2010 Formula 1 Chinese Grand Prix

[Delphic Reason]

It doesn't.

But of the front-runners, only RBR and Ferrari will be affected by this ruling, and there's some debate as to how much pace per lap the mirrors are worth... with some saying it's possibly half-a-tenth a lap. Whether they can minimize this effect or whether it exists at all, both cars will lose some straightline pace next race, when it takes effect.

I don't think it will hurt that much (knock on wood), and McLaren's pace obviously survived the rear diffuser redesign... so hopefully these front-running teams have enough design flexibility to work around these little rule clarifications... but I'm not betting 100% on it, either.

I'm betting if Vettel's car lasts the race, the wing mirrors aren't going to make enough difference to keep him from the top 2.

Mclaren have a clear advantage in China, but RBR has the handling advantage, and Force India might surprise as well.

Personally, I'm pulling for both Lotus cars to make it to the end.

 

[BlacqueJacques]

Forecasting cold temperatures may also throw a wrench into qualifying and/or the race.

Anything 👍 that makes it an interesting race.

I am going to run some laps on F1 CE to get revved up for the race

 

[Peter]

Sutil will win.




Yeah, I said it! Someone has to come up with the crazy predictions

Not really, Force India is very quick this year, I expect a win or at least a podium from them this year.

Here's a crazy prediction, HRT 1-2.


You heard it from me....

 

[H20HYBRID_GT]

Testing new parts in practice session isn't always the best idea, huh? I always found this rule ridiculous and now I know why...
As for Senna, just because he has a famous name doesn't mean he actually must be good, which he clearly is not IMO he's just average.

Hard to predict a win, but I hope for Sutil, too. 👍

But China is easy on engines, so its not really a factor here.

1st practice session suggests otherwise.
Altho it seems to be rather a Ferrari specific problem...
Massa on his 6th (!?) engine now.

 

[Roo]

Buemi has had a very unusual accident in FP1 - at the end of the back straight, suspension failure caused both front wheels to fall off simultaneously. Apologies for the unnecessary music, but then it is Youtube.

Upright failure caused Buemi's crash

By Jonathan Noble Friday, April 16th 2010, 04:34 GMT

Sebastien Buemi's crash, China free practice, 2010Sebastien Buemi's spectacular accident in practice for the Chinese Grand Prix was caused by the failure of the front right upright.

Both wheels flew off Buemi's car under braking for Turn 14 near the end of first practice in Shanghai - pitching him into the barriers.

An investigation by the team has concluded that the incident was caused by a front right upright failure - which was a new design introduced for this weekend's race. Exactly what went wrong to cause the malfunction has not yet been established, however.

Once the right upright failed, the load on the left side component was too great for it to handle which is why that failed simultaneously.

The team also concluded that the wheel tethers did not work, with the tyres being pitched over the spectactor fences. The tethers were attached to the part of the uprights that broke off.

Toro Rosso will fit uprights from a previously used proven design to both its car from second practice in Shanghai.

FP1 times:

Pos Driver         Team                   Time      Gap    Laps
 1. Button         McLaren-Mercedes       1:36.677           15
 2. Rosberg        Mercedes               1:36.748  +0.071   17
 3. Hamilton       McLaren-Mercedes       1:36.775  +0.098   19
 4. Vettel         Red Bull-Renault       1:37.509  +0.832   14
 5. Kubica         Renault                1:37.601  +0.924   20
 6. Petrov         Renault                1:37.716  +1.039   17
 7. Schumacher     Mercedes               1:37.745  +1.068   25
 8. Webber         Red Bull-Renault       1:37.980  +1.303   17
 9. Sutil          Force India-Mercedes   1:38.008  +1.331   13
10. Massa          Ferrari                1:38.098  +1.421   19
11. Alguersuari    Toro Rosso-Ferrari     1:38.161  +1.484   19
12. Kobayashi      Sauber-Ferrari         1:38.375  +1.698   21
13. de la Rosa     Sauber-Ferrari         1:38.421  +1.744   19
14. Hulkenberg     Williams-Cosworth      1:38.569  +1.892   20
15. di Resta       Force India-Mercedes   1:38.618  +1.941   26
16. Barrichello    Williams-Cosworth      1:38.678  +2.001   17
17. Buemi          Toro Rosso-Ferrari     1:39.939  +3.262    5
18. Trulli         Lotus-Cosworth         1:41.531  +4.854   22
19. Kovalainen     Lotus-Cosworth         1:41.779  +5.102   23
20. Glock          Virgin-Cosworth        1:41.830  +5.153   20
21. di Grassi      Virgin-Cosworth        1:42.181  +5.504   27
22. Senna          HRT-Cosworth           1:43.875  +7.198   23
23. Chandhok       HRT-Cosworth           1:43.949  +7.272   20
24. Alonso         Ferrari                no time             6

