Crash & learn

Browse pages
Current page

1

Current page

2

Current page

3

Current page

4

Current page

5

Current page

6

Current page

7

Current page

8

Current page

9

Current page

10

Current page

11

Current page

12

Current page

13

Current page

14

Current page

15

Current page

16

Current page

17

Current page

18

Current page

19

Current page

20

Current page

21

Current page

22

Current page

23

Current page

24

Current page

25

Current page

26

Current page

27

Current page

28

Current page

29

Current page

30

Current page

31

Current page

32

Current page

33

Current page

34

Current page

35

Current page

36

Current page

37

Current page

38

Current page

39

Current page

40

Current page

41

Current page

42

Current page

43

Current page

44

Current page

45

Current page

46

Current page

47

Current page

48

Current page

49

Current page

50

Current page

51

Current page

52

Current page

53

Current page

54

Current page

55

Current page

56

Current page

57

Current page

58

Current page

59

Current page

60

Current page

61

Current page

62

Current page

63

Current page

64

Current page

65

Current page

66

Current page

67

Current page

68

Current page

69

Current page

70

Current page

71

Current page

72

Current page

73

Current page

74

Current page

75

Current page

76

Current page

77

Current page

78

Current page

79

Current page

80

Current page

81

Current page

82

Current page

83

Current page

84

Current page

85

Current page

86

Current page

87

Current page

88

Current page

89

Current page

90

Current page

91

Current page

92

Current page

93

Current page

94

Current page

95

Current page

96

Current page

97

Current page

98

Current page

99

Current page

100

Current page

101

Current page

102

Current page

103

Current page

104

Current page

105

Current page

106

Current page

107

Current page

108

Current page

109

Current page

110

Current page

111

Current page

112

Current page

113

Current page

114

Current page

115

Current page

116

Current page

117

Current page

118

Current page

119

Current page

120

Current page

121

Current page

122

Current page

123

Current page

124

Current page

125

Current page

126

Current page

127

Current page

128

Current page

129

Current page

130

Current page

131

Current page

132

Current page

133

Current page

134

Current page

135

Current page

136

Current page

137

Current page

138

Current page

139

Current page

140

Current page

141

Current page

142

Current page

143

Current page

144

Current page

145

Current page

146

Current page

147

Current page

148

Current page

149

Current page

150

Current page

151

Current page

152

Current page

153

Current page

154

Current page

155

Current page

156

Current page

157

Current page

158

Current page

159

Current page

160

Current page

161

Current page

162

Current page

163

Current page

164

Current page

165

Current page

166

Current page

167

Current page

168

Current page

169

Current page

170

Current page

171

Current page

172

Current page

173

Current page

174

When creating a modern F1 car, designers major as much on safety as speed. Robert Kubica is one who’s thankful they do…

By Rob Widdows

Grand prix racing will never be utterly safe. But the fact that more people die falling from horses than they do in racing cars is in part an indication of the major improvements that we have seen in racing car construction over the last three decades.

When David Purley crashed at Silverstone in 1977 he was lucky to survive, his extreme fitness and mental strength playing a significant part in the immediate aftermath of such a huge accident. When Robert Kubica crashed in Montreal in June he survived thanks to a quantum leap in the way that grand prix cars are now designed and constructed.

There is always an element of luck, but nobody would dispute that the measures taken by the FIA and the Grand Prix Drivers’ Association in the years between the Purley and the Kubica incidents have made the sport enormously safer. When Mike Pilbeam, a highly respected engineer, designed Purley’s LEC CRP1, he was working with what are today considered to be fairly agricultural materials, a ‘car made of tin’ as it’s now described. When BMW-Sauber technical director Willi Rampf started on the current BMW F107 he was in a different world, working with carbon-fibre and within the confines of the FIA’s crash test requirements, which have been steadily refined over the years.

Purley’s team manager Mike Earle feared the worst when he saw his driver slumped in the wreckage (page 94). There was a fleeting moment of doubt for Rampf in the team garage at Montreal, too. “He did not move in the cockpit, so I was quite concerned. Anything could have happened, you know, but we heard very quickly that he was stable. So it was a big relief, yes.”

