Have to agree, the roll hoop appeared to fail way too quickly. It was good to see him mostly going through the gravel backwards then sideways, even with a ballistic rated visor I wouldn't have wanted to be going into that face first.
Roll hoops definitely shouldn’t fail catastrophically (obviously there will always be a level of force where anything will, but it’s not like this car went flying like the old Le Mans Mercedes could), and it was quite stomach-churning watching that car slide along the ground without one.
Mind you, I’ve (long before the Halo was ever thought of) driven a Formula Renault and I’m so tall that if I’d flipped it, even the roll hoop wouldn’t have been any use anyway—I think if you drew a line from the top of the hoop to the top of the nose cone, the line would have gone down my nose 🙂
I think the role of the roll hoop (sorry) has changed from when it was the structure that protected drivers, to part of the group of structures that protect drivers.
I’d say the safety measures worked together to save his life.
Yes, but I don’t believe they did so in a way that they’re intended to.
Before the Halo was invented the roll hoop was basically the only protection in this type of incident, and that protection relied entirely on it staying intact. I can’t believe for one second that anyone said “well now we’ve got the Halo we should design the roll hoop to fail on impact”.
It’s not in a place where you need energy absorption. It’s in a place where you need the closest thing you can get to a safety cell in an open seat car, which means needing the utmost structural integrity.
Interesting. I hadn't realised the roll hoop had failed in the way it did, that picture of the car on the back of the flatbed is scary. I'm certainly of the view that it should have been more robust and not failed so easily.. but then again I am not an F1 safety engineer!
I think they do need to look at these 'blade' roll hoops (which I've never been a fan of).
Yes they may pass all the tests, but a blade can never be as strong as a triangle.
I imagine that they will analyze the accident like they did Grojean's to see if the crash structures need to be beefed up. One complication is that a car in a real crash will usually hit things at unpredictable angles (like Grojean's, for example), usually spinning and rolling so that the forces on the structures will be extremely complex. Designing a roll-hoop to handle a simple vertical load probably isn't so difficult, but designing one to handle a car skidding upside down and spinning around will be difficult without making it extremely heavy.
Bez
Yes, but I don’t believe they did so in a way that they’re intended to.
Before the Halo was invented the roll hoop was basically the only protection in this type of incident, and that protection relied entirely on it staying intact. I can’t believe for one second that anyone said “well now we’ve got the Halo we should design the roll hoop to fail on impact”.
It’s not in a place where you need energy absorption. It’s in a place where you need the closest thing you can get to a safety cell in an open seat car, which means needing the utmost structural integrity.
👆 wot he said
the-muffin-man
I think they do need to look at these ‘blade’ roll hoops (which I’ve never been a fan of).Yes they may pass all the tests, but a blade can never be as strong as a triangle.
Yes, exactly. The teams will always try and make a part as aero/lightweight as possible while still passing the tests, so maybe the tests need to be reconsidered.
Ps. there's a vid here of the smash, sometimes the TV footage insulates us from how violent the impacts are
Looking at photos like this there is still roll-hoop there. Perhaps it got worn down as it slid along the ground, rather than failed immediately?...
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
“well now we’ve got the Halo we should design the roll hoop to fail on impact”.
Did it fail in an impact, or because it was scraping along the concrete and then the gravel? Or did it fail on impact after it was weakened because it was scraped along the ground. Those are different events, aren't they?
The outcome ultimately needs to be that the driver walks away, which luckily he did, I would imagine that he FIA will analyze it and make changes accordingly
Did it fail in an impact, or because it was scraping along the concrete and then the gravel? Or did it fail on impact after it was weakened because it was scraped along the ground. Those are different events, aren’t they?
Yes, sorry, I was a bit over-specific in my phrasing. And looking at more photos now, maybe the hoop has been lowered now that we have the Halo. (Can’t say these regs are something I’ve paid much attention to.)
The outcome ultimately needs to be that the driver walks away, which luckily he did, I would imagine that he FIA will analyze it and make changes accordingly
Agreed. It’s good that there’s a degree of redundancy. But undoubtedly there would have been less luck involved if the hoop had remained intact, and as you say, the FIA will no doubt get on the case.
