HondaF1
Aussie Bastard
I found this analysis of Kubica's crash on itv-f1.com. I thought it was a very well written, so I thought I would share it with you all to see what your thoughts are.
Mark Hughes on Kubica
It's a testament to the safety levels in modern Formula 1 that Robert Kubica suffered only a twisted ankle and light concussion following his horrific crash in the Canadian Grand Prix.
Expert analyst Mark Hughes highlights the massive amounts of work that have gone in to this field and looks at areas for further improvement.
Such was the violence of Robert Kubica?s Montreal accident that most onlookers initially feared the worst.
He hit a total of three barriers, the first a glancing blow of his right-front that plucked the wheel off but which barely reduced the car?s estimated 170mph momentum, the next an approximately 75-deg frontal impact that pretty much wiped away the car?s footwell and which subjected Kubica to an average deceleration of 28g.
It appears that this knocked him briefly unconscious.
The car then rolled violently and hit the barrier on the opposite side of the circuit with much of the kinetic energy now spent.
As the steaming wreckage came to a halt on its side, his booted feet could be seen protruding from the ripped apart nosecone.
Remarkably he suffered only a twisted ankle and light concussion.
This was by far the most violent non-injury accident the sport has ever witnessed, and bears superb testimony to the crash test regulations instigated by the FIA in the 1980s and which have been constantly toughened ever since.
It is also a result of carbon-fibre construction and improved understanding of structure behaviour in impact made possible by software simulation.
Although F1 cars have been constructed from carbon-fibre for 26 years, even a car of a decade ago would not have stood up as well as Kubica?s Sauber-BMW to such a colossal impact.
As materials, structures and understanding have improved during that time, so the crash tests that the cars have to pass before a design is ever allowed onto the track have become more severe.
Other times the severity of the impact tests have forced improvements in understanding. The process has been one of both push and pull.
But although the cars are now incredibly strong, Kubica?s accident could quite easily still have been fatal had it occurred before 2003 and the introduction of the HANS device that re-routes deceleration loads that would otherwise be applied to the driver?s head to his shoulders and upper body instead.
In 2001 NASCAR driver Dale Earnhardt was killed in an impact of no more than 48mph precisely because of the neck injuries caused during a sudden deceleration when the body is belted into the car but the head is unsecured.
Felipe Massa is widely believed to have been the first F1 driver whose life was saved by the HANS device.
In 2004 he suffered brake failure into the very same Montreal hairpin that saw Kubica?s accident on Sunday. Ironically it was with the same Sauber team too.
Calculations showed the deceleration he was subject too would not have been survivable without the device. Like Kubica, he was unharmed.
Knowledge is always improving and Kubica?s accident will have shown where further advances can be made.
For one, thought needs to be given to heightening the central metal barrier that Kubica almost vaulted. His car was still in mid air as it smashed into the guard rail, having been launched by hitting the rear of Jarno Trulli?s Toyota.
Had the BMW cleared the guardrail it would have been smack on-course to hit cars coming out of the hairpin.
In this case Giancarlo Fisichella would have been the most likely victim.
It was fortunate that the third impact was not front-on because by this time Kubica?s feet were fully exposed.
This may well force even tougher nose cone impact tests ? although there is a balance to be struck in how high the modulus strength of the carbon fibre is made. Increasing the density of the material makes it more impact resistant up to a point, but when that point is reached the material is destroyed more explosively.
The key will be in working out how to spread the loads.
There is a third factor that may have contributed to the accident: that of the tyre rubber ?marbles? that make the Montreal circuit incredibly slippery off the racing line.
This is a by-product of soft compound tyres necessary for grip on Montreal?s very smooth surface combined with the high speeds of the circuit. At no other track is there a combination of such high speed and such soft compounds.
Having the circuit resurfaced with a much coarser grain of bitumen that forces harder compounds may be a solution here.
So although the sport can congratulate itself, complacency will not set in.
Formula One is still a dangerous environment.
Source
Mark Hughes on Kubica
It's a testament to the safety levels in modern Formula 1 that Robert Kubica suffered only a twisted ankle and light concussion following his horrific crash in the Canadian Grand Prix.
Expert analyst Mark Hughes highlights the massive amounts of work that have gone in to this field and looks at areas for further improvement.
Such was the violence of Robert Kubica?s Montreal accident that most onlookers initially feared the worst.
He hit a total of three barriers, the first a glancing blow of his right-front that plucked the wheel off but which barely reduced the car?s estimated 170mph momentum, the next an approximately 75-deg frontal impact that pretty much wiped away the car?s footwell and which subjected Kubica to an average deceleration of 28g.
It appears that this knocked him briefly unconscious.
The car then rolled violently and hit the barrier on the opposite side of the circuit with much of the kinetic energy now spent.
As the steaming wreckage came to a halt on its side, his booted feet could be seen protruding from the ripped apart nosecone.
Remarkably he suffered only a twisted ankle and light concussion.
This was by far the most violent non-injury accident the sport has ever witnessed, and bears superb testimony to the crash test regulations instigated by the FIA in the 1980s and which have been constantly toughened ever since.
It is also a result of carbon-fibre construction and improved understanding of structure behaviour in impact made possible by software simulation.
Although F1 cars have been constructed from carbon-fibre for 26 years, even a car of a decade ago would not have stood up as well as Kubica?s Sauber-BMW to such a colossal impact.
As materials, structures and understanding have improved during that time, so the crash tests that the cars have to pass before a design is ever allowed onto the track have become more severe.
Other times the severity of the impact tests have forced improvements in understanding. The process has been one of both push and pull.
But although the cars are now incredibly strong, Kubica?s accident could quite easily still have been fatal had it occurred before 2003 and the introduction of the HANS device that re-routes deceleration loads that would otherwise be applied to the driver?s head to his shoulders and upper body instead.
In 2001 NASCAR driver Dale Earnhardt was killed in an impact of no more than 48mph precisely because of the neck injuries caused during a sudden deceleration when the body is belted into the car but the head is unsecured.
Felipe Massa is widely believed to have been the first F1 driver whose life was saved by the HANS device.
In 2004 he suffered brake failure into the very same Montreal hairpin that saw Kubica?s accident on Sunday. Ironically it was with the same Sauber team too.
Calculations showed the deceleration he was subject too would not have been survivable without the device. Like Kubica, he was unharmed.
Knowledge is always improving and Kubica?s accident will have shown where further advances can be made.
For one, thought needs to be given to heightening the central metal barrier that Kubica almost vaulted. His car was still in mid air as it smashed into the guard rail, having been launched by hitting the rear of Jarno Trulli?s Toyota.
Had the BMW cleared the guardrail it would have been smack on-course to hit cars coming out of the hairpin.
In this case Giancarlo Fisichella would have been the most likely victim.
It was fortunate that the third impact was not front-on because by this time Kubica?s feet were fully exposed.
This may well force even tougher nose cone impact tests ? although there is a balance to be struck in how high the modulus strength of the carbon fibre is made. Increasing the density of the material makes it more impact resistant up to a point, but when that point is reached the material is destroyed more explosively.
The key will be in working out how to spread the loads.
There is a third factor that may have contributed to the accident: that of the tyre rubber ?marbles? that make the Montreal circuit incredibly slippery off the racing line.
This is a by-product of soft compound tyres necessary for grip on Montreal?s very smooth surface combined with the high speeds of the circuit. At no other track is there a combination of such high speed and such soft compounds.
Having the circuit resurfaced with a much coarser grain of bitumen that forces harder compounds may be a solution here.
So although the sport can congratulate itself, complacency will not set in.
Formula One is still a dangerous environment.
Source
