[Tech Issue] Closed cockpits- Closer to reality then we might think?

[Neil22]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

Why?
Its not a part of the racing surface.
There is a line that is the edge of the racing surface.
Then a curb that is outside the racing surface but you are allowed to use by placing your inside wheels on it,
The sausage curb is then there to discourage people from crossing the real curb and short cutting the corner.
There are other bars there painted in stripes for the same reason.
There is also a clearly defined path inside the judders bars to enable people caught out or late braking to cross the chicane area without causing damage to the car and rejoining on the other side of the chicane.
But of course they can't get an advantage from it and must redress any place gained.

But its not dangerous UNLESS you try to overtake by going off the circuit and then you are at fault and the author of your own misfortune. You may also be the author of someone else's misfortune.
In that case you will get a penalty.

Ditto!!!

[dsg]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

Why?
Its not a part of the racing surface.

It is under the current rules where FIA allow drivers to only have to keep two wheels inside the white line.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by dsg

It is under the current rules where FIA allow drivers to only have to keep two wheels inside the white line.

That doesn't make it part of the racing surface, otherwise using this definition the grass is also the racing surface, which it obviously isn't.

The white line defines the boundaries of the racing surface (unless otherwise overriden by the race directors pre-event notes). You must keep 2 wheels on the racing surface (unless overriden by the race director).

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by dsg

It is under the current rules where FIA allow drivers to only have to keep two wheels inside the white line.

'Drivers will be judged to have left the track if no part of the car remains in contact with it and, for the avoidance of doubt, any white lines defining the track edges are considered to be part of the track but the kerbs are not.'

So as mentioned the track (racing surface is a concept) is defined by the white lines. The regulations require a part of the car (not 2 wheels) to remain in contact or the driver will be judged to have left the track. The surfaces outside of the white lines are not 'racing surface'.

In this image, Verstappen has left the track :

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

'Drivers will be judged to have left the track if no part of the car remains in contact with it and, for the avoidance of doubt, any white lines defining the track edges are considered to be part of the track but the kerbs are not.'

So as mentioned the track (racing surface is a concept) is defined by the white lines. The regulations require a part of the car (not 2 wheels) to remain in contact or the driver will be judged to have left the track. The surfaces outside of the white lines are not 'racing surface'.

In this image, Verstappen has left the track :

This image also demonstrates the first time Verstappen was alongside enough to make the move legitimate.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

This image also demonstrates the first time Verstappen was alongside enough to make the move legitimate.

I think he has a bit of oversteer at that point.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

This image also demonstrates the first time Verstappen was alongside enough to make the move legitimate.

If you watch the footage, his car is launched forward, as his right rear tyre climbs up over Hamilton's left rear tyre. 2.27 sec.



https://youtu.be/JaPKqGO59T0

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

Why?
Its not a part of the racing surface.
There is a line that is the edge of the racing surface.
Then a curb that is outside the racing surface but you are allowed to use by placing your inside wheels on it,
The sausage curb is then there to discourage people from crossing the real curb and short cutting the corner.
There are other bars there painted in stripes for the same reason.
There is also a clearly defined path inside the judders bars to enable people caught out or late braking to cross the chicane area without causing damage to the car and rejoining on the other side of the chicane.
But of course they can't get an advantage from it and must redress any place gained.

But its not dangerous UNLESS you try to overtake by going off the circuit and then you are at fault and the author of your own misfortune. You may also be the author of someone else's misfortune.
In that case you will get a penalty.

in the driving standard thread, i really liked the distinction you make about the discipline system and how punitive penalties can be counter productive.

for anyone who may have missed it:

Originally Posted by Teretonga

The problem with that idea is that the system is a discipline system, not a punitive one. The purpose is to carry out some figurative justice and that some form of discipline is carried out on people who create a collision which has a negative effect on others. You cant give places. points and trophies to those negatively affected but you can act in a way that demonstrates some form of justice.

Handing out harsh punitive penalties is counter productive.
the object of a disciplinary system is to change behavior and build responsive respect between drivers, and improve driving standards, not to hurt people or destroy careers.

so for sure i agree that Max knew what part of the track was coming up and risked going over these curbs...i dont question that part.

but going over these curbs at speed must be painful for the driver and surely pain cannot be used as a deterrent...particularly for something as common as breaking track limits. to me this is extremely punitive. likewise, the curbs destabilizing effect can result (as it did here) in one car losing control and hitting another car. so its not just a penalty/deterrent that affects the guilty party.

im not going to say i have the answer to how penalties/deterrents should be handed out (but i do agree that building responsive respect is key) but these curbs seems to be more problematic nor have they served to really deter negative behaviour as seen by Max' poor decision in trying to execute a move where his only way out option was also a potentially damaging one.

anyways, this is why F1 officiating is so hard as there always seems to be a new and unique incident that forces a rethink of all the rules.

[Pandamasque]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

But its not dangerous UNLESS you try to overtake by going off the circuit and then you are at fault and the author of your own misfortune. You may also be the author of someone else's misfortune.
In that case you will get a penalty.

Or unless you're forced there by another car, or if you make a mistake and lose control and end up there, or if something on the car fails and.... etc. etc.
There's a reason they don't allow trees to be growing OUTSIDE racing surface anymore.

