LMS Round 2: Monza, April 25-27, 2008

[Dani Filth]

no .. it was Capello that took the #1 out .. he moved to fast in front of her and clipped his rear

[vorsprung]

Originally Posted by Dani Filth

no .. it was Capello that took the #1 out .. he moved to fast in front of her and clipped his rear

Just like he clipped one of the Lizards in Sebring.

[brielga]

Originally Posted by Dani Filth

he was doing a decent job .. and so was Vanina

Vanina had a tough race with the Dindo incident and the spin, she recovered on the second stint. Tappy was pretty good all weekend and had a good debut.

[Purist]

Jag, it's not practical to have gravel all around that chicane, unless you want a safety car almsot every single time a car goes off there (the Grand-Am race at Homestead had more caution time than green flag running because the cars kept getting stuck in the gravel).

On a more serious note, Oriol Servia and a hapless SRPII driver from some years back showed that cars are perfectly able to dig into gravel traps. I will admit that Servia had the befenfit of being launched off of another car before his nose dug into the gravel and sent him flying outside Turn 2 at Laguna Seca. The SRPII scenario, however, I'm fairly certain only involved contacted with other fendered cars. In that case, the car somehow ended up upside down over a gravel trap at Homestead, and the roll hoop dug in. With the momentum of the car, this drove the front of the car, and thus the driver's head, into the ground. David Coulthard also had a very rough ride (and almost turned over) through a gravel trap a few years ago at the Nurburgring.

I'd just do some thorough grading of the grass verge at that point; paved run-off is smooth, but pretty useless at arresting an out-of-control car.

[JHamilton]

Originally Posted by JAG

An obvious solution for me would be to put gravel traps on the grassed areas before and aft the first chicane.

The Oreca car, at worst, would have rolled over a couple of times if it had dug into a gravel trap, rather then being launched by hard, uneven grass verges.

If it had actually made it's way to the other side of the track, it again would have dug into, and been slowed, by the second gravel trap, rather than the hard ground simply cartwheeling the car, as opposed to absorbing the energy.

The problem was that nothing was in place to slow a car that went off at that place/angle, and instead contributed to a more severe accident than neccessary.

I think once that car turned backwards/sideways at speed, it was all over. Even if he had stayed on the asphalt, I think that car was going to fly. The cause of the spin should be looked at harder than safety issues at the track. At some point a line must be drawn where you either accept the risk of racing or you don't race. Besides, all safety implements worked fine. The driver only has a broken ankle, although badly, no spectators were injured, etc.

[minimangler]

All credit to Nishy for recognising Ortelli, and to Dindo for admitting it was his fault.

Real shame for Rocky, defending when he didn't have to

[The Badger]

I wonder did Rocky know that the Pug had to serve a stop & go ?

Just seems strange that he would defend like that , when there is no reason .

[minimangler]

i'm guessing not.

[alwayswatching]

Originally Posted by AU N EGL

When you watch the video real close, the right rear wheel, or right rear suppension ( something in that area ) failed, and the leading edge of the right rear wheel bock and moves in. Then the car crashed.

My guess suppension failure under braking load.

Probably either a toe link or a broken drive shaft, I'd favor the toe link.

[FIRE]

Originally Posted by The Badger

I wonder did Rocky know that the Pug had to serve a stop & go ?

Just seems strange that he would defend like that , when there is no reason .

The team manager or his engineer should supply this info.

[The Badger]

Yes , obviously , but did he ?

[brielga]

Originally Posted by The Badger

I wonder did Rocky know that the Pug had to serve a stop & go ?

Just seems strange that he would defend like that , when there is no reason .

he did, Pedro did not

[chernaudi]

And I do think that the ACO needs to look at the floor design of the current LMP cars, as the angled outer sides of the floor pan seem to induce more lift in high speed spins than the normal flat bottoms did.

What was the motivation for this: expecting the raised side floors to function like a diffuser? Any aerodyamicist would tell you that anything like that is bound to produce lift. You never saw gound effect F1 cars get airborne from a simple spin because enough air couldn't get underneith the side skirts. And unless something broke on the car or dug into the ground(which also happened to Ortelli), an LMP900 car never got airborne like that. I'm just basing this off of footage of the JCW accident in practice when the Creation almost flipped over while spinning out on pavement.

[Purist]

Didn't Bill Auberlin have a blowover in the BMW LMR at Road Atlanta?

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by The Badger

I wonder did Rocky know that the Pug had to serve a stop & go?

Just seems strange that he would defend like that , when there is no reason.

There was some miscommunication with the team:

But, unfortunately, there was a slight misunderstanding during radio communications. I was informed that the Peugeot was going to get a stop-and-go penalty after taking a short-cut in the chicane. But then he let me pass. For me, that made it pretty clear that he wasn’t going to get a penalty. Of course I didn’t know that he was supposed to get the stop-and-go for something totally different. When on the next lap he arrived on the outside of the end of the start-finish straight again, I defended the inside line once more. But he simply turned in and hit me, damaging my rim in the process. I had to pit and that meant my race was lost.

source: http://www.planetlemans.com/2008/04/...e-mans-series/

[canam]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

And I do think that the ACO needs to look at the floor design of the current LMP cars, as the angled outer sides of the floor pan seem to induce more lift in high speed spins than the normal flat bottoms did.

What was the motivation for this: expecting the raised side floors to function like a diffuser? Any aerodyamicist would tell you that anything like that is bound to produce lift. You never saw gound effect F1 cars get airborne from a simple spin because enough air couldn't get underneith the side skirts. And unless something broke on the car or dug into the ground(which also happened to Ortelli), an LMP900 car never got airborne like that. I'm just basing this off of footage of the JCW accident in practice when the Creation almost flipped over while spinning out on pavement.

