Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Ok, so after reading this http://www.20minutes.fr/sport/1454951-20141005-formule-1-nouvelle-operation-jules-bianchi

things are not getting much better pour pauvre Jules

My quick summary / translation is as follows:

He is scheduled within the next few hours to undergo further surgery as he his head has started to bleed again overnight.

Edit. He was breathing without assistance after the first surgery

Well I would argue if its wet and some one is in the fence and you need to recover it with a forklift you do need a safety car.

Besides what constitutes slow is arguable. You would know you self that knocking 10km/h off your corner speed feels massively slower to the driver than it really is. Given the down force shed by going slower it doesn't necessarily make it safer. Bianchi's accident would have been catastrophic at most speeds.

what constitutes slow would not be arguable if you enforced a speed limit in that sector as I mentioned in that previous post. Set a limit for yellows and double yellows.

And if slower isn't safer, there's no point sending a SC out either - all it does is slow them down. Better stop the race to recover a car - you know, just to be safe.

Motorsport is dangerous. Double waved yellows means extremely dangerous situation ahead in your already dangerous sport.

Edited by hrd-hr30

Ok, so after reading this http://www.20minutes.fr/sport/1454951-20141005-formule-1-nouvelle-operation-jules-bianchi

things are not getting much better pour pauvre Jules

My quick summary / translation is as follows:

He is scheduled within the next few hours to undergo further surgery as he his head has started to bleed again overnight.

Edit. He was breathing without assistance after the first surgery

Some slightly good news

Am i the only one who thinks nothing needs to be changed?

"It's pretty obvious that, well, sometimes shit happens, doesn't it?"

They will know now not to bring out the tractor on that corner unless its a safety car and that's it. No rules or procedures really need to be changed.

Am i the only one who thinks nothing needs to be changed?

"It's pretty obvious that, well, sometimes shit happens, doesn't it?"

They will know now not to bring out the tractor on that corner unless its a safety car and that's it. No rules or procedures really need to be changed.

I am sort of with you on this.

The only thing they should have changed, and alot of people are agreeing, is the start time. From what the drivers are saying, the fading light played a part in it. And they knew a Typhoon was coming. If it was just a storm, I could understand, but when they were going to feel affects from a Typhoon, thats always a bit worse then just a storm or rain.

It is pretty much a freak accident. Seen as Sutil had just aquaplaned off in the same spot, you cant say its completly suprising, but still the odds of hitting hte JCB at that angle and in that spot is pretty crazy

That JCB would probably weigh anywhere from 3-5ton as well, makes you think about the amount of force involved when the thing seemed to have been lifted and pushed like it was. I think its a credit to the cars/helmets etc that he survived at all.

  • Like 1

Am i the only one who thinks nothing needs to be changed?

"It's pretty obvious that, well, sometimes shit happens, doesn't it?"

They will know now not to bring out the tractor on that corner unless its a safety car and that's it. No rules or procedures really need to be changed.

No, but you are ignoring peoples (the press, whoever conducts an enquiry/witch hunt etc) demands that something be done. Which is probably not unreasonable given what has happened but even if it is unreasonable maybe it is also unarguable for the FIA.

The least difficult change would be to put out a safety car when cars are being recovered in the wet. Which doesn't change much at all.

Having imaginary lines on the circuit for enforcing speed zones just makes it hard for everyone. Drivers will always go hard up until the line like they do on pit lane entries. Which isn't ideal.

Start time is a strange factor to involve in this. How could they have started earlier - it was pissing down rain and they never start wet races until the track's pretty much ready for inters.

anyway, if Bianchi's crash had missed the JCB and got a Marshal, I think the questions being asked would be very different. Like how on earth does someone spear off under double waved yellows which often means there's marshals within the track confines? Surely he had been informed of the situation and location over the radio... And when you're under double yellows and required to go slow enough to take evasive action or technically even stop, how on earth was he going fast enough to aquaplane as people are suggesting happened? I haven't seen what caused the crash so I don't know where that info is coming from.

