You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
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.
Bump - there's a race this weekend 'ya all know!! 🙂
Or is everyone busy in other threads! 🤣🤣
Cost cap increased a tiny amount - not as much as they (Karen) wanted, so a few less canapes for the VIPs...
https://the-race.com/formula-1/f1-approves-proposal-to-increase-budget-cap-to-fight-inflation/
And stop bigging up Silverstone as an F1 race - I've spend many a boring, windy, cold, wet day at Silverstone - always hated that place, don't really know why I went! And even fell asleep in the Stowe grandstand during an F3000 race way back in the Alesi days!
I've always had it crossed of my list of F1 races I'd attend. 🙂
I might actually have to go one day.
I was there for this classic BTCC race though - stood at Luffield where the Cleland/Soper crash happened...
...and Murray we miss you!
Ferrari are looking quick
Ferrari are looking quick
...I'm sure the fine team back at Maranello are busy working out how they can shoot themselves in the foot again.
Just not right - Ferrari with a quick car and winning races! 🙂
Danny Ric out early again
Considering Lando missed most of FP1 with a burning back-side that really is poor. Aussie V8's are beckoning...
Yeah, I've always been a big Ricciardo fan (honestly, who could dislike the guy), but this year has been shocking. Indycar seems the obvious thing for next year.
Although Lando is only 15th! 🙂
Yeah, maybe McLaren should just switch to Indycar. They seem ok at it.
****
Oof.
It was looking good too!
Oh dear Merc! That’s the other one in the barriers now. Was really hoping they’d be right at the pointy end for the sprint tomorrow. Busy/expensive evening in the garage for them.
Yep!
Pace looked good, setup issue or just fluke that it was both cars? Neither driver are particularly crash prone.
Ooooooooof.
So that's Hamilton stuck behind Alonso again 🙄
Pace looked good, setup issue or just fluke that it was both cars? Neither driver are particularly crash prone.
Yeah I'm gonna say unlucky, looked like a gust of wind both times
Danny Ric to Formula e I reckon. Its the diva coming back for the mercs
George - “Lewis has crashed”
Engineer - “Copy that”
George - ………
At least this qually is only for the toy race tomorrow so not all is lost.
Alonso's starting from the pit lane! That massively improves Hamiltons's chances
I think there’s a simple answer to this Leclerc - be faster!…
https://www.racefans.net/2022/07/09/leclerc-we-cant-afford-to-do-tomorrow-what-we-did-today/
…there’s something about Lecerc I just don’t take to. If you want top dog status, be top dog.
That was an underwhelming sprint. If they want excitement they should probably do them all at Silverstone 😀
Odd loss of the rear end on the Mercs in quali… didn’t hear mention of gusting wind on the commentary.
Was up early getting a road ride in, been working around the house and in the garden but now im settling down in the pub with a triple meat Sunday roast about to arrive, a cold Amstel in my hand and the F1 about to start...
Perfect!
Hmmm - lots of overtaking today, but somehow a bit zzzzzzz, 😴😴😀
Verstappen is so fast right now
How are Ferrari managing to be behind Verstappen even though they have a much faster car lol
Charles is a lucky boy!
That was another great race, kept me on the edge of my seat right to the end!
Some very ugly scenes at the grand prix this weekend
Sounds about right.
https://twitter.com/EngineMode11/status/1546235533403295745
Good, but not great race, though I enjoyed the midfield a lot. Haas are doing well.
I'm getting pretty frustrated with the penalties again this year. I hoped it would be better but it's not.
E.g. Perez/Rus on lap 1.
Perez turned in early/aggressively, then squeezed Russell on the exit, George can't just turn in more at that point. There were two car widths at least on Perez left through the corner.
It's similar to Verstappen/Hamilton last year at Copse.
Also Sainz got nothing for hoofing it while off the track to avoid losing a place to Russell
One other thing, check out the marshal around the 24 second mark who just drops the fire extinguisher and goes toddling off while the other poor guy tries to multitask putting a wedge under the wheel and fighting the fire on his own
For me the Perez/Russell incident was a racing incident, first lap driver's sorting themselves out, bound to happen.
Aye, totally agree on the Russell/Perez incident. Even if it was later in the race I would have put it down as a racing incident, never mind during lap 1 chaos! I think Perez has been right on the edge of the aggressiveness line (a very tricky balance) for some time but think he overstepped yesterday and ultimately paid the price. As has been said, there was plenty room outside of Russell and he can't just magically tighten his line mid-corner when already at the limit, if he applied more right hand lock he would've just drifted further out left as he understeered anyway!
I found it odd how easily Verstappen let Leclerc pass given how competitive RB were in the sprint on saturday. He has been surprisingly calm this year given his antics last season with Hamilton, when you look back at some of the 2021 moves he pulled, like running Hamilton clean off the race track (along with himself!) when trying to stay ahead.
I was a bit worried about Sainz when the camera feed watching him try to get out the car cut as he was struggling. Just as he went to jump out it started rolling back and he had to sit back down as the flames started to go round the cockpit! Not good. I would love to know exactly what failed as it looked like some fairly substantial bits of engine internals made a break for freedom through the engine covers.
Interesting enough race but I just get frustrated at how small the circuit is and the length of the straights. Awful to hear about the disgusting behaviour at the circuit, totally unacceptable for people to have to put up with abuse like that.
I found it odd how easily Verstappen let Leclerc pass given how competitive RB were in the sprint on saturday.
The RB was cooking its tyres, Leclerc noticed that in the sprint race, that's why he was confident about the main race. RB had to pit early, that gave Ferrari a big advantage because they could run longer and then attack later on fresher tyres after they'd pitted. I think everyone expected it to be a one stop race but the tyre degradation was much higher than expected so that worked out well for Ferrari and crippled the RB.
But your photos don’t actually show the point of contact in the Russell/Perez incident. The contact occurs several yards down the road when both cars are on the Left hand side of the track. After your final shots both cars move left and Russell drifts into Perez. That’s why he was penalised.