I agree with you on this. While many have cited the front-flip characteristics, the study that produced this current aero shape also took into consideration the impact of large slip angles at high speeds and, hence, the angled outer sides of the floor. It would appear that this needs rethinking as it appears that there was lift generated when the car was sidewards in the video of JCW's shunt.

[minimangler]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

And I do think that the ACO needs to look at the floor design of the current LMP cars, as the angled outer sides of the floor pan seem to induce more lift in high speed spins than the normal flat bottoms did.

What was the motivation for this: expecting the raised side floors to function like a diffuser? Any aerodyamicist would tell you that anything like that is bound to produce lift. You never saw gound effect F1 cars get airborne from a simple spin because enough air couldn't get underneith the side skirts. And unless something broke on the car or dug into the ground(which also happened to Ortelli), an LMP900 car never got airborne like that. I'm just basing this off of footage of the JCW accident in practice when the Creation almost flipped over while spinning out on pavement.

That's ********, i'm sorry, but it is. We saw the old GT1s flip backward- the car lifted here and CAME BACK DOWN. It's not the car's fault it went up and down like that. It's the fault of the bumpy grass.

[zac510]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

You never saw gound effect F1 cars get airborne from a simple spin because enough air couldn't get underneith the side skirts. And unless something broke on the car or dug into the ground(which also happened to Ortelli), an LMP900 car never got airborne like that. I'm just basing this off of footage of the JCW accident in practice when the Creation almost flipped over while spinning out on pavement.

You can't possibly compare an F1 car with a prototype.

Can you link me to the footage of JCW's crash?

[tblincoe]

I have to disagree with the comments of chernaudi and canam on the safety aspects of the LMP1 redesign - in all three of the 'airtime' incidents at Monza this weekend, I thought the cars performed remarkably well. Sure the cars went airborne, but IMO this was inevitable due to the nature of each accident.

The primary concern for me was that in each instance the cars did not flip end-over due to aerodynamic lift as we have seen all too often in the past. From Mulsanne's Corner:

To reduce yaw induced instability, the ACO have adopted a unique chamfered floor section. In cross section, the bottom of the car is effectively wing-shaped. Therefore, when the car is induced into a yaw situation, the underfloor will be encouraged to generate downforce where as in the past the top surfaces have generated lifting forces in excess of the flat bottom's downforce. An additional yaw stabilizer will be large rear wing endplates. The endplate rules specify a maximum size of 300 mm x 765 mm but also a minimum area of 1000 cm^3.

Considering the purpose of the chamfered floor, I think that the design philosophy of the 'new' LMP cars kept each accident from evolving into something much more violent. Just take a look at Jamie Campbell-Walter's off in qualifying and its clear that in the yaw-induced environment (produced by the rear of the car snapping around on the grass) the car could easily have continued it's pitch-and-yaw roll over without the ACO's safety revisions - specifically the stabilizing effects (and drag) created by the rear wing and diffuser endplates, as well as the downforce produced by the chamfered floor section.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEmREizC5dI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnLBf6N3xPA

[The Badger]

Originally Posted by minimangler

That's ********, i'm sorry, but it is. We saw the old GT1s flip backward- the car lifted here and CAME BACK DOWN. It's not the car's fault it went up and down like that. It's the fault of the bumpy grass.

The grass doesnt generate lift , the car did at speed , with respect to the angle of attack of the floor pan relative to speed .

[minimangler]

Originally Posted by tblincoe

I have to disagree with the comments of chernaudi and canam on the safety aspects of the LMP1 redesign - in all three of the 'airtime' incidents at Monza this weekend, I thought the cars performed remarkably well. Sure the cars went airborne, but IMO this was inevitable due to the nature of each accident.

The primary concern for me was that in each instance the cars did not flip end-over due to aerodynamic lift as we have seen all too often in the past. From Mulsanne's Corner:



Considering the purpose of the chamfered floor, I think that the design philosophy of the 'new' LMP cars kept each accident from evolving into something much more violent. Just take a look at Jamie Campbell-Walter's off in qualifying and its clear that in the yaw-induced environment (produced by the rear of the car snapping around on the grass) the car could easily have continued it's pitch-and-yaw roll over without the ACO's safety revisions - specifically the stabilizing effects (and drag) created by the rear wing and diffuser endplates, as well as the downforce produced by the chamfered floor section.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEmREizC5dI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnLBf6N3xPA

Firstly, thanks for the links, an interesting accident that.

Certainly, as far as i can tell, it's done absolutely everything the rules designed it to.

Top job, ACO.

[henk4]

Jamie had some problems with Ascari earlier on. This is a shot I took during the first warm up on Friday. He landed on all four wheels...

http://img441.imageshack.us/my.php?i...mg11421hc1.jpg

[zac510]

Watching them all again in succession, there is certainly a common trait and this trait is that they took off when perpendicular to their trajectory.

[minimangler]

Originally Posted by henk4

Jamie had some problems with Ascari earlier on. This is a shot I took during the first warm up on Friday. He landed on all four wheels...

http://img441.imageshack.us/my.php?i...mg11421hc1.jpg

wow, new look ascari!

But yes, it seems to be quite unstable sometimes. remember le mans last year- can't all be driver error.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by minimangler

wow, new look ascari!

But yes, it seems to be quite unstable sometimes. remember le mans last year- can't all be driver error.

should you have known when I had said Curva del Vialone?