64 replies to this topic

[MadYarpen]

Look where Kobayashi's head is. Crazy.

 

https://twitter.com/...4/photo/1/large

[CoolBreeze]

Just shows how smart the FIA are..

[stanga]

How close does his head actually come being hit? The perspective on that photo is awkward.

[GrumpyYoungMan]

Could they force a major redesign mid season?

 

But isn't this the problem of any low nose? 

[Diablobb81]

Ass kisser.

[MadYarpen]

Well the perspective is playing some tricks if you look closer (I think williams slid onto chassis, but Kobayashi's head wasn't as close to the wheel as it may seem). Point is the caterham certainly dived under Massa's car, so I guess some concerns designers have came close to confirmation in the first race already.

[Nonesuch]

Given that the photograph was taken straight from the front, that means the photographer was standing behind the run-off area.

 

The photo was therefore taken with what I'd guess would be at least a 300/400mm telephoto lens, and those will always pull things together.

 

That makes it hard to say how close Kobayashi really was to Massa, though of course the 'submarining' that Newey talked about is a potential problem.

 

See: Perspective distortion (photography)

 

Edited by Nonesuch, 17 March 2014 - 10:03.

[crbassassin]

Just shows how smart the FIA are..

 

https://twitter.com/...4/photo/1/large

[undersquare]

The low nose was a curious decision altogether.  Some say it was for rear impacts and some say it was for side impacts, but for side impacts it doesn't need to be THAT low, and for rear impacts it's most often tyre-to-tyre contact that flips the car behind up.

 

And given that the car has a 'rear impact structure' how is it not self-evident that the front impact structure should line up with it?  

 

Not to mention front-to-front impacts where the low nose is going to make it more likely that a tyre of one car will roll up the ramp and be guided into the face of the other driver?

 

It's weird.

[PaulTodd]

 

 

Thing is It's a lot better than car's launching like this.

 

I think you also have to take into account that KOB was riding the floor after lossing his front right anyway so that did aid the car to get under Massa.

[DS27]

How close it came on this particular occasion is not really relevant. Anyone can see that it is possible, and that's what matters.

 

The decision to implement regs that have resulted in low noses is baffling. Surely aligning the crash structures would makes sense.

[SR388]

Thing is It's a lot better than car's launching like this.

I think you also have to take into account that KOB was riding the floor after lossing his front right anyway so that did aid the car to get under Massa.

How is a driver getting his head crushed after rear ending another competitor better than being launched in the air? Don't both carry significant dangers?

Edited by SR388, 17 March 2014 - 12:23.

[slideways]

All the launches I can remember were from the rear wheels flicking the front of the car up and then the air catching underneath it. I can't remember a crash where a nose made contact with the rear crash structure and then went airborne.

So if it's the side impact protection, hows about this for a crazy idea, mandate some kind of verticle plane at the front of the car rather than a freaking harpoon shaped crash structure?

[slideways]

How is a driver getting his head crushed after rear ending another competitor better than being launched in the air? Don't both carry significant dangers?

There was a lot of talk about danger to the head after the Webber flip and then the Wheldon fatal. 

But there have been MANY massive aerials into fencing in Indy with drivers getting away with it. If burying under gearboxes becomes a common thing you'd have to say it's guaranteed to produce a serious injury.

[techspeed]

How is a driver getting his head crushed after rear ending another competitor better than being launched in the air? Don't both carry significant dangers?

Just curious, how many drivers had their head crushed in rear ending another car when all the cars had lower noses than we have now?

[PayasYouRace]

Just curious, how many drivers had their head crushed in rear ending another car when all the cars had lower noses than we have now?

 

...and with the driver's head much closer to the front than now too.

 

 

All the launches I can remember were from the rear wheels flicking the front of the car up and then the air catching underneath it. I can't remember a crash where a nose made contact with the rear crash structure and then went airborne.

So if it's the side impact protection, hows about this for a crazy idea, mandate some kind of verticle plane at the front of the car rather than a freaking harpoon shaped crash structure?

 

Even if you hit square on, if you have a high nose, you'll probably be deflected towards the wheel anyway.

[Lights]

Picture in OP doesn't provide us with a view to actually judge this.

 

Look where Wurz's head is. Now that is crazy.

 

Edited by Lights, 17 March 2014 - 13:35.

[4MEN]

Picture in OP doesn't provide us with a view to actually judge this.

 

Look where Wurz's head is. Now that is crazy.

