Montreal pictures!
#1
Posted 11 June 2007 - 17:37
#3
Posted 11 June 2007 - 18:09
You were right there as it happened.
How the hell did you keep the camera steady?
I was shaking like a leaf for 20 minutes till I heard he was OK
Jp
PS...any shots of A/A folk?
#4
Posted 11 June 2007 - 18:24
Mine should be up soon. I have 500 to look through.
#5
Posted 11 June 2007 - 18:30
#6
Posted 11 June 2007 - 18:43
#7
Posted 11 June 2007 - 18:58
edit: well i just watched the replay from the high-positioned camera. it doesn't look like trulli left kubica enough space at all.
#8
Posted 11 June 2007 - 18:58
Interesting to see that BMW Saubers gills still look 'cooked' from the hot air in that area, but apperantly it's no problem.
About the accident: In the hospital Kubica said it was Trull's fault. Trulli himself said that he felt a blow from behind, which is true as later he had a rear right tyre puncture. Other eye witnesses say that Kubica and Trulli were already driving side by side when Kubica lifted off in the grass. ''Not right'', Trulli states. ''I didn't change my racing line.'' (He's right, on the tv images you could clearly see Kubica coming from behind Trulli - AFCA).
The stewards investigated the accident by looking at three different camera positions. A steward: ''With his frontwing, Kubica slightly touched the Toyota. The BMW must have lost downforce, then the car lifted and crashed against the wall. We cannot point out who's fault it is. From our point of view Trulli left Kubica enough space.
It might not have been his fault, but basically every lap after the accident Trulli asked his team on the radio how Kubica was doing. ''The time of uncertainty wasn't a nice feeling.''
The FIA is investigating the black box of Kubica's F1.07 and his damaged helmet as well to learn about the accident and try to provide more safety for the future.
Kubica had to withstand a force of 28 G (as he weighs 73 kg, that is equal to 2.040 kg !).
Kubica: ''I hope I can drive in Indianapolis, that the doctors will give me the permission (he'll hear it on Thursday). I had a lot of luck. It was a heavy crash and I'm lucky not get hurt.''
He also said he can remember almost everything that happened.
#9
Posted 11 June 2007 - 20:19
Originally posted by AFCA
Kubica had to withstand a force of 28 G (as he weighs 73 kg, that is equal to 2.040 kg !).
Who's figures ?
I would have envisaged a hell of a lot more on the initial impact head on into the wall !!
#10
Posted 11 June 2007 - 20:46
#11
Posted 11 June 2007 - 20:53
I have been shocked by the first one concerning Kubica's crash, you can see the driver's feet out of the car!!!
#12
Posted 11 June 2007 - 21:00
#13
Posted 11 June 2007 - 21:45
Originally posted by AFCA
Kubica had to withstand a force of 28 G (as he weighs 73 kg, that is equal to 2.040 kg !).
28 G? That's not a lot at all.
I guess that explains why he lives. Modern F1's must be extremely good at absorbing impacts.
EDIT: from Wikipedia:
Formula One racing car driver David Purley survived an estimated 179.8 g in 1977 when he decelerated from 173 km·h−1 (108 mph) to 0 in a distance of 66 cm (26 inches) after his throttle got stuck wide open and he hit a wall
#14
Posted 11 June 2007 - 23:25
#15
Posted 11 June 2007 - 23:38
Originally posted by jb_128
28 G? That's not a lot at all.
I guess that explains why he lives. Modern F1's must be extremely good at absorbing impacts.
EDIT: from Wikipedia:
Formula One racing car driver David Purley survived an estimated 179.8 g in 1977 when he decelerated from 173 km·h−1 (108 mph) to 0 in a distance of 66 cm (26 inches) after his throttle got stuck wide open and he hit a wall
Brack has the record with 200+ G. I don't believe it was only 28 G, Massa a few years ago also in the hairpin reached 100 G, and he wasn't unconscious.
#16
Posted 11 June 2007 - 23:44
Amazing RK's feet didn't get severed.
#17
Posted 12 June 2007 - 00:14
#18
Posted 12 June 2007 - 02:10
#19
Posted 12 June 2007 - 02:18
#21
Posted 12 June 2007 - 02:56
#22
Posted 12 June 2007 - 06:21
#23
Posted 12 June 2007 - 09:06
Originally posted by jb_128
28 G? That's not a lot at all.
I guess that explains why he lives. Modern F1's must be extremely good at absorbing impacts.
EDIT: from Wikipedia:
Formula One racing car driver David Purley survived an estimated 179.8 g in 1977 when he decelerated from 173 km·h−1 (108 mph) to 0 in a distance of 66 cm (26 inches) after his throttle got stuck wide open and he hit a wall
Maybe not then, Denis (the doctor in the hospital) said he had a frontal impact of 45 G and 40 G from the side...So with the 28 G it's a bit contradictory.
Anyway, maybe the car might well have had an impact of 100 G or more but Kubica, thanks to all the safety measures, took not even half of that...?! After all he only had a bruised ankle...
