- 21,261
- United States
Did you watch the crash happen at all? The piece of debris that hit him came down from above him.
2016 F1 Constructor tech info/development thread. (READ 1ST POST)Formula 1
- Thread starter LMSCorvetteGT2
- 555 comments
- 42,150 views
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
- 21,261
- United States
I don't see how the speed he was travelling at changes the way the piece of debris that hit him was flying. The car it came off of was also going "oval speed".
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
What the hell is "oval speed", I know what speed is but in all my classes I've never seen the term "oval speed" I'll search my old dynamics book later on about that.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
In this case... just fast
The piece is coming down and travelling in the same direction as the cars but much more slowly. Wilson comes round that corner at what I loosely termed "oval speed" (very fast) and travels into the piece. You see it strike the upper front of the helmet and bounce back up. It doesn't fall cleanly onto the top of the helmet as it would be unable to. If it had that would arguably be survivable - a straight drop onto the helmet is unlikely to be fatal when static and, when moving at that speed, it's going to graze along the top. The impact was more frontal because of the speed of the car, that's clear in the video.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
In this case... just fast
The piece is coming down and travelling in the same direction as the cars but much more slowly. Wilson comes round that corner at what I loosely termed "oval speed" (very fast) and travels into the piece. You see it strike the upper front of the helmet and bounce back up. It doesn't fall cleanly onto the top of the helmet as it would be unable to. If it had that would arguably be survivable - a straight drop onto the helmet is unlikely to be fatal when static and, when moving at that speed, it's going to graze along the top. The impact was more frontal because of the speed of the car, that's clear in the video.
I figured as much considering "oval speed" is just any fast speed section of any race track in the world. As for the description I'm quite familiar with the crash. A drop can't be static though...
It was fatal because it was a hard piece of broken car being launched with equal and opposite force to that of the static wall it crashed into. And thus the now projectile came into contact with a fast moving driver, sort of like how a bird flying at a lesser speed to a quick moving jet hits it with such force it shatters a windshield and injures the pilot or potentially kills if hitting them just right. Which in this sad case was the end result, a freak occurrence hitting the driver just right.
Last edited:
- 44,185
- Blackburn
- Furinkazen_54
In this case... just fast
The piece is coming down and travelling in the same direction as the cars but much more slowly. Wilson comes round that corner at what I loosely termed "oval speed" (very fast) and travels into the piece. You see it strike the upper front of the helmet and bounce back up. It doesn't fall cleanly onto the top of the helmet as it would be unable to. If it had that would arguably be survivable - a straight drop onto the helmet is unlikely to be fatal when static and, when moving at that speed, it's going to graze along the top. The impact was more frontal because of the speed of the car, that's clear in the video.
Name me an instance where that has happened. Because you are making zero sense.
Also if you get struck by anything at speed it will hurt. A coin weighs nothing yet can do massive damage when launched from a human hand. Felipe Massa nearly lost an eye because of a small coiled spring. Take them into account and then maybe, you'll realise the massive blunt trauma in any case and hit a relatively large nose unit which is also pointed in shape will do.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
I quite agree. Your assertion, however, was that the halo wouldn't have worked as the piece hit JW on the top of the head. I'd urge you to look at the video again and note that JW's head is moving towards the piece at great speed. That's why I pointed out the difference between a drop onto a static car and a moving car. I'll repeat that those developing halo feel it might have helped in that accident.
- 13,866
- Adelaide
- Neomone
The halo still feels half-assed to me. If they want protection, then get protection and have a proper canopy. The halo falls into the category of "better but still not as good as it could be because we want to keep calling it open top racing".
If they want to be open topped, then accept the potential danger. If they want safety, do it properly and tell history to go 🤬 itself. We've had revolutions in what the cars look like before, and it's fine. If they need to become open wheeled closed canopy rocketships then so be it. IMO it'd be less of a big deal than them not being wailing banshees that can be heard from kilometres away and make your ears bleed from close range.
If they want to be open topped, then accept the potential danger. If they want safety, do it properly and tell history to go 🤬 itself. We've had revolutions in what the cars look like before, and it's fine. If they need to become open wheeled closed canopy rocketships then so be it. IMO it'd be less of a big deal than them not being wailing banshees that can be heard from kilometres away and make your ears bleed from close range.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
Not really sure where to put this, but James Allen has spoken with the guy who designed the Jordan "Bitten and Hisses" liveries and asked his opinion on the 2016 designs:
http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2016/02/weekend-debate-f1-liveries-are-they-really-boring-this-year/
His conclusion? Only Williams stands out. Everyone else is variously underdeveloped, unfocused, or hesitant to commit to an identity.
http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2016/02/weekend-debate-f1-liveries-are-they-really-boring-this-year/
His conclusion? Only Williams stands out. Everyone else is variously underdeveloped, unfocused, or hesitant to commit to an identity.