 

This has nothing to do with low or high noses.

[Lights]

This has nothing to do with low or high noses.

Yep. Damnit. I remembered that differently!

[Andrew Hope]

Crazy theory: racing is always going to be kinda dangerous, everything you do will have unintended effects, so we should just try to make it really safe and hope 20 years since 1994 turns into 40.

[muramasa]

maybe with current car it's easier to submarine from behind due to rear crush structure.

I think set the front nose (tip of crushable structure) and rear crushable structure at the same height is one idea.

[wingwalker]

I think cars worked as designed in the Koba-Massa incident, it's the perspective which makes it look like Koba's head is about to hit the rear tire, as it's been pointed out. If the "submarine" effect is only going to mean the car hit is going to 'jump' for tiny bit it looks like things work just fine and better than with high noses, but we need to see more incidents, saying anything definitive right now is jumping to conclusions.

[slideways]

...and with the driver's head much closer to the front than now too.

 

 

 

Even if you hit square on, if you have a high nose, you'll probably be deflected towards the wheel anyway.

Yes I guess the narrow nose may contribute to that also, hitting and then deflecting the car down one side or the other.

 

It would be interesting to hear the FIA answer a simple question like, why is the rear crash structure so bloody narrow?

[Mohican]

Or the front crash structure ? Would not want to be speared by a Force India, for instance.

[solochamp07]

Kobayashi's front wheel had already been torn off from hitting Raikkonen, so his nose would have been scraping the ground by the time he ran into the back of Massa.

 

Vertically aligning the front and rear crash structures is theoretically effective, until one car's point of contact has an altered height. 

[demet06]

I'm not sure if we can ever "win" this one. There were problems with the high nose ie launching and T-boning, so obviously, the rule change to lower the noses but are they now too low? As we saw with Kobayashi submarining under Massa, it has caused another problem and that's the thing. No matter what height the nose is, there will always be an incident that highlights a different danger and that has always been the nature of motorsport. It has over time become safer but ultimately it can never ever be 100% safe and while we have to accept that, the authorities should still strive to make it as safe as possible.

Perhaps the height of the nose should be somewhere between the high nose and what we have now and of yet an even bigger cross sectional area to maximise the impact area without launching or submarining.

Kobayahi's accident was exacerbated by knocking his right front corner off against Raikonen before hitting Massa but equally the car could have been launched after his right front wheel rode over the top of Raikonen's left rear. It could have been Martin Brundle all over again, only a couple of corners earlier.

[AustinF1]

New nose "submarining" in Melbourne collision?

 

http://msn.foxsports...mfb:fscom:speed

 

[jrwb6e]

Perhaps next year there can be a compromise between the high and low nose.  Make it just high enough not to slip under a diffuser and that eliminates the submarining.  There are risks to either extreme and neither is necessarily safer than the other.

[4MEN]

Big fail.

[Disgrace]

F1 is dangerous, accidents happen. It's impossible to account for every type of accident whereby a low or high nose may have prevented a particular scenario. I don't remember any discussion about the safety of the Brawn nose for instance.

[917k]

Hit anything up the backside at 100 mph + and you get some lift. Less force to Massa in this case, too.

[jjcale]

Wow! ... Newey was right .... again.

[Disgrace]

Wow! ... Newey was right .... again.

 

Was he? One accident (one race at that) determines the verdict?

[scheivlak]

Already the third thread about this IIRC. Merge with http://forums.autosp...-drivers-safety ?

[PayasYouRace]

I'm yet to see exactly how far up the Caterham's nose the Williams went, and if it was actually anywhere near Koba's head. For the moment I'd still rather see this than an airborne car, and no matter what you do the car at the back has to go somewhere. Deflecting left or right would maybe be the best case, though that could result in a ricochet into other cars. Hitting square on and not going anywhere could result in spinal injuries from greater acceleration, but would be extremely difficult to achieve. Even left/right deflection would be pretty tough.

[undersquare]

Surely it's stunningly obvious that when cars have front impact structures and rear impact structures they ought to line up.   Then they absorb the energy of the speed change, by deforming.

[TecnoRacing]

 Then they absorb the energy of the speed change, by deforming.

 

 

Actually, I found it odd that the 'pronged' portion of the Caterham stayed fairly intact...

Edited by fer312t, 24 March 2014 - 20:13.

[undersquare]

Actually, I found it odd that the 'pronged' portion of the Caterham stayed fairly intact...

