40 replies to this topic

[tonicco]

"Our cars are very safe. I had the chance recently to be in a Formula One garage, to see the thickness of the tub and compare it to the thickness of our tub. An incident like that at the same speed in F1 would have been both of us out for sure."

I guess that he must know what he his talking about...

Still, after this horrendous accident, I was led to believe that most of the people was considering the CART cars to be pretty unsafe...

[Dudley]

If he's basing the entire thing on "the thickness of the tub" he certinally doesn't know.

[pa]

Zanardi's legs were in the nose section, which snapped off like a pretzel. If I were Tags, I'd be asking some pretty tough questions about CART's chassis integrity before I went around dissing F1 cars. Can't remember the last time an F1 driver lost both legs.

[jpf]

I agree, pa, but I can't remember the last time an F1 driver got T-boned at 200mph either

[cygnus]

Who knew Tagliani was such a great assesser of how safe a car is by checking "the thickness of the tub and compar[ing] it to the thickness of our tub". Sounds pretty logical & scientific to me!

[bira]

Actually the general assessment in F1, in Monza, was that an F1 car in the same situation would have indeed been less safe and if F1 cars were running on that track in that speed, such accident would have ended up with two fatalities. F1 cars are not built for ovals and an accident like Zanardi's won't happen in F1 - not the same velocity, not the same positioning.

[John B]

This has been a year of big Indycar crashes - the 11 car pileup at Atlanta, Gidley at Road America, Zanardi and Tagliani in Germany - and so far the cars have protected the driver from what looked to be very serious impacts.

The only time I can see a similar crash to AZs occuring in F1 would be at the end of a straight, similar I believe to what killed a Trans-Am driver earlier this year when there was a huge car-to-car impact. The most recent leg crashes in F1 I remember are Panis and Schumacher in 97 and 99.

[Sammyed]

Originally posted by tonicco
I was led to believe that most of the people was considering the CART cars to be pretty unsafe...

Today, during the JPM chat, a person asked the issue about the comparison between CART and F1. He just responded that in his experience being at CART and now on F1 car, "F1 cars are quite safer than CART´s"

----

Don´t get confused.

[cjpani]

bira

[madmac]

WWell for for me concerning the satey of both formula you only have to look at one thing, and that is the death rate between the two. Nuff said?

P.S. on ovals loose the bit of grass on the pit lane exit please for gods sake.

[pa]

Originally posted by bira
F1 cars are not built for ovals and an accident like Zanardi's won't happen in F1 - not the same velocity, not the same positioning.

It makes sense that F1 cars aren't designed to survive crashes in circumsance they will never encounter.

Regrettably, this fact doesn't explain why the front of Zanardi's chassis snapped off cleanly instead of protecting his legs in a crash on a high-speed oval, which are pretty commonplace on the CART schedule. I don't think it's a coincidence that, while Zanardi survived the crash, his legs didn't.

[tinman]

Hey maybe someone should let Tagliani drive a car with a very very thick tub (but made of plastic and foam only). He should drive it to the limits and crash it. Tell him it is ok, since his "genius" brain tells him that thicker is stronger by merely looking.

[Crazy Canuck]

Originally posted by bira
Actually the general assessment in F1, in Monza, was that an F1 car in the same situation would have indeed been less safe and if F1 cars were running on that track in that speed, such accident would have ended up with two fatalities. F1 cars are not built for ovals and an accident like Zanardi's won't happen in F1 - not the same velocity, not the same positioning.

I agree that the speeds involved in the accident between Tag & Alex are unlikely to be achieved in F1. But it's totally possible that a T-bone type accident [i.e. same positioning as Alex & Tag] could occur with an extremely high velocity differential. That said, I don’t know enough about tub construction to speculate on the outcome of the same accident in F1 cars. I know that thicker wall does not necessarily mean stronger, so that blows Tag’s statement for me.

Those involved in either series will say that their chassis is stronger than the other series. The real point is that both series can and should learn valuable lessons from this horrific accident and implement measures to reduce the effects of such an accident in the future.

CC

[RiverRunner]

Beat on the CART cars safety all you want,but anyway you look at it,in either a F-1 rig or a CART rig,Zanardi is lucky to be around after a whack like that.I seriously doubt whether he'd be less injured in an F-1 car,and for those that have never seen the two chassis' in person,Tags is right,the CART car has a much thicker tub.I actually checked that out last year at Laguna Seca when there was a McLaren F-1 car in the vendors area.