There's always a fine balance between deterring drivers from gaining advantage off the track and safety. I'm not saying sausage curbs must be removed. I'm saying "if you die or kill someone else, so be it, it's your fault" attitude doesn't really help.

This is why: https://youtu.be/WlXDJY3e6KY?t=71

[ScotsBrutesFan]

Mod: can we keep this thread on the topic of the halo or alternative safety devices. There are other threads for track limits, how they are defined and enforced with circuit furniture.

[Adam43]

Posts deleted for being off topic.

Originally Posted by ScotsBrutesFan

Mod: can we keep this thread on the topic of the halo or alternative safety devices. There are other threads for track limits, how they are defined and enforced with circuit furniture.

[Born Racer]

Let's focus the Hamilton/Verstappen discussion in a more relevant thread.

[chillibowl]

another huge win for the halo!

this thing really does work as is and has worked across a number of different types of incidents.

personally i thought it was initially a rudimentary design and one which would have been improved upon, visor added more thought to the aesthetics side of things etc, but so far so good!

[ScotsBrutesFan]

Unfortunately it brought into focus though another part failing, that being the roll structure.

I believe that the Alfa Romeo doesn't use a "triangular" structure but a single column style (which other teams have used) and it's this which appears to have failed. I honestly don't know if the triangular design would have made any difference to the crash.

What's unclear and don't get me wrong I'm not having a pop at the Halo here, is whether in keeping the drivers head off the ground, the halo contributed to the car remaining upside down so so long and so putting previously untested stresses on the roll cage?

Total speculation on my part, and of course the Halo must be praised for the job it did in the F2 crash that otherwise would have had a very different outcome.

[S griffin]

It's weird how often we've needed the halo since it's been introduced. I don't remember there being many similar incidents before it was introduced. Still it's saved plenty of lives, so you can't complain

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by ScotsBrutesFan

Unfortunately it brought into focus though another part failing, that being the roll structure.

I believe that the Alfa Romeo doesn't use a "triangular" structure but a single column style (which other teams have used) and it's this which appears to have failed. I honestly don't know if the triangular design would have made any difference to the crash.

I think we have to be a little bit cautious to refer to the roll blade as having 'failed'.

It is clear from imagery that the blade did not remain attached to the car during the entire incident. But - unless more has been identified - I think it is unclear if the roll blade protected the driver during the initial roll-over impact, and then it became detached during the 'slide'.

Fully support the idea that the use (and type) needs to be reviewed. But it might be that it performed beyond the intended design, and it is the criteria that is wrong, not a 'failure' of the item.

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by S griffin

It's weird how often we've needed the halo since it's been introduced. I don't remember there being many similar incidents before it was introduced. Still it's saved plenty of lives, so you can't complain

I agree with this, considering "accidents that would have been fatal without the halo" as a group we know exactly how frequent they were before the halo's introduction, it's just all the fatal accidents. If we accept that every accident since then where people have assessed that it would have been a fatality without the halo as being in that group then there has been a huge increase in such accidents since it was introduced.


I can think of three things that could explain this.


1. Other safety systems have been relaxed at the same time.
2. Drivers feel safer so they take more risks.
3. Some (not all before everybody shouts Romain Grosjean at me ) of the lives perceived as being saved by the halo actually would have somehow got away with it even without the halo.


There might be a little of all these but I think 3 is a major factor.


Having said all that there is no doubt it has saved lives and I think it is a really important safety improvement the sport sorely needed but I don't for one second think it has saved the number of drivers it is popularly said to have done and of course it isn't just about fatalities, it has probably prevented serious injuries too.


It would be interesting to see a real statistical analysis of this question but it is thirty years since my job included such things and these days I'd lean on others for it, now where's Schumi?

[Casper]

Taking note of how effective the halo has been I wonder how long it is before they go to a protective screen. The link here shows exactly why a screen is a better thing, note how just after the incident the driver's air tube has been disconnected from his helmet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJDG...l=TheRacingBro

[S griffin]

The aeroscreen works very well in Indycar, so I wouldn't be surprised to see it in F1 sometime soon

[Greem]

I would be massively surprised to see it in F1, precisely because it works so well in IndyCar!

The rest of the world has FCY (fixed speed, mainly), F1 has VSC ("drive to the delta"). And that's just one example.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Casper

Taking note of how effective the halo has been I wonder how long it is before they go to a protective screen. The link here shows exactly why a screen is a better thing, note how just after the incident the driver's air tube has been disconnected from his helmet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJDG...l=TheRacingBro

Out of interest (this might be a question for the IndyCar forum) - how has the screen performed in rain situations?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Out of interest (this might be a question for the IndyCar forum) - how has the screen performed in rain situations?

The aeroscreen had never been raced in the rain, until the Indy GP at IMS earlier this year and it was problematic to say the least.

This article is worth reading, regarding the issues with the aeroscreen that arose due to the rain.

https://www.grandprix247.com/2022/05...ar-grand-prix/

[GreenMachine]

Zhou quoted today as saying that first impact was multiple times the load tested for by FIA (to which presumably the hoop was designed to). Presumably based on car data, don't know if the FIA accident data is immediately available to teams.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Out of interest (this might be a question for the IndyCar forum) - how has the screen performed in rain situations?

Deleted