9 replies to this topic

[bartez1000]

Hello. I have some questions about two Formula One crashes and I hope somebody can cope up with answers. 

 

Both fatal crashes of Ronnie Peterson and Riccardo Paletti featured big fires after initial contact. In both cases the collision point was in front area of car, which makes we wonder: why there was significant spill of fuel?

By late 70s fuel tanks had rubber bags. Also, the monocoques of Lotus and Osella were of narrow design with fuel being stored behind the driver. Damage should not occur in that area.  Were the tanks even ruptured, or maybe some fuel lines failed?

[eibyyz]

The Lotus 78 had multiple fuel tanks, contrast to the 79 which had one.  I can't say for sure,but perhaps the fact that there were more fuel lines involved than usual?

[chr1s]

Also, the type 78 had a hot oil radiator up front too.

[bartez1000]

Indeed, 78 had two side fuel tanks in addition to central one, but still these were pretty far away from front - starting just behind radiators.

Edited by bartez1000, 01 January 2020 - 21:53.

[Nemo1965]

 

Hello. I have some questions about two Formula One crashes and I hope somebody can cope up with answers. 

 

Both fatal crashes of Ronnie Peterson and Riccardo Paletti featured big fires after initial contact. In both cases the collision point was in front area of car, which makes we wonder: why there was significant spill of fuel?

By late 70s fuel tanks had rubber bags. Also, the monocoques of Lotus and Osella were of narrow design with fuel being stored behind the driver. Damage should not occur in that area.  Were the tanks even ruptured, or maybe some fuel lines failed?

 

 

Hi Bartez

 

My first response would be: the impacts in both crashes were not as frontal as they seem. Peterson was driven sideways into the barrier during the melee at the start and then his car burst into flames. If I remember correctly, Paletti crashed into the stalled car of Didier Pironi, fairly head-on but still more on the right hand back of the Ferrari, which swerved to the left and then round after the impact. The suspension and radiators could haven pushed violently back, and ruptured the tank.

 

Second response: structural design of the cars in question, could have played a big role. At the end of the season first driver Jarier was very, very angry with the team because in the Las Vegas-race a wheel came of his Osella, for the third time or so in a row. Regarding the structural strength of the Lotus 78... eh... that is a can of worms. Suffice to say that Lotuses were not the first cars you want to have an accident in. (But in which car one would?)

[Henri Greuter]

The impact of the cars on both Petterson and Paletti  (eery, both their family names starting with the same letter P....) may well have been so severe that a fuel line somewhere within the system in the car came loose or got damaged one way or another and the spilled fuel then hit the hot engine with the known results,

 

Impact energy can be devastating for parts of the car. The fiery Indy 1964 disaster also started with the impact of the car against the wall. Many people believed and were told for a long time that the car in question had two fuel tanks, one on each side of the driver. But the reality was that it had only a single one, on the left side of the car. The car made a 180 degree twist before hitting the wall and thus the fuel tank was on the other side of the driver, not on the side that had the impact with the wall. Nevertheless, the impact was that hard that something in the system broke, leaked fuel and that was it.

 

Particularly in the case of Paletti, my suspicion is going into that direction of thinking. For Ronnie I wonder if the nose radiator wasn't the mail culprit.

[Charlieman]

Dry break fuel connectors were mandatory in F1 from 1971. My understanding is that these would be most effective if the back end of the car was torn away, rather than in a side or indirect impact (which might damage side tanks).

 

Engine oil and hydraulic fluid are both flammable but would require a high temperature to initiate a fire (e.g. fluid falling onto exhaust pipes).

 

IIRC the Lotus 78 had driver operated fuel taps so that drainage could be optimised for handling. Maybe this might have made the system more vulnerable to impact leakage?

 

The most plausible reason comes from Nigel Bennett in "Inspired to design..." where he suggests that fuel leaked from the collector pot. 

[cpbell]

See the following thread which includes details of Ronnie's accident:

https://forums.autos...ed-regulations/

[cpbell]

Further to the above, Peter in the linked thread confirmed that Ronnie's fire was due to the ruputure of a scuttle tank over his legs - the main side tanks were, IIRC, undamaged.

[R.W. Mackenzie]

Unlike Peterson's Lotus, Paletti's Osella did not burst into flames as an immediate result of the impact. Leaking fuel ignited as marshals and rescue workers were attending to him. I was within a few feet of Paletti's car as it was being brought back to the garages. My recollection is that it was far more mashed than it appeared in photos and videos. So it was no surprise to me that fuel had leaked following the crash regardless of the tank layout.

Edited by R.W. Mackenzie, 05 January 2020 - 02:20.