[ehagar]

Originally posted by pa
Zanardi's legs were in the nose section, which snapped off like a pretzel. If I were Tags, I'd be asking some pretty tough questions about CART's chassis integrity before I went around dissing F1 cars. Can't remember the last time an F1 driver lost both legs.

Sorry, but you have hit a sore point. There are some things you just can't design for. I could not believe the audacity of a reporter who asked an engineer why the WTC fell and how he could not have accounted for it... Are people really this stupid?

Please explain how you make a tub out of carbon-fibre capable of withstanding that kind of shear force?

Four Nascar drivers are dead, they haven't lost their legs.... does that make it any better? Imagine if the tub had not broke, would Zanardi and Tags have lived? Follow the load path of such a structure, it would not be pretty.

Sorry for my rant.

[senninha]

I simply can't imagine F-1 cars on superspeedways.

Would be one death per race...

In fact, Cart cars are almost a tanks (almost 200kg more than F1 cars). At AZ's crash there was no chance of scape with no injury.

[pa]

Originally posted by ehagar
Please explain how you make a tub out of carbon-fibre capable of withstanding that kind of shear force?

I intended to point out that the nose looked as though it has simply snapped off like a pretzel, which is not the kind of thind you'd expect to have happen in a part of the chassis that's designed to protect the driver.

[ehagar]

Originally posted by pa
Originally posted by ehagar
Please explain how you make a tub out of carbon-fibre capable of withstanding that kind of shear force?

I intended to point out that the nose looked as though it has simply snapped off like a pretzel, which is not the kind of thind you'd expect to have happen in a part of the chassis that's designed to protect the driver.

I'm much afraid, I don't think it is possible to do what you suggest, unless they start racing sherman tanks.... Side impact tests on Formula One cars are done at about7 m/s, or about 25 km/hr (doesn't mean much, the 19.1 kJ means more)..... So you are suggesting that a Champcar, going 200 mph, hitting a stationary object at a blunt angle, should be able to able to stay together? Right...

I'm amazed that Burti got off okay...

[HP]

Originally posted by pa
Originally posted by ehagar
Please explain how you make a tub out of carbon-fibre capable of withstanding that kind of shear force?

I intended to point out that the nose looked as though it has simply snapped off like a pretzel, which is not the kind of thind you'd expect to have happen in a part of the chassis that's designed to protect the driver.

Sideways impact on any car is much worse than from front. Ever seen a street car wrapped around a tree? I did, not faster than 80 km/h. Noone survived it

I've seen Zanardis crash, and I simply couldn't believe it. It looked like a rocket hit Zanardis car.

The speed difference was enormous, probably even higher than what Burti suffered at Spa, as there were no tyre barriers.

A CART car weighs 200kg more than a F1, that's roughly 1/3 heavier. In any case the resulting impact of a CART car at that speed is much, much higher, than a F1 car at the same speed.

The only way you could really figure out which car is better suited to withstand those forces is to design crash tests, but in any case any accident at those speeds is bad, and frankly instead of drivers arguing which car would more likely to be able to withstand such a crash, they and designers should well look at the lesson that can be learned from that accident. After all every driver injured or killed is one too much, no matter what the series.

What Tagliani said looks to me more like an attempt to cope with the tragedy in a rational way. If you follow his line of thinking, next thing is if ever something like this happens within F1: "See didn't I say it?". Which is plain cruel.

[ehagar]

Well my point was the impact was practically in shear. I don't know what the shear strength of the carbo survival celss are, but my bet is that they are primarily designed for frontal impact. I'd have to look that up to see what the standards are. But I would think there is NO WAY you could make a safe car stand up to that.

[KenC]

Tagliani probably assumed CART and F1 chassis use similar carbon fiber, kevlar, honeycomb sandwich layup techniques. Based upon that it sounded to me that Tags correlated sandwich width to intrusion protection. I'm not so sure that he's completely wrong. Is it strength of tub we are talking about, or the fact that one tub penetrated another tub before shearing it completely off? If it's penetration and not strength of the tub he's talking about, is he necessarily wrong?

An aside for PA, are you the same guy who posts/posted on the Starnews message board? You sure have the same schtick!

[Crazy Canuck]

People keep saying that CART cars are 200kg heavier and then make the ASSumption that heavier=stronger. Not only is that wrong but the 200kg is not in the chassis alone. F1 uses carbon fiber suspension - CART uses steel, F1 engines are lighter than CART, F1 cars are smaller than CART, carbon brakes in F1 vs steel in CART, blah, blah, blah. Almost everything in F1 is lighter than the equivalent CART equipment. If anything the heavyweight CART chassis would be worse because of the increased kinetic energy relative to an F1 car at the same speed.


