38 replies to this topic

[Pingguest]

The Canadian Grand Prix officials have done some modifications to the Circuit de Gilles Villeneuve, including moving the wall at Kubica's crash site closer to the track.
http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/67966

Couldn't that be an alternative to the current trend of having one mile run offs and chicanes that kill the character of all tracks? A couple of years ago I had the same sort of idea after watching some high speed Indycar crashes on US ovals. On an oval there is no room for runoff and the wall is directly near the track. In case of a crash most cars hit the wall sideways and hence in a relatively better angle of impact. From that point of view I doubt whether Ayrton Senna's crash would had been fatal with the wall directly near the track.

What's your view on it?

[Imperial]

My view is if they're gonna do that then why not just hold all the races at Monaco, Canada and Valencia?

[Ross Stonefeld]

Originally posted by Pingguest
The Canadian Grand Prix officials have done some modifications to the Circuit de Gilles Villeneuve, including moving the wall at Kubica's crash site closer to the track.
http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/67966

Couldn't that be an alternative to the current trend of having one mile run offs and chicanes that kill the character of all tracks? A couple of years ago I had the same sort of idea after watching some high speed Indycar crashes on US ovals. On an oval there is no room for runoff and the wall is directly near the track. In case of a crash most cars hit the wall sideways and hence in a relatively better angle of impact. From that point of view I doubt whether Ayrton Senna's crash would had been fatal with the wall directly near the track.

What's your view on it?

Senna would have simply hit the wall at a higher speed and the same angle.

I'm not sure how the Canada modifications would have changed the angle of Kubica's crash.

[ATM_Andy]

Large runoff areas are considerably safer.

[potmotr]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld


I'm not sure how the Canada modifications would have changed the angle of Kubica's crash.

Didn't the angle of the Kubica wall mean he hit it square on? The modifications mean the angle will be less.

[Andy Donovan]

Originally posted by potmotr


Didn't the angle of the Kubica wall mean he hit it square on? The modifications mean the angle will be less.

He hit the main wall square on, but that was because he clipped another bit of wall by a marshal's access point with his front right wheel first which changed the direction the car was pointing. I imagine they've changed the location of this gap in the wall as well as the angle of the wall itself.

[D A]

For the NASCAR Busch race last year (in August) they had added a piece of concrete wall contected the two pieces already in place (looked pretty much like a patch job). That modification made the wall's angle quite close to that of the actual track. To hit it at any kind of angle you'd already have have been going quite a bit sideways.

[Risil]

Depends entirely on the angle of the corner. Walls right next to the track are safe in ovals because corners are invariably wide, shallow things that reduce the angle of impact. The Rio roval and the original Homestead layout were very dangerous even by oval standards, due to their road course style turns being given oval style crash protection.

Tamburello was too sharp to make this a viable solution, although IMO it would have been far better to make the corner a little faster and straighter and moved the wall closer to the track, than implement the chicane they did, which helped effect the total destruction of the circuit's flow in 1995. And obviously putting the barriers closer to the track at somewhere like the Old Pits hairpin would be mental.

[cheesy poofs]

Originally posted by D A
For the NASCAR Busch race last year (in August) they had added a piece of concrete wall contected the two pieces already in place (looked pretty much like a patch job). That modification made the wall's angle quite close to that of the actual track. To hit it at any kind of angle you'd already have have been going quite a bit sideways.

It was indeed a patch job for the NASCAR race, but it was the right thing to do considering what had happened there with Kubica.

You can see the 2008 modifications here

Similar changes were also made to the corner where Panis crashed in 1997. The tyres were removed and rails were added in right on the outside of the corner. So if a car loses it there, they'll be slamming rigth into the rails. These changes were made following a Star Mazda race in 2006 where a car was lauched in the air after ramming the tyre wall.

[saudoso]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld


Senna would have simply hit the wall at a higher speed and the same angle.

I'm not sure how the Canada modifications would have changed the angle of Kubica's crash.

That's not true, the further the wall the more head on you hit.

I think a wide runoff is good if it's far enought for the cars even missing a couple of wheels can have a big speed reduction over it. If not the wall by the track is better in this sense.

But the close wall has the bad habit of reflectiong the cars back to the track, and then we have a pile up.

[ex Rhodie racer]

F1 are not the only ones using the tracks. Walls close to the circuit would be a killer for motorcycle racers. Runoff is what is needed, by both. Not walls.
The problem in Senna´s crash was lack of runoff. The barrier/wall was ridiculously close considering the speed they were doing around that particular curve.