 

[Ardius]

1st practice session suggests otherwise.
Altho it seems to be rather a Ferrari specific problem...
Massa on his 6th (!?) engine now.

Ferrari were running old engines for practice. Anyway, Cosworth can back up what I say:

Cosworth, engine suppliers to Williams, Lotus, Virgin & HRT
“The Shanghai International Circuit is not one of the most severe on the engine, but does offer two notable straights which place a premium on outright engine power. Cars tend to run medium to high downforce settings to cope with the circuit’s combination of slow corners, which in turn puts greater loads on the engine along the two straights. Unusually, the back straight is the longer of the two at over 1km in length, leading into a slow speed hairpin which demands excellent braking stability as cars brake from close to 320km/h down to around 70km/h. Only a relatively low percentage of the lap is spent at full throttle with just over half of the lap demanding maximum power output from the engine. This means that the circuit is not too tough on fuel consumption. China is expected to be the coolest event of the year so far with ambient temperatures not likely to reach above 20°C and a distinct chance of rain, more akin to the conditions experienced in pre-season testing. This is beneficial from an engine cooling point of view. After three races of the season, there is now greater variety in individual team strategies when it comes to engine selection with different life cycles registered on the CA2010 units across Cosworth’s four teams. The fact that Shanghai is not too demanding on engines may prompt teams to run engines with higher mileage in the race.”

 

[Prince.M5]

WHOW!!! That was a scary catastrophic failure for Buemi. Fernando is having kind of a bad day again, damaged engine. I saw smoke coming out and he's down in 24th.

As usual, going to be unpredictable and yet, very interesting. I am very sure the Red Bull is going to be strong, so as others. I am just hoping for a good luck for the Saubers and Lotuses to finish the race good. Rain, very likely

 

[Fastas]

Ferrari were running old engines for practice. Anyway, Cosworth can back up what I say:

I'm starting to feel for the Ferrari boys. By old engines, what do you mean? we haven't even run the fourth event yet!

Is there any data to show how each team has managed their allocation? I would be surprised if one of the other teams had used more than two engines for each car in total.

 

[Ardius]

I'm starting to feel for the Ferrari boys. By old engines, what do you mean? we haven't even run the fourth event yet!

Is there any data to show how each team has managed their allocation? I would be surprised if one of the other teams had used more than two engines for each car in total.

The FIA had pdfs on engine usage, but it seems they have blocked access now.
Anyway Alonso's usage is like so:
Engine 1 - [Bahrain practice] can now be used in any FP but can only be used as a race engine in Abu Dhabi
Engine 2 - Bahrain race can be re-used as per normal engine
Engine 3 - Australia
Engine 3 - Malaysia blown and cant be re-used.

So for this practice, Alonso was using his 2nd engine again, he was doing this because we have 19 races and he only has 8 engines to use, 1 of which he cannot use from now till Abu Dhabi in races and another he's blown.
The Malaysia engine blew because of his gearbox troubles - as the engine had to do more work. Ferrari say there is no inherent problem with their engine.

The other teams have used 2 engines give or take so far. I think only HRT were one of the few to only have used 1 engine after Australia.