As for the SC suggestions, I think it's an over-reaction. It takes laps for cars to catch the SC because they have to lap to a delta time under SC conditions. Then they have to let the lapped cars through which seems to take another few laps. You're talking 10-15min minimum for a SC. When Bianchi hit that JCB, it was 2min from the time Sutil had crashed. 20sec later and the track would have been clear again. You want to stop racing and end the race under SC for the sake of just over 2min to clear the obstacle? An obstacle that all drivers would have been informed of over radio and with double waved yellows indicating an extreme hazard for the very short time the hazard existed? You may as well conduct the whole race under SC just to make sure no-one gets hurt.

Edited by hrd-hr30

Coming from a workplace with a zero harm safety standpoint (steelmaking industry) I can't believe we are still sending marshals and recovery vehicles onto the track with cars doing almost race speed. (Japan and germany this year)

Lets face it, the double waved yellows, no one slows down anywhere near enough, all thats needed is the driver showing he has "lifted". Maybe thats not the rule, but it never gets enforced.

Tracks are designed (generally) with safety in mind (barrier placement, tire stacks etc) in the event of a driver leaving the course. By placing a recovery tractor on the track side of the barrier is absolutely unacceptable.

The only reason Jules has the injury he does is the fact that tractor was there. Take the tractor out of the equation, he would of hit the barrier, or sutils car, both which would of not been any where near the severity of what happened.

I think I'll be a minority here, but IMO no marshall, or recovery vehicle should be on the track untill the whole field is under the control of a safety car.

You can't put people's lives at risk like that, its ludicrous.

Its a bloody joke, and the FIA need to tighten up their regulations on this sort of thing.

Would be interesting to see sutils on board and see how he crashed, you would think jukes would have done nearly exactly the same thing to end up in the same spot. Did they both try to slow down too fast and spin the car maybe?

With regard to the start time of the race f1 organisers asked Honda who is the even promoter in Japan if they would like to start the race earlier in the day and they declined to change the start time.

It was just a freak accident. It is bound to happen in a sport like this. He would have known it was there and he stuffed up in his judgement.

But i also agree there has to be a better way of removing cars so the danger isn't there.

Surely start times are dictated by Bernie for the Euro TV audiences and the millions in advertising revenue, not the local promoter.

Coming from a workplace with a zero harm safety standpoint (steelmaking industry) I can't believe we are still sending marshals and recovery vehicles onto the track with cars doing almost race speed. (Japan and germany this year)

Lets face it, the double waved yellows, no one slows down anywhere near enough, all thats needed is the driver showing he has "lifted". Maybe thats not the rule, but it never gets enforced.

Tracks are designed (generally) with safety in mind (barrier placement, tire stacks etc) in the event of a driver leaving the course. By placing a recovery tractor on the track side of the barrier is absolutely unacceptable.

The only reason Jules has the injury he does is the fact that tractor was there. Take the tractor out of the equation, he would of hit the barrier, or sutils car, both which would of not been any where near the severity of what happened.

I think I'll be a minority here, but IMO no marshall, or recovery vehicle should be on the track untill the whole field is under the control of a safety car.

You can't put people's lives at risk like that, its ludicrous.

Its a bloody joke, and the FIA need to tighten up their regulations on this sort of thing.

It's about risk management. Its a temporary risk at one isolated point of the track with other mitigation factors employed to warn drivers of that temporary, isolated risk - radio and double waved yellows. Banchi hit the JCB less than 2min after Sutil crashed. Another 20 sec or so and the hazard would have been clear. No need to shut down the whole race track for 10-15 minutes for that. Just properly enforce the double waved yellow rules. The framework is already in plae - when a SC is deployed drivers have to lap to a delta time. Just make it a certain delta time for sectors in yellow. Simple.

Edited by hrd-hr30

Well, the risk management failed this time, and resulted in a driver being seriously injured.

The people making the decision to recover this car using the JCB should have identified the hazards, some of which being, worsening conditions, tractor on the outside of a fast turn (!) where another car has previously come off.

There is no way that tractor should have been sent out without a safety car. Yes i'd rather "shut down the whole race track for 10-15 minutes for that" than see anyone suffer the same fate as jules.

If it would have been a marshal, we would have been reading about a death.