Obviously Autosport have been reading the thread 🙂
Mandated roll hoop design incoming . . . (and no bad thing imo, assuming you can do all the aero you want around it)
From that Autosport article, the Alfa Romeo/Sauber uses a blade type roll structure instead of a hoop. Apparently this saves weight and has aero benefits. My guess is that a hoop will be stronger and distribute the forces better so an obvious thing would be to mandate a hoop and outlaw blade structures.
The roll hoop / blade thing is the natural consequence of defining a rule, defining how you will test it and then asking some very clever people with very different objectives to implement it. They will design and implement it so it gives them maximum benefit with minimum issues whilst still complying with the rule and passing the test. You need to make the rules or the tests cleverer.
Both cars (VW deiselgate) and electronic devices (Samsung TVs?) have been designed to comply with rules and pass tests measuring their efficiency. The trouble was that the engineers knew what the tests were and designed the products to behave in a very different and specific way as soon as they recognised the test conditions.
It was not technically illegal as the cars / TVs change how they function regularly and quite correctly depending on a number of different events they sense but it was quite obviously against the spirit of the rules. I suspect the blade type roll bars will also be judged the same way and 'tested' out of existence.
Zhou's crash was an absolute horror show. I went cold watching it even though i knew he was okay. Genuinely amazed he walked away without a scratch.
What a fantastic race overall though. Delighted for Carlos in the end
It was not technically illegal as the cars / TVs change how they function regularly and quite correctly depending on a number of different events they sense but it was quite obviously against the spirit of the rules. I suspect the blade type roll bars will also be judged the same way and ‘tested’ out of existence.
Absolutely, and it's all part of the game isn't it, like das, f-duct, s-duct, brake-steer, flexwings etc. I'd just rather they didn't play it with safety structures! As Mashr says, a mandated design/off the shelf part wouldn't be the worst thing.
richmtb
Full MemberZhou’s crash was an absolute horror show. I went cold watching it even though i knew he was okay. Genuinely amazed he walked away without a scratch.
What a fantastic race overall though. Delighted for Carlos in the end
Yes well deserved, in fact all three on the podium would have been deserving winners!
Wonder what Binotto was saying to Charles afterwards 🙂
Absolutely, and it’s all part of the game isn’t it, like das, f-duct, s-duct, brake-steer, flexwings etc.
Some things are legitimate innovations (brake steer, for example, was done openly and wasn't actually a steering system), others (flexiwings, for example) are cheating. The purpose of flexiwings is to disguise that they are using a moveable aerodynamic device. The flex is designed to be non-linear so that it flexes only slightly when tested at the specified load but then enters a non-linear phase above the test limit. The regulations state that the aerodynamic surfaces must be mounted rigidly, flexiwings are a deliberate attempt to evade that. Passing the load test doesn't mean the car is legal, it means that the cheating wasn't detected. Dieselgate was the same, passing the test didn't mean the cars were legal, it just meant that the illegal behaviour was disguised.
Wonder what Binotto was saying to Charles afterwards
"Button it youth".
multi21
Wonder what Binotto was saying to Charles afterwards
No Pudding.....
Wonder what Binotto was saying to Charles afterwards
Seen a few different sources on twitter/IG who could lip read the italian and basically translated it as binotto telling Charles basically, "don't say anything", regarding the pit strategies and keeping charles out on the hard tires in the post race interviews.
Of course this is from social media, so could be completely incorrect.
[i]Dieselgate was the same, passing the test didn’t mean the cars were legal, it just meant that the illegal behaviour was disguised.[/i]
The rules said that different levels of pollution were given different categories.
The tests determined the level of pollution emitted and therefore the category.
The cars confirmed tot he test and therefor the category they were assigned.
Not condoning it and it was clearly against the spirit of the rules but it was the rule makers who failed to implement their intent in the correct manner.
A different example perhaps - A school was fed up with parents turning up 20-30 minutes late to pick up their kids. At 60 minutes the school was allowed to report the parents but before that it was not defined. The school implemented a rule that if you had not collected your child within 20 minutes they would charge £10 and then report you at 60 minutes. What could go wrong?