Robin
Premium
- 16,799
- United Kingdom
Rumours that VW might still enter F1 under Lamborghini. Would be cool of it happened.
http://wardsauto.com/industry/formula-1-bid-behind-lambo-shuffle
http://wardsauto.com/industry/formula-1-bid-behind-lambo-shuffle
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
- 10,835
- Belgium
- bramturismo
What a load of rubbish, all this talk about liveries being bland and boring.
How is that Jordan any more interesting? It's just plain yellow with some black here and there, and some eyes on the front. Pointing to 1999, the Ferrari was plain red, the Williams was an utter mess, so was the BAR. The Minardi was also plain yellow with some blue bits (2000), the Arrows was somewhat interesting, the Prost was plain blue, etc.
I'm sorry, but the liveries are looking just fine, bar the uninteresting Sauber.
- 9,554
- Vermont
- catamount39
Well he still has a point...even though I disagree about the Manor being boring and about the Ferrari.
Last edited:
- 21,261
- United States
He does have a point, even if he comes across a bit snide about it. Manor looks like they just took tape and laid it out down the car and decided that's how they wanted their colors divided.
I didn't realize Williams had been running a matte finish either. Looked to me like it was more of a semigloss.
I didn't realize Williams had been running a matte finish either. Looked to me like it was more of a semigloss.
- 10,835
- Belgium
- bramturismo
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
Yeah the McLaren logo on the side pods being exaggerated to give this 80s esque look that only a Benneton (circa 85 or 86) livery designer would love, along with the old analog watch numbers... And a car that can't decide between, black or gunmetal grey.
- 5,551
- Controls set for heart of sun
- GTP_RogerTheHors
If I was head of PR at a major company looking to be a title sponsor for an F1 team, I'd want a livery that popped out. Turqoise, pink (sufficiently pale to distinguish it from the Ferrari) or yellow would seem like obvious colours for me, as would an Arrows style orange (ahem McLaren).
Obviously it depends a lot on corporate image etc., but at the end of the day I'd want people to be noticing the car and seeing the logo. The current batch don't do that. Even the Williams struggles. I don't think sponsors are getting their moneys worth.
Obviously it depends a lot on corporate image etc., but at the end of the day I'd want people to be noticing the car and seeing the logo. The current batch don't do that. Even the Williams struggles. I don't think sponsors are getting their moneys worth.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
You know obnoxious colors turn off a client as much as being noticed gets their attention in the first place. If I saw a car running around in pepto bismol pink, I'd probably not care much for what they're sponsoring and more about why they had to be the ugliest and most annoying car on the grid.
Also if title sponsors had issue with livery they'd easily take control of that area, look at what Santander and Malbaro do. Look at what Vodafone wanted when with McLaren, even Petronas do it with Mercedes. If you are a title sponsor you get say, but if you're their for minimal exposure, you shouldn't dictate the car in any fashion.
- 2,938
- Shrewsbury
- pezzarinho17
This is slightly interesting, the Sauber C35 has got a split rear wing mount. Presumably to clear up the "Y125" flow to the monkey seat.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
This is slightly interesting, the Sauber C35 has got a split rear wing mount. Presumably to clear up the "Y125" flow to the monkey seat.
Do you mean Y250 vortex that come of the wing and can be seen usually during high downforce sections in cold weather or rain? For those interested here is an article I saved some time ago on the matter https://tianyizf1.wordpress.com/tag/y250-vortex/
Other than the lower camera pods, which I was not aware could be placed so low and the revised rear section, nose (which I had posted earlier in thread before these pictures) and intake/roll hoop are different. Also the side pods lost some fat too, many people seem to think the car is unchanged but even looking at it from end of last year to now it's gone over some revisions. Also seeing as last years car didn't get tons of dramatic changes until about Singapore this is probably the most updated work they've done in a while.
Not bad I think it may run better than what I initially gave it credit for.
Beyond this, the data from last weeks test revealed more interesting things than just the reliability of Mercedes, info that people who are wanting to see a fight will probably be worried about. Mercedes not only had the greatest distance, but best acceleration time over 400m and best top speed, being 9kph faster than Ferrari, and that was on a tire that wasn't the best to do these things in compared to Ferrari. Now Ferrari had the best sectors and overall lap times, but Force India showed why Ferrari should still worry quite a bit after Hulk ran the ultras and came with in 8 or 7 tenths of Vettel's best lap. This isn't to say Ferrari wont be strong, but it will be picking their battles rather than outright every gp. And Horner believes the new quali will only shake up races the first couple times in use, until teams figure out ways to get around the randomness. And with it not being used from the get go, this will only help Mercedes early on.
