked into the right."

[Mesteño]

If anyone prefers to have a first hand testimony of today's conference and explanations:



I find this "three tenths, four tenths" comments in some ways a little bit disrespectful. What Alonso brings to the car I don't think it needs explanation afters ten years of F1.

[Tim.Wright]

For me, Fernando's explanation matches best with the only non negotiable evidence that we have: The skid marks were on a curved trajectory which shows that something was steering the car into the wall right up until the impact.

Not even GPS data is able to reproduce a trajectory with that amount of clarity/accuracy/confidence.

[bdr529]

If anyone prefers to have a first hand testimony of today's conference and explanations:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QImTYW4Zya4

I find this "three tenths, four tenths" comments in some ways a little bit disrespectful. What Alonso brings to the car I don't think it needs explanation afters ten years of F1.

I complete agree for Alonso to say that he's the sole reason the car gained 1/2 second was disrespectful to all the workers at the Mclaren factory
I'm glad you pointed that out, I always thought Alonso was a team player

[lebesset]

if i understand correctly alonso asked for , and got , non standard steering
button examined the data , got in the car and happily drove it ....would i presume that he had the standard steering restored ? he is on record as saying there was nothing wrong with the steering
frankly , on an historical basis , i would place more credence in what button says than what alonso says

[Andres125sx]

The only argument wind ever had was that it might have been a factor, given that high winds were reported by various drivers during that day of testing and similarly to driving a car on the road, strong side winds will force a driver to make (subtle) corrections
(...)
That's as far as what bursts of winds can feel like. No it won't blow you off the track, but it won't be unnoticable.

Sorry but comparing a production car with an f1 to explain how wind can be a factor is absurd.

A production car is a tall car with big areas no matter if the wind blows from a side front or backward, but since it does not produce any downforce front and back wind does change nothing but drag, what is almost unnoticeable, while side wind will literally push the car producing the effect you describe perfectly

But an f1 car does not have any side area so side wind will probably be unnoticeable. OTOH it does produce downforce, so front and tail wind will cause noticeable effects. Front wind will increase downforce but tail wind will decrease it because wind does change airspeed, and thats the important parameter when we talk about aerodynamics.

Ive heard Marc Gene explaining drivers are reported about wind speed and heading (direction) because they must adapt the breaking point, a bit sooner with tail wind or latter with front wind, ahat proves f1 cars are affected by wind.

If it can affect braking perfomance I dont see any reason it cant affect on a high speed corner, specially considering the heavy winds there was that weekend.

But it does affect on a completely different way to production cars

[Edax]

Of course that was the story. It looks now even more like a mess. When did his steering lock happen? Before, after or during when he went wide? Or when he drove over the astroturf??

I think my nose just started bleeding from popping a vain somewhere around my brain... .

I bet he never got close to the astroturf. If he would have crashed 100 meters further, then it could be entirely plausible that he lost it on the astroturf while straightening out the car. But at this point of the corner it would take some freak events to have him so far off line on the astroturf and having him spin violently inwards.

I think that is the reason we're now in the umpteenth page of this tread. This was a strange crash in many ways, and the story of Mclaren just doesn't hold up. It surprises me how many people went out to defend it.

The version that Alonso gave does match all the facts and evidence so far.
- Vettel: The car suddenly turned into the wall
- The Journo: Alonso seemed not in control (with locked steering I guess he could only try to wave the car in the right direction)
- The single brake mark suggesting that he was braking on the limit but not over it.
- the location of the crash.
- the angle of the crash
- etc.

The only thing it doesn't match to, is the explanation of Mclaren. Which is purely based on telemetry.

Of course the discrepancy between the team explation and the driver will be the stuff for speculation, (which will probably fill the next 5 pages; including post which claim that the steering failure story was just to cover up, to conceal the fact that Alonso was briefly abducted by aliens who placed him back unconcious in the car after erasing his memory. .).

For me I just think that Macca needs to higher a better communications person and learn not to release things before having all the information. And with my technical curiosity satisfied I can finally lay this tread to rest.