Parents realised that £10 for an hours child minding was a bargain and all turned up after 55 minutes, handed over £10 and went on their way.
Unintended consequence of the rule making
chainbreaker
Seen a few different sources on twitter/IG who could lip read the italian and basically translated it as binotto telling Charles basically, “don’t say anything”, regarding the pit strategies and keeping charles out on the hard tires in the post race interviews.
Of course this is from social media, so could be completely incorrect.
Actually I found a copy of the leaked audio
link
Not condoning it and it was clearly against the spirit of the rules but it was the rule makers who failed to implement their intent in the correct manner.
The car went into a special mode when it was “driving” but without the steering wheel being moved. It was a blatant go at cheating, not sure how that one is the fault of the rule makers, they also wouldn’t have been repeatedly hosed in court if it was
Wonder what Binotto was saying to Charles afterwards
In the post race interview Charles was asked that same question, he replied "ahh, he was trying to cheer me up". I can't believe he kept a straight face after that line!
Looks like Spa is gone for next year along with the French GP. Over the past good few years Spa and Suzuka are the only 2 that I would go out of my way to watch. I think they said it was to cut down on travel so they are looking to replace them with Kyalami ..........
With Max's issues, a bit surprised there was debris left on the track after a lengthy red flag big enough to do that much damage? I thought the marshals would have checked the circuit, removed any debris etc. before the restart. Came from Gasly's Alphatauri they reckon when he was limping back to the pits.
https://twitter.com/Ayrton12Senna/status/1544071790087086086?s=20&t=I7WfzZHPm3GoTzseCw7yVw
a bit surprised there was debris left on the track after a lengthy red flag big enough to do that much damage?
The debris wasn't from the first crash, the Alpha Tauri's crashed after the red flag period.
[i]Not condoning it and it was clearly against the spirit of the rules but it was the rule makers who failed to implement their intent in the correct manner.
The car went into a special mode when it was “driving” but without the steering wheel being moved. It was a blatant go at cheating, not sure how that one is the fault of the rule makers, they also wouldn’t have been repeatedly hosed in court if it was[/i]
There was nothing in the rules that said your car could not use a different engine mapping based on steering input. They go 'hosed' in court because it was a blatant example of avoiding the intent of the law and no-one could deny that. I can't immediately find the exact details of the legal argument but it didn't say "You are guilty of passing the test we set perfectly but we didn't mean you to do it like that and you are a stinky bum cheater even though we didn't spot this at the time"
From memory the issue was spotted when someone noticed the power/emission figures quoted were different between US and Europe and the US guys wanted the same performance/emissions as the Europeans. It turned out the only difference was they 'cheated' in different ways to match the different tests being applied which gave different final numbers from basically the same vehicles.
The debris wasn’t from the first crash, the Alpha Tauri’s crashed after the red flag period.
Ah, OK. I listened on the radio, not easy to keep up! I knew both Alphatauris spun together after the restart, but thought no contact from the commentary.
There was nothing in the rules that said your car could not use a different engine mapping based on steering input. They go ‘hosed’ in court because it was a blatant example of avoiding the intent of the law and no-one could deny that.
The law concerns the allowed level of emissions. That is checked by a test. The car is required to pass the test to demonstrate that it is legal, on the basis that the test emissions are representative of real-world emissions. Designing a car to comply with the law during the test but not comply at other times means that it is not legal.
The same thing applies to flexi-wings. Aerodynamic surfaces are supposed to be rigidly fastened to the car. Because no structure is perfectly rigid, a load test is used to confirm that it is sufficiently rigid that it's not functioning as a moveable aerodynamic device. Designing it to pass the test but flex much more under operational use means that it's an illegal moveable aerodynamic device.
The same thing applies to attempts to work around fuel-flow limits. Setting the system up to pulse to a higher flow between measurements but then return to the legal level during measurement is not a clever innovation, it's blatant cheating. If a team was caught doing that, a severe sanction would be expected by anyone with any sense of fairness.
