[dragoll]

Auto Motor und Sport in Germany have released some data surrounding Bianchi’s accident in November last year.

Below are some of the key points in english:

• 2.61secs between loss of control and impact
• loss of control 213-km / h (GPS data)
• The Marussia meets the obstruction 126 km / h in an angle of 55 degrees
• her [the car’s] nose digging under the edge of the crane. This car is abruptly delayed and raised the [back of the car].
• the driver’s helmet bangs against the back wall of the 6.8-ton tractor
• The Marussia experiences a delay of 58.8 g
• The car is deflected 4 meters in the longitudinal direction and 2 meters to the side and then come into a service access out of sight of cameras route to a standstill.
• 254 g delay at the head of Jules Bianchi
• the car came within just 4 meters to a halt

Mellor continues: “The problem was that the Marussia partly dipped below the [back] of the crane and was thereby pressed from above against the ground That worked like a brake with an abrupt deceleration is precisely in this process was the contact.. held between helmet and crane. We had [of] course never seen such [an incident before]. “

A delay of 92 g was determined by the G-sensors in the ear plugs [this was initially reported to the press]. Apparently, these [ear plugs did report a reading] but slipped at the crucial moment [giving a false reading]. Calculations have now revealed that the head was delayed with 254 g.

First conclusion: A car must be built so stable that the driver survived a crash against a 6.8-ton recovery vehicle. The accident experts asked themselves whether a roof would have helped. Wright denies: “The car had been stopped by the roof’s head would not hit the crane, but the roof with the same result…”

Next question: Had the recovery vehicle to be better protected? Again regrets Wright:… “In addition one [could] have [surrounded the tractor in] six layers of tyres to the crane and to the Safety Car and the Medical Car, because you could also [hit all these vehicles that can be on track] But [if they are] not here [then the driver having a accident could] have [struck the corner] marshals. And that’s not acceptable. “

PS: sorry this last quote was difficult to translate, I believe I’m correct in paraphrasing the quote.

And what is the conclusion? Here Andy Mellor jumps: “In Bianchi there are two aspects, the primary and secondary safety. In this case it comes to the primary security Sutil’s car was off the track, it is primarily the responsibility of the marshals to ensure the [removal of the car], and then the race organizers to respond. The marshals are protected either by double tilted yellow flags or a safety car. “

Quite obviously that did not work at Suzuka. Therefore, FIA race director Charlie Whiting and his experts have invented a third variant of such a case, the virtual safety car. Mellor:”This ensures that the risk of an accident resulting in injuries for everyone involved tends to zero, the problem [is a] race car [hitting a crane] can not be solved[,] if you meet an obstacle at high speed, which weighs 6.8 tons, then would this obstacle be as secure as a wall or a guardrail? So we have to prevent such a scenario ever repeated.”

[sato113]

bump

[Iestyn Davies]

Sadly, I think this identifies the low noses as part of the cause of the accident being so catastrophic. Not the first time the FIA have tried to solve a ‘problem’ and made it much worse.

[PorscheF1]

How would a high nose have reacted? Shattered perhaps or basically shot backwards and cut off his head? Carbon fibre is really not that easy to break considering the G-forces it has to withstand during a full GP.

[Author]

Posts