 

Wow yes.  Massive underrun,  The carefully crash-tested nose wasn't engaged at all.

[johnmhinds]

I wouldn't expect the nose cone crash structure to look any different however high the nose cone design is.

 

It's designed to fully deform in an impact with a solid barrier, not in a a relatively soft rear impact with a car moving in the same direction.

 

I'd rather see a little submarining than another crash like this:

 

Edited by johnmhinds, 24 March 2014 - 20:41.

[undersquare]

I wouldn't expect the nose cone crash structure to look any different however high the nose cone design is.

 

It's designed to fully deform in an impact with a solid barrier, not in a a relatively soft rear impact with a car moving in the same direction.

The FIA nose test is only 33 mph in fact.

[Arry2k]

I wouldn't expect the nose cone crash structure to look any different however high the nose cone design is.
 
It's designed to fully deform in an impact with a solid barrier, not in a a relatively soft rear impact with a car moving in the same direction.
 
I'd rather see a little submarining than another crash like this [snip - picture]

Or Webber's 2010 Valencia crash for that matter.

I suppose the danger is that if there is a larger speed differential at impact a driver could get a diffuser in the face, at least with the regs regarding the rear crash structure as they are currently.

[DampMongoose]

I'd rather see a little submarining than another crash like this:

Hmmm, a launch with the huge runoffs these days or having a diffuser hit you in the face? I'd disagree...

[Arry2k]

Hmmm, a launch with the huge runoffs these days or having a diffuser hit you in the face? I'd disagree...

You are right about run offs, but once the car is airborne, surely the driver becomes merely a passenger and where he and his car end up are in the lap of the gods, so to speak. To my mind neither accident is preferable or acceptable.

The FIA dropped a clanger on this one it seems. They need to back to the drawing board and sort out the crash structure, to prevent a diffuser in the face.

As an aside could anything be learned from the changes made to indycars?

Edited by Arry2k, 24 March 2014 - 21:04.

[Skinnyguy]

Hmmm, a launch with the huge runoffs these days or having a diffuser hit you in the face? I'd disagree...

 

There´s no way the chasing car will end up that deep under the car in front. It´s just over-reaction, I bet no more than 15 cm of the car went under the rear of Massa´s Williams.

 

A launch can happen anywhere, and also end up anywhere. Here you have two very dangerous ones in a minute. In both cases driver´s head went closer to stuff than in this crash. Not only that, it wasn´t too far of taking down a marshall´s post or the car going into a wall.

 

Edited by Skinnyguy, 24 March 2014 - 21:22.

[PayasYouRace]

Surely it's stunningly obvious that when cars have front impact structures and rear impact structures they ought to line up.   Then they absorb the energy of the speed change, by deforming.

 

How do you expect two narrow structures to line up in anything other than the most perfect nose to tail accident? Are you suggesting full width bumpers?

 

 

Actually, I found it odd that the 'pronged' portion of the Caterham stayed fairly intact...

 

[pic snipped]

 

Looks like the Williams barely cleared the chassis step.

[DampMongoose]

I'd say by the end of the season, we'll have seen more near misses with drivers heads from submarining than takeoffs. As you say takeoffs happen but they won't be more likely this year than others, uncovered wheels are the cause, not noses.

[Atreiu]

There will always be a **** happens possibility of crash for a given set of rules. I'm not more worried now than I was last year or ten years ago.

[saudoso]

 
Have a look at the rear bumper in this image poached from scabrs.
 
You don't need to be Adrian Newey to tell that the low noses will dig in.
 
Kudos to the rule makers!

Edited by saudoso, 24 March 2014 - 21:47.

[PayasYouRace]

Does anyone have any example of a driver getting a face full of gearbox from back in the days when noses were lower and shorter than they are now?

 

I'm yet to be convinced that there's any significant extra risk here. In Australia we saw a pretty high speed differential already. You'd have to have a huge difference to get that far under the car in front, and then it would probably be bad whatever happened.

[johnmhinds]

 
Have a look at the rear bumper in this image poached from scabrs.
 
You don't need to be Adrian Newey to tell that the low noses will dig in.
 
Kudos to the rule makers!

 

The front and rear crash structures aren't designed to stop or slow down car vs car accidents, they are only designed and tested for their effectiveness in accidents involving a barrier.

 

As far as I know no F1 car vs F1 car crash testing has ever been done by the FIA.