 

[Blitz187]

Buemi has had a very unusual accident in FP1 - at the end of the back straight, suspension failure caused both front wheels to fall off simultaneously. Apologies for the unnecessary music, but then it is Youtube.

*snip*

Saw that on the news this morning before I went to work... I was very surprised... After reading the info you posted its clear to me now as to what happend...

 

[Famine]

Was Buemi trying to steer to correct the skid there?

Quick note: No wheels, sport.

 

[Fastas]

The FIA had pdfs on engine usage, but it seems they have blocked access now.
Anyway Alonso's usage is like so:
Engine 1 - [Bahrain practice] can now be used in any FP but can only be used as a race engine in Abu Dhabi
Engine 2 - Bahrain race can be re-used as per normal engine
Engine 3 - Australia
Engine 3 - Malaysia blown and cant be re-used.

So for this practice, Alonso was using his 2nd engine again, he was doing this because we have 19 races and he only has 8 engines to use, 1 of which he cannot use from now till Abu Dhabi in races and another he's blown.
The Malaysia engine blew because of his gearbox troubles - as the engine had to do more work. Ferrari say there is no inherent problem with their engine.

The other teams have used 2 engines give or take so far. I think only HRT were one of the few to only have used 1 engine after Australia.

I'm fairly sure that the Ferrari's engines were changed again for the Malaysian race, for which one, I don't know. The rule about not being able to race the FP engine again until Abu Dhabi sounds harsh.

EDIT: My mistake. The engine Alonso was using that blew today was the practice engine from Bahrain. He has expired two engines now though.
Of all the drivers, Petrov is the only one who has used one engine in total.

Teams are allowed to make changes to the power units on the basis it improves reliability only; not performance. Sounds contradictory to me.
Info courtesy of BBC sport's Sarah Holt.

And, however it is dressed up, it ain't good. Basically, each of five engines need to complete two races and the remaining three will need to do three races each. The performance of the Ferrari engine will be a key factor for the rest of the season now.

Was Buemi trying to steer to correct the skid there?

Quick note: No wheels, sport.

I do believe he was. To be fair to him it was worth a try, what with that wall approaching him fairly quickly!

 

[ExigeEvan]

Abit of an issue that the wheels are tethered to the part that failed!

You can just see the tyre bounching high, high over the safety fence at the end of the in cockpit replay.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Abit of an issue that the wheels are tethered to the part that failed!

You can just see the tyre bounching high, high over the safety fence at the end of the in cockpit replay.

You can plan and plan your design to stop things like that, but Newton always settles the score: put just the right about to strain on just the right place and the tyres will get away from you regardless of how they're tethered. Buemi's incident was a freak accident.

 

[ExigeEvan]

You can plan and plan your design to stop things like that, but Newton always settles the score: put just the right about to strain on just the right place and the tyres will get away from you regardless of how they're tethered. Buemi's incident was a freak accident.

Not true.

Tyre tethering is a massive part of open-wheeled race-car safety. No ifs, no buts. Anything less than total annihalation of the front end shouldn't allow the wheels to break free.

From Buemi's crash the suspension may have been destroyed but the body work was still in place.

A freak accident would be a Dik-dik running onto the track, not the suspension failing under breaking.

 

[Ardius]

Was Buemi trying to steer to correct the skid there?

Quick note: No wheels, sport.

He may have been trying to downshift the engine to help slow it down. Or it could have been just a natural reaction to losing control.

Not true.

Tyre tethering is a massive part of open-wheeled race-car safety. No ifs, no buts. Anything less than total annihalation of the front end shouldn't allow the wheels to break free.

From Buemi's crash the suspension may have been destroyed but the body work was still in place.

A freak accident would be a Dik-dik running onto the track, not the suspension failing under breaking.