[Phil]

Carlos Sainz Jr blamed high winds for the crash that brought Toro Rosso's final day of the second Formula 1 pre-season test to an early end.

"It was very inconsistent winds, very high winds, and this was not very easy for the drivers," he said.

http://m.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/117776

EDIT: Decided to edit my post, since it wasn't there to dispute anyone or any post. Just wanted to clarify that my post was merely to point out that bursts of winds are noticable, even in an F1 car, and could potentially influence a driver to a point that it could end in an accident, as it did in Carlos Sainiz case. This however isn't really relevant to Alonso's crash, since he himself disputed that it played any factor in his crash.

[Andres125sx]

Edit: Since Phil edited his post mine doesn´t have sense anymore, so I edit it too

We both agree wind can be a factor, not saying that it was the factor or even a factor on Alonso´s crash, but we both agree F1 cars can be disturbed by wind

What should be obvious for cars so dependant on aerodynamics, I really don´t get the reason some people find funny the wind theories, these are planes that never take off, and anyone who know anything about aerodynamics know wind is the most important factor to consider always, for any type of aircraft. F1 cars are not different since grip depends on downforce, downforce depends on airspeed, and airspeed depends on wind, so wind changes grip, it is this important

[Postmoe]

Yes, Turbo, that's exactly what I'm saying, hence why I find the hurricane comment nothing more but a joke and in reference to what perhaps some media interpreted as they overexergated the wind theory. I'd be quite surprised if any "experts" in this topic ever made such assumptions, nor did McLaren when they voiced the presumption that wind could have played a role. I like to think that here on F1T we have a bit more common sense than that.

In terms of wind, I'm living in the Barcelona area and I can guarantee that minutes before knowing about Alonso's crash I could notice very violent and very isolated gusts of wind, like window flexing wind gusts... so even before knowing about the crash I would clearly notice them, not even thinking about the F1 tests.

So in terms of taking into account these gusts, absolutelly, they must be taken into account. A violent gusts is perfectly caplable of varying your trajectory, and that goes for a bike, a car... anything that does not have a high mass and low profile, and at speeds of way less than 150 kmh.

Obviously those cannot explain the crash and cannot be taken as the only causality factor, but to dismiss them... that is not logical.

[FrukostScones]

Yes, Turbo, that's exactly what I'm saying, hence why I find the hurricane comment nothing more but a joke and in reference to what perhaps some media interpreted as they overexergated the wind theory. I'd be quite surprised if any "experts" in this topic ever made such assumptions, nor did McLaren when they voiced the presumption that wind could have played a role. I like to think that here on F1T we have a bit more common sense than that.

wind theory "overexergated" by the media..?

excerpt McLaren statement 23rd Feb:

Even at this early stage, we have been able to reach some firm conclusions.

His car ran wide at the entry to Turn Three – which is a fast uphill right-hander – allowing it to run onto the Astroturf that lines the outside of the track. A consequent loss of traction caused a degree of instability, spitting it back towards the inside of the circuit, where it regained traction and struck the wall side-on.

Our findings indicate that the accident was caused by the unpredictably gusty winds at that part of the circuit at that time, and which had affected other drivers similarly (eg, Carlos Sainz Jnr).

We can categorically state that there is no evidence that indicates that Fernando’s car suffered mechanical failure of any kind.

they should have said: our findings indicate that we don't know what caused the crash, maybe it was due to the gusty winds at time at the circuit

McLaren told us the "wind theory" as near conclusion not the media.

[George-Jung]

I find this "three tenths, four tenths" comments in some ways a little bit disrespectful. What Alonso brings to the car I don't think it needs explanation afters ten years of F1.

Plz, chill the F out dude.. I am a hugh fan of the guy.. you should be able to spot a joke, when one is being made.

[turbof1]

For clearity it was a joke. Some mockery was involved, but not towards Alonso but towards Mclaren. Let's not get too sensitive either. Just rejoice he's back!