According to analysis by the FIA, the g-force at the front of Kubica’s car was 75g and at the rear 28g. “In an accident like that you can never be confident, or comfortable, that the driver will be unhurt,” admits Rampf, “because this is something you cannot ever simulate and there are so many different factors, and forces, involved. For example, how much energy has the nose section taken away? How much energy has the chassis absorbed? At what angle has the car hit the wall – was it 90 degrees, or 30 degrees, or sideways? All these factors are so important for the end result of such a crash. You cannot ever say that a certain angle of impact is the safest: if the car hits head-on then a lot of the energy will be used up by the nose section but then it will also disperse into the chassis, so it can be better if there is a slight angle so that the car bounces out of the wall and slides away from the point of impact.”

Grand prix car designers and engineers will always have ultimate speed and performance as their priorities, working as close to the edge as possible, and weight is the enemy. But the FIA, using data from previous accidents, has drawn up a robust set of rules with which all manufacturers must comply if they are to produce a car that will pass the mandatory crash-test examination of its integrity.

“We do not work as closely to the limits as we could if there is something we can do to improve the safety beyond even the FIA’s strict regulations,” says Rampf, “and we will make any small developments we can to ensure the safety of our drivers. We are not saving the last 100 grams when it comes to safety. For example, when we look at local stiffness, or even the global stiffness, of the chassis we are already ahead of the FIA requirements with this car. We pay particular attention to the importance of the nose structure as this is the front crash structure, and so you build it to make sure you are safely within the regulations. This is the same with the chassis itself and the suspension – so we are well above the safety requirements in these areas.”

It is not simply the integrity of the car that has seen such major improvements since the dark days of the 1960s and ’70s. New technologies have allowed designers to place their drivers in a safety cell uncluttered by solid objects that can break loose on impact. When Purley crashed in 1977 he was sitting on top of the fire extinguisher bottle and surrounded by fuel tanks. Mercifully there was no fire, but the extinguisher came up underneath him as the chassis crumpled, causing terrible damage to his pelvis. Then there is the HANS device, a head and neck restraint that is now mandatory in grand prix racing.

“Yes, the HANS device plays an important part in an accident,” says Rampf. “It ensures that the head and the neck are very well supported, these parts of the body being very exposed to the g-forces of a crash. In Montreal Robert suffered some concussion but he had no injuries to his neck or head, and no headaches, nothing. So HANS did its job there.”

There is always more to learn about safety, and BMW has been analysing the chassis of Kubica’s F107. “We will not use that chassis again,” explains Rampf, “but we have done some investigation and simulations to see if the failure mode was exactly as we had predicted. And we will do some further analysis to improve our crash simulation programmes, to assess whether we can do more to make the chassis even stiffer, even safer for the driver.

“There is always something we can learn and in a very heavy crash like this one there are loads on the chassis which are very difficult to calculate. For example, the car has crashed very heavily at the front end but maybe there is a small crack somewhere else, maybe towards the back, and you never see that immediately. From this data you can make some small modification and make sure it does not happen again. Since Montreal we have made some small corrections, some small overlaps in the construction to improve the process even further.”

Remarkably, the BMW engine survived almost intact. “Yes, the engine went back to the factory and it was in a state where we could run it on a dyno,” reveals Rampf. “But the biggest improvement we have seen, by far, is in the structure of the chassis, the monocoque where the driver sits. In this case, the tub did not collapse at all and everything around the driver was in correct shape and there was no damage that could have created problems for his legs or for his body.” 

There are those who joke about the days when sex was safe and motor racing was dangerous. This is no longer funny – there would be so many more of our heroes alive today if only we had known then what we know today. Motor racing will never be free from danger but thanks to pioneering work by Jackie Stewart and the GPDA, along with some tough talking from the FIA, today’s drivers have a markedly better chance of enjoying a happy retirement

You may also like

Related products