[archstanton]

Originally posted by cheesy poofs

You can see the 2008 modifications here

modification looks good to me ... just long enough to prevent finding that kinked piece of wall with the same nasty head-on angle that nearly did for robert, but still enough room left elsewhere.
plenty of other parts of the canada circuit are also up-close to the walls, so i can't see it being too much of a problem.

[Mat]

im surprised they didnt install a SAFER barrier there. It seemed like a good position and opportunity to try it at an F1 track.

[Mat]

Originally posted by ex Rhodie racer

The problem in Senna´s crash was lack of runoff. The barrier/wall was ridiculously close considering the speed they were doing around that particular curve.

Senna's problem was a suspension arm piercing his helmet.

[ex Rhodie racer]

Originally posted by Mat


Senna's problem was a suspension arm piercing his helmet.

Something that probably wouldn´t have happened if the wall hadn´t been there. Or do you think the suspension arm flew off before he made contact?

[Ross Stonefeld]

So he should have crashed into the river instead?


He also had a neck/skull fracture, iirc.

[Hippo]

If you don't want to ban motorcycle racing from existence walls are an absolutely no-go.

[pingu666]

real shame there isnt a safer barrier there tbh
how mobile are the safer barriers? i presume u could take them out easily enough if needed... for bikes u could put in soft foam blocks, airbags or similer in place or infront of the safer barrier

[ex Rhodie racer]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
So he should have crashed into the river instead?

Ross, that was a silly statement and not one I would have expected from you. Of course he shouldn´t have crashed into the river instead, but because it was impossible to extend the runoff due to the river being there in the first place, a curve such as the one that existed should never have been constructed at that point.
Senna wasn´t the only one to die at that particular spot. Pat Evans was killed there in 1976, and there were others I believe.
Solid objects, when hit, either by competitors on 2 wheels or 4, are the primary cause of fatal accidents. The only way to prevent contact is to move the solid stuff as far from the sides of the road as possible. And if (as in Imola´s case at the spot where Senna crashed) it´s not possible, then alterations should be made to the track (as has now been done) so that the danger is eliminated, or at the very least, considerably reduced. Having said that, I don´t believe chicanes are the answer, but there are other alternatives. Chicanes are just cheaper.
It´s really not rocket science you know.

[Mat]

Originally posted by ex Rhodie racer

Something that probably wouldn´t have happened if the wall hadn´t been there. Or do you think the suspension arm flew off before he made contact?

You could re-create Senna's accident over and over to the minute detail and i bet you would struggle to have the suspension pierce the helmet again.

[bogi]

It's all about angle of attack, Kova showed us that run off area means nothing when you hit at 90°.

[ex Rhodie racer]

Originally posted by bogi
It's all about angle of attack, Kova showed us that run off area means nothing when you hit at 90°.

Not true. What it showed us is that there must be an effective way to slow the car down before impact if the barriers are close relative to the speed. Of course the angle of impact will have an effect, but speed on impact is far more serious.

[saudoso]

Originally posted by ex Rhodie racer

Not true. What it showed us is that there must be an effective way to slow the car down before impact if the barriers are close relative to the speed. Of course the angle of impact will have an effect, but speed on impact is far more serious.

Wha helped it getting really ugly was the car getting airborne as soon as it left the track. That was a big mistake in the kerb/runoff design.

[ex Rhodie racer]

Originally posted by saudoso


Wha helped it getting really ugly was the car getting airborne as soon as it left the track. That was a big mistake in the kerb/runoff design.

Yes, you are correct. That certainly played a role.

[MikeTekRacing]

Originally posted by ex Rhodie racer
Of course the angle of impact will have an effect, but speed on impact is far more serious.

i think this is the same thing
don't look at it as speed on the speedometer (relative to the asphalt) but as speed relative to the wall...this takes into account the angle

[Andy35]

I guess in 2050 they will have totally electric F1 cars so, given that, they are driving a vechicle powered by a large electric motor and you could have it generate a magnetic field. If the car's magnetic field had a north polarity and the barriers were made of metal but with a south polarity of varying amount depending on the speed at that point of the circuit, you would never have contact. Being 2050 it would be computerised so would work out the strengths required to safely bring the car to a stop at lowest possible g force whilst still avoiding contact.

Of course, with all the cars being north poled then it could cause a problem with overtaking, the expression "wheel to wheel" might be all too true.

Regards

Bored at work ( obviously! )

[Option1]

More walls?!?!?

Closer walls?!?!?