CC

[Duck]

I can't help but feel this discussion is rather pointless. Two factors determine the severity of a crash - the direction traveled by both vehicles, AND the speed differential between the two respective cars. In the Zanardi/Tagliani crash, those two afore-mentioned variables COULD NOT have been wider apart. Tagliani struck Alex at almost a ninety degree, perpendicular angle, and with Alex's car almost stationary in position on the track, the speed at which Tags was traveling certainly spelled D-I-S-A-S-T-E-R !! That both drivers survived is miraculous, indeed. Whether the cars involved were CART sleds, or F1 rigs is moot.... that particular scenario spells catastrophy ten times out of ten times.

[palmas]

The only issue on safety we can truly say is about cold tyres. I'mquite shure Zanardi would not be at 90º if tyres were a litle warmer. Avoiding impact is the best way to be safe!

[pa]

Originally posted by KenC
An aside for PA, are you the same guy who posts/posted on the Starnews message board? You sure have the same schtick!

Yeah, I post there, but I limit my posts to the picks competition. So you'll have to explain what you mean by "schtick".

[Hard Driver]

CART cars are stronger than F1 cars. CART requires an extremely strong footbox to survive impacts with walls at 200 MPH. That is why they don't have the raised noses like F1. If is not lack of technology, it is against the rules to have the drivers feet up in the air.

Tagliani hit an almost stationary object at 180+ MPH and walked away! I saw schumacher break his leg in a much less severe wreck in F1.

The problem with Zanardi's chassis was the impact was with a pointed object (the nose) right in front of the sidepod (which extends farther forward for additional protection in a Champ car). But behind the tire. There was nothing but the wall of the tub to take the impact. An F1 car would easily split in half just as easily in a similar wreck.

It was one of those terrible circumstances that only happen rarely but are what make auto racing risky.

Now F1 tracks are safer. And Track safety is definitely something that CART could learn a few things from F1 as far as run off area. However, This point is also taken with a grain of salt because most F1 tracks have been so chicaned up that the real corners that seperate the men from the boys are mostly gone.

CART is more risky than F1 because the cars go faster on the ovals and the tracks are not as safe. But the cars are safer.

[jetsetjim]

Just to clarify a point..

Zanardi's legs were not, as is quoted on this thread, in the nosebox of the car. The regulations state that the sole of the driver's foot must at all times be behind the front wheel centreline. This is the same for any formula car.

As for the comment about the nose box snapping like a pretzel.. The nosebox is a seperate component from the chassis, and is only held to the tub by four pins. These pins are designed to take large compressive forces, but were placed under extraodinarily high shear forces in the accident. The nose therefore snapped off.

I think what people are finding distressing is that the front of the chassis collapsed.... not the fact that the nose box collapsed.

I think what people have to realise is that this was a freak accident, much as in the same way was Ayrton Senna's and Greg Moore's. It was the nature of the accident, and the unexpected angles of impact that caused the horrific injuries or fatalities. No designer or engineer can predict every possible scenario. Would anyone like to calulate the odds on an accident like that happening again?

What everyone has to remember is that nobody can make a car 100% safe.. if they did, then the first thing to dissipate all the energy from the impact would be the driver... and that would cause far more fatalities than there are now..

[KenC]

Originally posted by palmas
The only issue on safety we can truly say is about cold tyres. I'mquite shure Zanardi would not be at 90º if tyres were a litle warmer. Avoiding impact is the best way to be safe!

I didn't see the pitstop, but given the circumstances that this was just a splash-and-dash, with 12 laps, 24 miles to go, I would wager they didn't change tires.

[KenC]

Originally posted by Crazy Canuck
People keep saying that CART cars are 200kg heavier and then make the ASSumption that heavier=stronger. Not only is that wrong but the 200kg is not in the chassis alone. F1 uses carbon fiber suspension - CART uses steel, F1 engines are lighter than CART, F1 cars are smaller than CART, carbon brakes in F1 vs steel in CART, blah, blah, blah. Almost everything in F1 is lighter than the equivalent CART equipment. If anything the heavyweight CART chassis would be worse because of the increased kinetic energy relative to an F1 car at the same speed.
CC

You make a good point; however....

....one presumes that those who state the cars are heavier, presumably mean that since these cars have more kinetic energy at the same velocity as a lighter car, they are designed to withstand those proportionally higher kinetic energies.