Setting a delta time for yellow sector still leaves a risk present, what if the driver chooses not to stick to delta time, then comes off? would have been the same result.

The only way to eliminate the risk is to not have the tractor where it can be hit.

The marshals on the track in germany was another one that had me cringing. All of these near misses are forgotten about while they are just that, a near miss. Doing nothing about a near miss results in an actual incident, sooner or later.

Anyway, just my opinion, and I sincerely hope Jules recovers and can lead a somewhat normal life.

risk management does not equal risk elimination!!! The only way to eliminate the risks in motorsport is not to conduct motorsport.

The risk management did not fail - it's just that the low likelihood risk eventuated this time, mainly because the driver didn't take heed of the risk mitigation procedures in place. Instead he was pushing to the limit and beyond despite knowing there was an extremely dangerous situation at that very part of the circuit.

setting a delta time for a sector presents exactly the same risk as deploying a Safety Car - cars run to deltas until they catch the SC up to several laps later. So if you consider that an unacceptable risk, then the only option is to red flag the race anytime a car needs to be recovered...

Edited by hrd-hr30

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
    • When I said "wiring diagram", I meant the car's wiring diagram. You need to understand how and when 12V appears on certain wires/terminals, when 0V is allowed to appear on certain wires/terminals (which is the difference between supply side switching, and earth side switching), for the way that the car is supposed to work without the immobiliser. Then you start looking for those voltages in the appropriate places at the appropriate times (ie, relay terminals, ECU terminals, fuel pump terminals, at different ignition switch positions, and at times such as "immediately after switching to ON" and "say, 5-10s after switching to ON". You will find that you are not getting what you need when and where you need it, and because you understand what you need and when, from working through the wiring diagram, you can then likely work out why you're not getting it. And that will lead you to the mess that has been made of the associated wires around the immobiliser. But seriously, there is no way that we will be able to find or lead you to the fault from here. You will have to do it at the car, because it will be something f**ked up, and there are a near infinite number of ways for it to be f**ked up. The wiring diagram will give you wire colours and pin numbers and so you can do continuity testing and voltage/time probing and start to work out what is right and what is wrong. I can only close my eyes and imagine a rat's nest of wiring under the dash. You can actually see and touch it.
    • So I found this: https://www.efihardware.com/temperature-sensor-voltage-calculator I didn't know what the pullup resistor is. So I thought if I used my table of known values I could estimate it by putting a value into the pullup resistor, and this should line up with the voltages I had measured. Eventually I got this table out of it by using 210ohms as the pullup resistor. 180C 0.232V - Predicted 175C 0.254V - Predicted 170C 0.278V - Predicted 165C 0.305V - Predicted 160C 0.336V - Predicted 155C 0.369V - Predicted 150C 0.407V - Predicted 145C 0.448V - Predicted 140C 0.494V - Predicted 135C 0.545V - Predicted 130C 0.603V - Predicted 125C 0.668V - Predicted 120C 0.740V - Predicted 115C 0.817V - Predicted 110C 0.914V - Predicted 105C 1.023V - Predicted 100C 1.15V 90C 1.42V - Predicted 85C 1.59V 80C 1.74V 75C 1.94V 70C 2.10V 65C 2.33V 60C 2.56V 58C 2.68V 57C 2.70V 56C 2.74V 55C 2.78V 54C 2.80V 50C 2.98V 49C 3.06V 47C 3.18V 45C 3.23V 43C 3.36V 40C 3.51V 37C 3.67V 35C 3.75V 30C 4.00V As before, the formula in HPTuners is here: https://www.hptuners.com/documentation/files/VCM-Scanner/Content/vcm_scanner/defining_a_transform.htm?Highlight=defining a transform Specifically: In my case I used 50C and 150C, given the sensor is supposedly for that. Input 1 = 2.98V Output 1 = 50C Input 2 = 0.407V Output 2 = 150C (0.407-2.98) / (150-50) -2.573/100 = -0.02573 2.98/-0.02573 + 47.045 = 50 So the corresponding formula should be: (Input / -0.02573) + 47.045 = Output.   If someone can confirm my math it'd be great. Supposedly you can pick any two pairs of the data to make this formula.
×
×
  • Create New...