Other than that...here are some interesting things also seen last week. http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/tech-analysis-the-big-trends-of-f1-2016-675335/
Like the Toro Rosso S-duct
Also interesting test data, that people should give a read
https://f1metrics.wordpress.com/2016/02/28/first-look-at-the-2016-cars/
- 2,938
- Shrewsbury
- pezzarinho17
No, Y125 is the section along the centreline of the car which is relatively free of aerodynamic rules when compared to the rest of the car. I can't find a link that directly references it, but it is the loophole that allows the teams to run the monkey seats at the rear above the crash structure. I think the loophole exists to help the teams fit the rear crash structure, but the same loophole was also integral to the double diffusers in 2009.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
Do you have any info on it, I've only ever seen Y250 aero, interesting stuff either way, I'd just like to learn more. As for the monkey seat, I recall it being a remedy for the lack of blown diffuser, and double decker or so I thought. The pylon itself isn't really innovative it's just the Y structure used before the idea to run through the exhaust pipe came along last year that everyone is moving to.
- 2,938
- Shrewsbury
- pezzarinho17
This was the only place I could see the reference for the area in the which the monkey seat resides. It is Y75, not Y125 (Y125 did seem much wider than it is, I knew it was something near 100 though!)
http://www.sportskeeda.com/f1/formula-one-what-is-a-monkey-seat
The Y pylons we have seen before were upside down, so 1 central mount on the rear wing plane which separated to mount on the chassis both sides of the exhaust. I think we have seen a rear wing with 2 upper mounting points in F1 before, but the mounts remained separated on the chassis as well.
http://www.sportskeeda.com/f1/formula-one-what-is-a-monkey-seat
The Y pylons we have seen before were upside down, so 1 central mount on the rear wing plane which separated to mount on the chassis both sides of the exhaust. I think we have seen a rear wing with 2 upper mounting points in F1 before, but the mounts remained separated on the chassis as well.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
Okay that makes sense Y75 I've seen on Scarbs, but when you said 125 I thought you just thought half of 250 or something and stuck with it. Anyways, now that it's settled, could you try and provide images for what you're explaining to make it easier. I have an idea, but obviously I'm not sure if it's right until you post. Cause I was pretty sure the lotus solution in 2014 (asymmetric pylon) was connected by a single mount to the chassis as well. And some weren't even connecting the pylon to the chassis but the rear of the engine cover in fusion with the Monkey seat.
I feel the single mount through the rigid pipe allows for more rigidity, I don't really see it working in the same way as the Y-Lon did. It was inverted to help extract airflow from the engine cover. The Sauber solution has me confused between the Y75 and Y100 area, and how it will actually improve rear balance.
Also thanks again for contributing very useful technical stuff to the thread, it's a great read 👍
- 2,938
- Shrewsbury
- pezzarinho17
Sorry for the poor sketch details, but I thought it would probably be the best way to explain my thoughts on this!
The single pylon is used by the majority of teams IFAIK, and I think it was Williams that had the twin pylon design top middle. The Lotus offset design mounted centrally under the rear wing plane, and then curved to the left (viewed from the rear) of the exhaust exit.
The "Y-Lon" that McLaren used before being picked up by Manor again mounted centrally under the wing and then split just above the exhaust to form a semi ring around it. Sauber's however mounts on the body work above the exhaust, and then splits immediately up to 2 rear wing mounts.
My first thought on seeing Sauber's design was that it should allow a fairly clean airflow between the mounts in the Y75 area where the monkey seat resides. I'm not sure why they wouldn't just keep the mounts separate though and use the dual pylon method? Looking at it again for this sketch as well, I actually think the monkey seat might be fed with air coming in from the sides which will help to be pulled centrally by the curvature of the pylon...
Let's just settle on "I really don't know what I am talking about, but it was an interesting design feature for me"!
The single pylon is used by the majority of teams IFAIK, and I think it was Williams that had the twin pylon design top middle. The Lotus offset design mounted centrally under the rear wing plane, and then curved to the left (viewed from the rear) of the exhaust exit.
The "Y-Lon" that McLaren used before being picked up by Manor again mounted centrally under the wing and then split just above the exhaust to form a semi ring around it. Sauber's however mounts on the body work above the exhaust, and then splits immediately up to 2 rear wing mounts.
My first thought on seeing Sauber's design was that it should allow a fairly clean airflow between the mounts in the Y75 area where the monkey seat resides. I'm not sure why they wouldn't just keep the mounts separate though and use the dual pylon method? Looking at it again for this sketch as well, I actually think the monkey seat might be fed with air coming in from the sides which will help to be pulled centrally by the curvature of the pylon...
Let's just settle on "I really don't know what I am talking about, but it was an interesting design feature for me"!
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
Depending on who you are...this might disgust you or it might make you happy. Either way it's quite telling when Mercedes say this http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/story/_/id/14868779/mercedes-tempted-make-fifth-engine-performance-special
The fact they can debate this with the team circle just shows how far ahead they are and know so before Melbourne. The kind of dominance that scares engineers on opposing teams at night, when they try to get some sleep.
The fact they can debate this with the team circle just shows how far ahead they are and know so before Melbourne. The kind of dominance that scares engineers on opposing teams at night, when they try to get some sleep.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
I don't know that it's settled... surely he's saying exactly what every other team is thinking; after Melbourne they'll know if they can continue with their 4-engine plans and keep a "banker"?
ESPN
Similar threads