Plus, as you note, how the extra weight is distributed is very important. Is the tub, the survival tub, built to withstand the higher kinetic energy of a heavier car? And, if the peripheral components attached to the tub are heavier, wouldn't they dissipate more kinetic energy as they separated from the tub in crash?

As for specific lightened components, I'd just point out on a superspeedway like the Lausitzring, CART also uses carbon fiber rotors.

[KenC]

Originally posted by HP
A CART car weighs 200kg more than a F1, that's roughly 1/3 heavier. In any case the resulting impact of a CART car at that speed is much, much higher, than a F1 car at the same speed.

...

What Tagliani said looks to me more like an attempt to cope with the tragedy in a rational way. If you follow his line of thinking, next thing is if ever something like this happens within F1: "See didn't I say it?". Which is plain cruel.

Is it 200 kilos, or 200 pounds more? I can't remember off the top of my head, but 200 pounds seems to ring a bell. Nevertheless, as you note, it was more kinetic energy.

One thing, most people forget is that Tagliani took a tremendous frontal hit. He was wearing a HANS device as mandated by CART regulations on an oval. Presumably without one in a F1 car under F1 regs, he would have suffered a greater head injury. Perhaps, that is also what Tags was thinking about when he mentioned that "both" drivers would not have walked away from that crash.

Remember, english is not Tag's first language!

[Damop]

Originally posted by madmac
WWell for for me concerning the satey of both formula you only have to look at one thing, and that is the death rate between the two. Nuff said?

P.S. on ovals loose the bit of grass on the pit lane exit please for gods sake.

Be careful - when it rains it purs. Cuz Imola 1994 can still happen again.

[vapaokie]

A few comments. One, Zanardi's tires were not cold. He stopped for gas only. What seems to be the conclusion from the team from news reports only, is that he got on the gas a little too hard, too soon. Just a mistake, that anyone (CART, IRL, NASCAR, F1 driver) can make, that's all. Perhaps Traction control may have prevented his loss of control, but that is pure speculation.

Second, I can name at least 3 F1 tracks (Austria, Monza, and Indy) where a similar t-bone type incident is plausible. At all three tracks, the end of the pit barrier dumps on to a high (180+ mph) speed section of track. It doesn't take too much imagination to see a driver lose it coming out of the pits and coming across the racing line with an oncoming driver having nearly no time to react. The reports are that Tagliani's spotter had pressed his mic button to warn him almost simultaneously as the incident. If the spotter couldn't have gotten word to him in time, neither would a flag waved by a marshal. Let's hope we never see it to find out if the F1 car would hold up. This kind of accident is so rare even in cart that I can't remember the last time it happened. I'll go with what seems to be the consensus of the F1 paddock that the result would likely be similar.

Third, I think it's a little unfair to cast aspersions on Tagliani for his comments. They come from a man that by all rights out to be dead trying to cope with the fact that he came out without hardly a scratch while a friend nearly died. Not an uncommon situation with survivors of road accidents.

On a more pleasant note, it seems that Zanardi has no memory of that day, not warmups, much less the accident itself. He is also keeping his sense of humor. According to teammate Tony Kanann "We were always talking about a driver's weight and how it might give some guys an advantage. Alex looks at me and says: 'Hey man, I'm much lighter now than you are. Jimmy (Vassar) and I just shook our heads and smiled. The old Zanardi was still alive.

[Pete Stanley]

F1 very nearly had an accident like this some years ago, when Berger's active suspension failed coming out of the pitlane at Estoril.

CART has already had an accident like this. In 1994, at the Phoenix 1-mile oval. Hiro Matsushita did a half-spin and ended up broadside on the track, nose pointed towards the infield. Yellow flag went out immediately, of course. But some dumb young rookie wasn't paying attention, and about ten seconds after the flag came out, he hit Matsushita broadside. Debris went flying everywhere. Paul Tracy said he had Hiro's transmission bounce off his helmet.

Fortunately, and amazingly the only injury was a dislocated shoulder for Matsushita, who raced at Long Beach. The rookie hit the car right behind the driver, instead of right in front as Tagliani did.

The rookie, by the way, went on to win the CART and F1 championships.

[Hi Test]

Originally posted by Pete Stanley
CART has already had an accident like this. In 1994, at the Phoenix 1-mile oval. Hiro Matsushita did a half-spin and ended up broadside on the track, nose pointed towards the infield. Yellow flag went out immediately, of course. But some dumb young rookie wasn't paying attention, and about ten seconds after the flag came out, he hit Matsushita broadside. Debris went flying everywhere. Paul Tracy said he had Hiro's transmission bounce off his helmet.