You have got to be kidding me! The reason I hate street circuits is that they're nothing more than tunnels lined by walls. There is zero character of whatever city they're racing in left (Monaco being the sole exception). Too ****ing ugly to be called racing.

Oh and everytime there's the smallest of accidents everything has to be either full course caution or red flagged because the track is now covered in debris which has all been nicely contained within the walls.

Dumbest idea since voting for Max.

Neil

[wingwalker]

You guys are reading too much in this. One wall was moved closer to the track, cause in that particular case, it makes it safer. It's not like FIA has changed safety policy. Duh.

[stevvy1986]

Originally posted by Option1
More walls?!?!?

Closer walls?!?!?

You have got to be kidding me! The reason I hate street circuits is that they're nothing more than tunnels lined by walls. There is zero character of whatever city they're racing in left (Monaco being the sole exception). Too ****ing ugly to be called racing.

Oh and everytime there's the smallest of accidents everything has to be either full course caution or red flagged because the track is now covered in debris which has all been nicely contained within the walls.

Dumbest idea since voting for Max.

Neil

stop whingin,if its that big a deal to ya,either stop watchin motor racin or come up with ur own ideas,send em to the FIA n see wot they say-can guarantee urs wudnt be as good as theirs-sayin every little accident even the smallest 1s need a safety car,red flag etc,rubbish,look at kimi n sutil,that didnt require a safety car now did it?whingin sod

[Option1]

You haven't watched much racing on street circuits have you stevvvy boy?

Neil

[Option1]

Originally posted by wingwalker
You guys are reading too much in this. One wall was moved closer to the track, cause in that particular case, it makes it safer. It's not like FIA has changed safety policy. Duh.

Agreed. I was responding to those who wanted to go the whole hog.

Neil

[ex Rhodie racer]

Originally posted by Option1
You haven't watched much racing on street circuits have you stevvvy boy?

Neil

He hasn´t attended much school either by the looks of things.

[stevvy1986]

been watchin F1 n other series for years,so yes i have,n yes i have been to school thanks,mayb ya can come up with a better attempt of an insult than that next time?

[ex Rhodie racer]

double post. sorry

[ex Rhodie racer]

Originally posted by stevvy1986
n yes i have been to school thanks,mayb ya can come up with a better attempt of an insult than that next time?

That wasn´t an insult, it was a joke, hence the smiley.

[F1Fanatic.co.uk]

Originally posted by Mat
im surprised they didnt install a SAFER barrier there. It seemed like a good position and opportunity to try it at an F1 track.

Good point.

[Dmitriy_Guller]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld


Senna would have simply hit the wall at a higher speed and the same angle.

I'm not sure how the Canada modifications would have changed the angle of Kubica's crash.

That's not true, that's not how geometry of it works. The farther away the wall is from the point where you lose control of the car, the sharper the angle of the eventual impact will be.

The highly non-technical explanation is that the farther away from the wall you are, the more length of the corner you cover before you hit the wall, giving the wall "more time" to curve back at you.

The technical proof of it is fairly obvious if you draw a diagram with two versions of the wall, and measure how a car going straight on is going to impact them, and at what angles (the angle is the angle of the car's trajectory and the line tangent to the wall at the point of impact). You won't even have to do the math to see that the angles are going to be different, it will be fairly apparent to the naked eye, but doing the math will confirm what your eye will be telling you.

[cheesy poofs]

I certainly think that the changes made to track in Montreal are for the better. Remember, this course is made of public roads and comes with all the inconveniences for this type of circuit. Nothing like the Kubica crash had ever happened there in almost 30 years.

[johnny yuma]

The thing that kills is the sudden deceleration.That is unlikely to occur with a glancing blow,but almost certain to occur at 90 degrees (head on).Of course the speed matters ,but that is obvious.On fast sweepers oversteer usually kicks in and the car will spin onto the infield,so you need runoff, but not too soft or multiple rollovers can occur,however brake failure or wet-track understeer or a bike over MAY mean a wall can give a glancing blow if beside the track but a fatal deceleration if set back somewhat ,AND SQUARER TO THE TRACK,DUE TO LACK OF LAND AREA.Spectator areas must be somewhere.

Newton tells us a body will try to keep moving in the same direction unless acted on by another force.A fully oversteering car,although out of driver control,IS STILL TRYING TO GO STRAIGHT AHEAD,it just wants to rotate while its doing it which slows it down very quickly on tarmac..An understeering car is more of a problem it's looking for something to hit right away,and it is preferable to be at a very shallow angle.A hunk of rubber or foam in front of a solid barrier is not going to make any difference at 150+ kmh head on.