There is a point though where you cannot keep the wheel tethered to the car, where the forces exerted on the tether could do more damage to the car and pose more of a safety risk than loose wheels. You don't want the crash structure being pulled apart by the wheel tethers.
And I think this counts as "total annihalation of the front end" seeing as the entire front suspension collapsed. I know what you really mean, but its not so simple as saying "tethers should be indestructible". There are many more factors to consider than just where the wheels end up, like I say, the crash structure has to be secure which may not be the case if wheel tethers are so strong that they are pulling whole parts of the car off.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Tyre tethering is a massive part of open-wheeled race-car safety. No ifs, no buts. Anything less than total annihalation of the front end shouldn't allow the wheels to break free.

So designers are supposed to consider every one-in-a-million scenario - like a front upright failing and th car losing both its front wheels at once - when designing a car?

That's absolutely impossible. There will always be a scenario in which case the tyres can be torn free. It would take nothing short of a freak accident to cause it to happen, but happen it can.

 

[Fastas]

So designers are supposed to consider every one-in-a-million scenario - like a front upright failing and th car losing both its front wheels at once - when designing a car?

That's absolutely impossible. There will always be a scenario in which case the tyres can be torn free. It would take nothing short of a freak accident to cause it to happen, but happen it can.

I'm with ExigeEvan on this one. The teams do have a responsibility to ensure the safety of the drivers, marshals and spectators.

After the two notable deaths due to untethered wheels (A. Senna and a track marshal at Australian GP), a lot of investment has been made in the tether system.

There have been several subsequent measures to improve the system and generally, it works.

To push the boundary of a suspension upright is stupidity, not an oversight. No other team has risked the design to the extent that it should fail with no apparent extenuating circumstances into the parts failure.

I do accept that you can not design for every circumstance but seriously, is driving fast in a straight line really pushing the limit of what is acceptable?

 

[ExigeEvan]

There is a point though where you cannot keep the wheel tethered to the car, where the forces exerted on the tether could do more damage to the car and pose more of a safety risk than loose wheels. You don't want the crash structure being pulled apart by the wheel tethers.
And I think this counts as "total annihalation of the front end" seeing as the entire front suspension collapsed. I know what you really mean, but its not so simple as saying "tethers should be indestructible". There are many more factors to consider than just where the wheels end up, like I say, the crash structure has to be secure which may not be the case if wheel tethers are so strong that they are pulling whole parts of the car off.

Fair point, and no doubt the speed of the car was a considerable factor in the tethers failing, but this was non-impact led failure of the front suspension to say that leads to the complete compromise of the front end of the car is abysmal.

What worried me is that the momentum those wheels carried was enough to carry them through a gravel trap, of say an s-bend, and continue back onto the track.

So designers are supposed to consider every one-in-a-million scenario - like a front upright failing and th car losing both its front wheels at once - when designing a car?

That's absolutely impossible. There will always be a scenario in which case the tyres can be torn free. It would take nothing short of a freak accident to cause it to happen, but happen it can.

Damage to suspension in F1 isn't unusual. It isn't unusal in any open wheel racing. If it's not unusual, then why is a major part of safety equipment designed for such failures attached to the component of failure? Ardius goes some way to explaining this.

But again, to call an engineering failure leading to a further failure of safety devices isn't an accident.

[EDIT]

I'm with ExigeEvan on this one. The teams do have a responsibility to ensure the safety of the drivers, marshals and spectators.

After the two notable deaths due to untethered wheels (A. Senna and a track marshal at Australian GP), a lot of investment has been made in the tether system.

Personally, Henry Surtees' death is still fresh in my memory.

 

[Fastas]

Personally, Henry Surtees' death is still fresh in my memory.

Mine too, it wasn't an oversight. I don't know if it is a commonly used system (tethers) and if so, the same system. I was purely considering the F1 aspect.

Dan.

 

[F1 fan]

I was watching practice live this morning. It was a pretty scary accident. As stated before, the tyres hurtled off at speed, If i'm not mistaken, one of them was sent airbourne by the tyre wall. Again, we can all take comfort that no one was injured (although a certain cameraman got the fright of his life). It is yet another reminder of the dangers of motorsport, particularly open wheel racing. And there is very little that can be done to prevent this from happening again.