Fortunately, and amazingly the only injury was a dislocated shoulder for Matsushita, who raced at Long Beach. The rookie hit the car right behind the driver, instead of right in front as Tagliani did.

The rookie, by the way, went on to win the CART and F1 championships.

Of course you know that "dumb" rookie was NOT PAYING ATTENTION don't you?

So you are saying that a dummy can win a F1 championship? Or four?

Serious thread - insulting post.

[Bex37]

Very testy.

[Schummy]

I remember some years ago in French GP in Magny Cours, Jax Villeneuve (maybe was DC) spun in the long back straigth and rested 90 degrees in the road. Just for one or two seconds another driver not t-bonned him. It was just a near miss. (Someone can remember it, race or trainning). I thought then that if that crash had happened, perhaps it had been a fatal one because a full t-bonned with that kind of speed is horrific, and phisicly those loads of Gs cannot dissipate by magic.

I say this because I think the Z-T incident can happen in F1 and it would not be a extremely bizarre thing. Others have remembered earlier F1 incidents here. I just hope the random circunstances will be favourable and it doesn't happen actually.

[Laphroaig]

'Thickness' and structural integrety are definately two different things. So is weight and strength. (Just remember the Titanic!)

What's also a big structural difference between an F1 car and an Indycar is the chassis construction.

F1 cars have a monocoque which ends just behind the driver, while in CART the whole length of the car consists of more or less one structure.

My guess is that a T-boned F1 car would break in half just behind the driver. This would be 'good' since it would absorb a lot of the impact. The acting force doesn't have to try to spin the whole car around.

Also about 'stength'. One part of the FIA crashtests consists of a test where the monocoque is smashed into a concrete wall with a speed of about 300 km/h, and then is smashed in the back immediately afetr with about 200 km/h. (cool footage!).
Supposedly the also have side-impact monocoque tests, but I've never seen those.
Rules have changed dramaticaly since Panis' monocoque 'folded' up breaking his legs. Now the 'coque is stronger than the forces the human body can take.

note: F3000 had a T-bone accident last year, at about 180 km/h. F3000 doesn't use an F1 construction, but that monocoque was punctured, breaking the drivers leg. So at 320 it would have come off too.

So we don't really know what would have happened. Does anyone know any more details about FIA crashtests?

[jetsetjim]

If you go to the FIA's website, you can get the full technical regulations for the F1 cars. All the information regarding the crash tests is there, including loads applied, pass critieria, etc etc..

Go to www.fia.com

[Crazy Canuck]

Originally posted by KenC


You make a good point; however....

....one presumes that those who state the cars are heavier, presumably mean that since these cars have more kinetic energy at the same velocity as a lighter car, they are designed to withstand those proportionally higher kinetic energies.

Plus, as you note, how the extra weight is distributed is very important. Is the tub, the survival tub, built to withstand the higher kinetic energy of a heavier car? And, if the peripheral components attached to the tub are heavier, wouldn't they dissipate more kinetic energy as they separated from the tub in crash?

As for specific lightened components, I'd just point out on a superspeedway like the Lausitzring, CART also uses carbon fiber rotors.

Excellent points, very well presented. I appreciate your input as now I have something other than my recently aquired speeding ticket to think about...


CC

[NYR2119935]

Originally posted by bira
Actually the general assessment in F1, in Monza, was that an F1 car in the same situation would have indeed been less safe and if F1 cars were running on that track in that speed, such accident would have ended up with two fatalities. F1 cars are not built for ovals and an accident like Zanardi's won't happen in F1 - not the same velocity, not the same positioning.

agreed

[Pete Stanley]

Hi Test - Hey, I didn't mean to be a jerk. I'm actually a big Jacques Villeneuve fan. I think he's got alot of talent, and I wish he was in a better car.

But yes, on that day he was being dumb. He was, as you point out, not paying attention. In my book, not paying attention on ANY racetrack is dumb, and not paying attention on an oval with 180 + mph speeds and laptimes in the 20 - 30 sec range is especially dumb.

I'm not referring to "dumb" as a permenent condition. He learned his lesson, and learned it well. I'm glad everyone was pretty much OK. It could have been catastrophic. Anyone who wins any championship - or indeed any race - at an upper level of motorsport is very smart indeed.

I would have replied earlier, but I was away for a few days.