Karen arguing that rules are black and white - hmmmmm!... 🙂
https://the-race.com/formula-1/horner-says-no-such-thing-as-intent-of-f1-regs-amid-fia-dispute/
The mounting of the rear of the plank is going to come and bite Red Bull and Ferrari on the arse I think.
“And there’s no such thing as the intent of the regulations. It’s a binary thing.
Says the man who has clearly got something to loose.
Karen arguing that rules are black and white – hmmmmm!… 🙂
And there’s no such thing as the intent of the regulations. It’s a binary thing.
Isn't he saying the regs need to define fully the spec of the car, then adds if you want to define them to the level of detail the FIA are now going into, it would become unmanageable?
But yes, if this is enforced Ferrari and RB (and others?) have a problem.
Yes, see @thols2. The regulations clearly want the plank to only deflect a certain amount, and they go on to define the points that the deflection will be expected to comply. Red Bull and Ferrari have apparently made a mounting that allows the plank to deflect way more than the regulation suggest is allowed, but have done so at a point where it's not measured. and are now shrugging their shoulders.
Standard F1 stuff really
no such thing as the intent of the regulations
The regulations are clear. 3.2.2 says:
all aerodynamic components or bodywork influencing the car’s aerodynamic performance must be rigidly secured and immobile
The way that's measured is secondary. A cars has to comply with all the regulations, so if even it complies with the measurement rule, if it doesn't comply with the principle, it's illegal.
I hear that LeClerc is being reported to the FIA for ungentlemanly conduct, namely trolling Verstappen when he passed Hamilton on the outside at copse.
all aerodynamic components or bodywork influencing the car’s aerodynamic performance must be rigidly secured and immobile
If they don't want things to flex, why not state that explicitly rather than say 'rigidly secured' and 'immobile'?
I think because you can't design a structure like a front wing (for instance) that is affected by aerodynamics that doesn't move in some way. So if the regs. said this can't move or flex in any way, no one would be able to comply.
I think because you can’t design a structure like a front wing (for instance) that is affected by aerodynamics that doesn’t move in some way. So if the regs. said this can’t move or flex in any way, no one would be able to comply.
This is the problem. The only way to define this is to have a test and to pass or fail that test. And as soon as you have a test passing that test becomes the way of determining legality. Anything else would be a subjective measure.
If they don’t want things to flex, why not state that explicitly
Because everything flexes to some extent... so they put limits on the amount of flex allowed.
Because everything flexes to some extent… so they put limits on the amount of flex allowed.
The trick with flexiwings was that they flexed in a non-linear manner. They would flex a small amount up to the load used in the load test but would flex much more once the load exceeded a predetermined amount. For example, maybe the load test used a load of 100 kg and they were allowed to flex 5mm (just made up numbers, I don't know what the actual figures were) so they would design the wing to comply with that, but after the load exceeded 150 kg (for example), the wing would spring back by 50 mm and give a big reduction in drag. Then, when the car slowed down, the load would drop and the wing would spring back and appear to be compliant with the regulations again.
The interesting thing about the redbull floor is that when it corners, it seems to stay flatter to the ground than the other cars. As opposed to for example the Merc, which always drags the outside edge along the ground. You can see daylight under the RB floor often even when cornering.
I wonder if RB have a clever way to twist the floor such that it stays horizontal, regardless of what the suspension/monocoque is doing.
It may still pass the deflection tests as they stand but allow flex when under high cornering load.
What a fantastic spectacle of an event. It was my first ever GP experience and i must admit i kinda begrudged the cost of the tickets (Christmas 2021 presents). By the end of the weekend i thought it was absolutely worth it.
We had full weekend grandstand tickets. My personality just couldnt cope with the free for all of trying to find a spot and keep it for the day whilst crammed in. We were able to walk the full outer ring each day (40km walked) and watched different stages of qualifying etc from a mixture of Hamilton straight, Copse, Becketts etc. Race day was from Copse so we saw the late action 🙂 But missed the crash.
Highlights were Vettel in Mansells old car, red arrows and the rich people waving at us whilst they went around the track on trailers whilst us plebs cheered them on.