Henry Surtees' death was an appalling and unavoidable accident. A racing incident. Henry would have been aware of the dangers, and like everyone else would have made peace with this. I think the main issue is to figure out a way to protect the fans, and then the marshalls, as this could have easily happened elsewhere, where a crowded grandstand was in the way. Protecting the fans should be first priority, then the marshalls and then the drivers. Not that the drivers' safety shouldn't be taken seriously though.

But at the end of the day, motorsport has always been, and will always be dangerous. We should be grateful to the FIA and other companies who have made great steps forward in the last two decades particularly since Imola 94. It could be considered Ayrton Senna's legacy. If it wasn't for the death of a hugely popular driver and one of the most famous and respected sportsmen of his day, then perhaps some more recent accidents could have ended up being a lot worse.

As for Buemi, he looked very shaken. It was understandable, I hope he can put this behind him. His crash was more of a reminder of what could happen, rather than a disaster.

 

[Ardius]

Personally, Henry Surtees' death is still fresh in my memory.

Mine too, it wasn't an oversight. I don't know if it is a commonly used system (tethers) and if so, the same system. I was purely considering the F1 aspect.

Dan.

I watched that live and I don't agree. Ok, I do agree that everything should be done to make motorsport safer but I don't agree that Surtees' accident should be referred to without also mentiong that motorsport is inherently dangerous and that an open-cockpit design is always going to be fundamentally flawed, the driver's head is always going to be vulnerable and I don't think its possible to solve this without comprimising safety in another area. It was unfortunate but couldn't be avoided - again in that instance the wheel tether failed because the forces being exerted by Jack Clarke's wheel on its tether were so great that it reached its limit. Like I said before, a tether cannot take unlimited energy without comprimising the car's crash structure. And if the crash structure is broken apart, you may not have had one fatal accident but two.
Of course, the sport should strive to further improve wheel tethers, but currently they just can't take some of the rediculously high forces exerted by the wheel and this isn't something easily solved.

Henry Surtees' death was an appalling and unavoidable accident. A racing incident. Henry would have been aware of the dangers, and like everyone else would have made peace with this. I think the main issue is to figure out a way to protect the fans, and then the marshalls, as this could have easily happened elsewhere, where a crowded grandstand was in the way. Protecting the fans should be first priority, then the marshalls and then the drivers. Not that the drivers' safety shouldn't be taken seriously though.

Saying that though, it does also state on your race ticket "Motorsport is a dangerous sport, you spectate at your own risk" so there is also an element of fans and marshals being aware of the dangers. Though obviously I agree spectator and marshal safety are important too - just its not just drivers who are "aware of the dangers" and it shouldn't be seen as that only the drivers are accepting risks, really everyone involved at the circuit is accepting risks.

 

[zed300]

They could tether the wheels to each other. A cable or 2 even, running through the front of the car would ensure no wheel ever got away, unless the whole front was completely wiped out. But today's building standards, are able to withstand enormous impacts and still have most of the monocoque in place.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I'm with ExigeEvan on this one. The teams do have a responsibility to ensure the safety of the drivers, marshals and spectators.

I'm not saying designers and engineers can get away with being negligent. I'm saying that while the can plan for every conventional - and a lot of unconventional - scenario whereby the wheels come free of the car, there is always going to be a set of circumstances that they could never envision, much less plan for. An upright failing, resulting in the car losing both its tyres at the same time is one of these situations.

 

[Ardius]

Not a good day all around for Buemi relations as his cousin Gachnang has had a similar accident today in the GT1 World Championship (video in the relevant thread here).

 

[H20HYBRID_GT]

Ferrari were running old engines for practice. Anyway, Cosworth can back up what I say:

I didn't know it where old engines, just was shocked a little when the commentator said Massa will be on his sixth engine now. I didn't mean to say what you said about the track is wrong, rather that it looks like Ferrari, besides being very fast, being also in serious trouble.

However, what does 'old' engine mean, do they repair the blown engines or how does this work?