#24
Posted 12 June 2007 - 09:10
Originally posted by dbltop
The day-glo red on Kubicas helmet is very good though. Nice pics JHope! My camera is an auto focus Kodak with a 10X optical zoom, half shutter focuses it and full shutter takes the picture. So you focus on a spot and then follow the car to that spot and shoot. There is no trick to it except to take lots of pics and delete the ones that you screw up
Mate, if you took those with a non-slr then you deserve even more credit. The timing on those compact camera can be appalling so getting the sort of close-up shots you have? Brilliant stuff.
#25
Posted 12 June 2007 - 11:24
Originally posted by AFCA
The FIA is investigating the black box of Kubica's F1.07 and his damaged helmet as well to learn about the accident and try to provide more safety for the future.
Kubica had to withstand a force of 28 G (as he weighs 73 kg, that is equal to 2.040 kg !).
Some clarification. Since 1999 an ADR (accident data recorder) is in every car. It records speeds, delay values at impacts and forces etc.
Kubica hit the wall with at a 30 degree angle (with a speed of 285 km/h), and he sustained an average force of 28 G. The second impact (on the otherside of the track) was again hit with a 30 degree angle (but the speed was a lot lower so the G forces weren't so high that time - AFCA). Whiting confirmed this.
Rampf: ''All safety measures worked very well. We anxiously await the FIA results. The peak value of the impact was definately higher than 28 G, you can see that at the damage of the chassis.''
Watkins: ''With such a crash the body and head will always have something. It could be dangerous when you get another crash shortly afterwards.''
BMW asked physiotherapist Leberer to keep a close eye on Kubica the next couple of days and to study the results of the checks the doctors performed in Montreal.
Before 16:00 on Thursday Kubica will need to undergo a test to find out whether he's allowed to start or not. Before the start of the season every driver needs to undergo a 25 minute long test behind a computer. Reaction speed, coordination and logical reasoning are tested. In case a driver has a heavy crash like Kubica, he will need to undergo this test again before he's allowed to step in the car. The results of the tests will be compared, in case they turn out to be too different he's not allowed to race.
#26
Posted 12 June 2007 - 16:47
#27
Posted 12 June 2007 - 17:00
#28
Posted 12 June 2007 - 18:45
#29
Posted 12 June 2007 - 19:00
#30
Posted 12 June 2007 - 19:06
Originally posted by AFCA
Maybe not then, Denis (the doctor in the hospital) said he had a frontal impact of 45 G and 40 G from the side...So with the 28 G it's a bit contradictory.
Anyway, maybe the car might well have had an impact of 100 G or more but Kubica, thanks to all the safety measures, took not even half of that...?! After all he only had a bruised ankle...
I woud think if an F1 car takes an impact of 100G, everything even remotely or rigidly attached to the car, by seatbelts or nuts and bolts will sustain the same deceleration ?
#31
Posted 12 June 2007 - 21:11
#32
Posted 12 June 2007 - 21:18
Originally posted by macoran
I woud think if an F1 car takes an impact of 100G, everything even remotely or rigidly attached to the car, by seatbelts or nuts and bolts will sustain the same deceleration ?
Not exactly... if an element of the package (in this case, the driver) is isolated from the car's body by some shock absorbing material (high density foams of some kind), then this element will have a slightly lower deceleration rate than all the elements that are not isolated from the car's body.
[edited]
Also, when the body of the car itself is shock absorbing (deforming material), the farther an element on the car is from the impact point, the lower the deceleration rate will be for that element.
[end edited]
The driver in today's F1 cars are way better protected than just a few years ago. There is no common measure with the level of protection of the 70's F1 cars.
#33
Posted 13 June 2007 - 02:18
#34
Posted 13 June 2007 - 02:55
Sorry if this question has been asked earlier - but were those taken with digital cameras, and if so, which? I've always had a problem getting good shots of moving cars due to the elctronic shutter on the digital cameras which don't tend to have the same - er - immediacy of the old mechanical shutters on the 35 mms...
Again - very nice pics guys!
#35
Posted 13 June 2007 - 04:30
#36
Posted 13 June 2007 - 05:53
#37
Posted 13 June 2007 - 12:31
#38
Posted 13 June 2007 - 13:08
#39
Posted 13 June 2007 - 15:20
;)
Advertisement
#40
Posted 13 June 2007 - 15:59
#41
Posted 13 June 2007 - 16:57
Thanks!
#42
Posted 13 June 2007 - 16:58
#43
Posted 13 June 2007 - 18:20
#44
Posted 14 June 2007 - 00:41
#45
Posted 14 June 2007 - 01:58
#46
Posted 14 June 2007 - 02:10
#47
Posted 14 June 2007 - 18:19
Nice one!
#48
Posted 15 June 2007 - 03:33
http://img207.images...e=alberscr9.jpg
Car template they use for marking the pitstop lines.
Park Jean Drapeau
http://img169.images...ge=globetn1.jpg
Honda Engineers conforming the measurements of car to standrard in FIA scruteneering area
http://img106.images...ndacheckyg8.jpg
Typical Thursday Renault Walk of circuit
http://img106.images...aultwalkzw7.jpg
Sutil
http://img106.images...aultwalkzw7.jpg
Vettel while giving me autograph
http://img170.images...e=vettelhv9.jpg
#49
Posted 15 June 2007 - 07:29