 

[zed300]

Was Buemi trying to steer to correct the skid there?

Quick note: No wheels, sport.

I do believe he was. To be fair to him it was worth a try, what with that wall approaching him fairly quickly!

I think it was fairly instinctual, there wasn't enough time to make a reasoning thought. That said, from our point of view he doesn't look to bright, trying with no grip at all.

 

[Ardius]

I didn't know it where old engines, just was shocked a little when the commentator said Massa will be on his sixth engine now. I didn't mean to say what you said about the track is wrong, rather that it looks like Ferrari, besides being very fast, being also in serious trouble.

However, what does 'old' engine mean, do they repair the blown engines or how does this work?

An "old" engine is an engine which has been used previously in a race or race session, but is still ok to drive (i.e. hasn't blown up). In other words, an engine which has done a fair amount of kilometres/mileage.
You could repair a blown engine, but this would be considered a "new" engine, because there are only certain parts of the engine you can replace (small parts like sparkplugs, etc). Major pieces of the engine cannot be altered according to the FIA regulations.
There is no point in repairing a blown engine anyway, its more work than simply using a brand new one, so "old engines" only ever refers to engines that are just used, but not ex-blown.

I think its fair to say Ferrari have a problem, not necessarily with their engine design though. They have a problem of trying to juggle the remaining engines for the rest of the season, but their engine failures so far have been the result of bad luck rather than any specific flaw.

I don't know where the Massa 6th engine thing has come from. As far as I know, Massa has used 3 engines I think, so he has 5 fresh engines spare for the rest of the season.

 

[ExigeEvan]

They could tether the wheels to each other. A cable or 2 even, running through the front of the car would ensure no wheel ever got away, unless the whole front was completely wiped out. But today's building standards, are able to withstand enormous impacts and still have most of the monocoque in place.

No I don't like the tethering together idea, that chain could cut through some nasty stuff.

I'm not saying designers and engineers can get away with being negligent. I'm saying that while the can plan for every conventional - and a lot of unconventional - scenario whereby the wheels come free of the car, there is always going to be a set of circumstances that they could never envision, much less plan for. An upright failing, resulting in the car losing both its tyres at the same time is one of these situations.

My view is that they should have been aware that a single upright failure could lead to both sides failing. And if that leads to both tyres coming off then why are the wheels tethered to the uprights?

I think its fair to say Ferrari have a problem, not necessarily with their engine design though. They have a problem of trying to juggle the remaining engines for the rest of the season, but their engine failures so far have been the result of bad luck rather than any specific flaw.

This made the pessimistic side of me emerge...

Ferrari's head of engine and electronics Luca Marmorini had said earlier this week he was not overly concerned by Alonso and Sauber's engine failures in Malaysia.

"We have carried out an in-depth study and the problems are not related," he told the Ferrari website.

Surely it'd be better if they had one specific problem, and not several!?

 

[H20HYBRID_GT]

An "old" engine is an engine which has been used previously in a race or race session, but is still ok to drive (i.e. hasn't blown up). In other words, an engine which has done a fair amount of kilometres/mileage.
You could repair a blown engine, but this would be considered a "new" engine, because there are only certain parts of the engine you can replace (small parts like sparkplugs, etc). Major pieces of the engine cannot be altered according to the FIA regulations.
There is no point in repairing a blown engine anyway, its more work than simply using a brand new one, so "old engines" only ever refers to engines that are just used, but not ex-blown.

I think its fair to say Ferrari have a problem, not necessarily with their engine design though. They have a problem of trying to juggle the remaining engines for the rest of the season, but their engine failures so far have been the result of bad luck rather than any specific flaw.

I don't know where the Massa 6th engine thing has come from. As far as I know, Massa has used 3 engines I think, so he has 5 fresh engines spare for the rest of the season.

Ah, I see. Thanks for explaining.
As for Massa it might have been a mistake from the German commentator, but that's what he said... they usually talk a lot of BS during the race (always Schumacher this, Schumacher that...), but at least they have their facts right, most of the time.