F1 » Lotus confident chassis now fixed after 'intense' few days


James Allison: On the first day back at the factory, I spoke to the entire Enstone personnel and clearly explained what happened. Everybody understood that the situation was unfortunate, but under control.

Sort Comments: Oldest | Newest

richard

February 29, 2012 4:06 PM

the original chassis passed the crash test, yet was still able to fracture around the front bulkhead/suspension mountings. now, allisonsays that they have added about 1 kilo of carbon fibre stiffening. as this would alter the homologated tub, and possibly cause new stress points, i wonder why lotus have not had to carry out a new crash test, even though it would probably pass.
it is in the realms of possibility that the suspension pick-up points could have been altered as well.
i cannot see why lotus are accorded exemption whilst hrt and marussia, have both been delayed for new tests.

Texas Roadhouse

February 29, 2012 6:41 PM
Last Edited 932 days ago

Quote: "We saw immediately that we had a problem with the mounting of the upper front wishbone rear arm"

That is from the Lotus website. Hardly constitutes a major redesign requiring a new crash test. The integrity of the central cell would not be affected. Just strengthening around a rose-joint pick-up.

And having spent my working life in an engineering environment, I would have to say that I am knowledgeable on this subject, particularly mechanical and marine engineering.

richard

February 29, 2012 6:47 PM

texas. i dont know if you are mechanically knowledgabe or not, BUT, the suspension arm is fixed to an inbuilt mount on the front bulkhead. if this mount is broken, then it is a serious structural problem. you wouldnt want to be cornering hard when the suspension mount lets go, lotus say they have had to add 1 kg of carbon fibre. now, that is quite a lot of reinforcing!

Droog - Unregistered

February 29, 2012 6:52 PM

@richard
I would have to side with Texas on this point, the crash tests are for what happens after the crash, not what caused it.
Remember the Toro Rosso incident in China a couple of years ago when the whole front suspension and wheels along with it just disintegrated. I know that the brakes caused the problem, but following your logic, if the suspension was THAT vulnerable, should that car have passed the crash test initially and why was it not re-tested after it was discovered to be weak?
Leave Lotus alone on this point, it's nit-picking at it's finest.

rbr46 - Unregistered

February 29, 2012 6:57 PM

Virgin never had to do another crash test after the fuel tank disaster and they had to extend the length of the chassis which is far more drastic than what lotus done where they probably added a few more layers of carbon.

richard

February 29, 2012 7:07 PM

droog. i cannot specifically rememer the str incident, but current rules require homologation. but if you remember my previous post on this matter, you will remember that my original comment was that i could not understand how a tub, that had been crash tested, could suffer from a lesses loading, resulting in damage. this would certainly seem to warrant a fresh crash test, under current rules. hrt also had a problem in the same area and had to re test. same rules should apply to ALL teams.

rb 46. the virgin fuel tank was too small and didnt form part of the tub. so no new crash test was neccessary. however as original CAR was homologated, manor had to get special permission from all other teams to alter the rest of their car, to accommodate the larger tank.

Droog - Unregistered

February 29, 2012 7:33 PM

OK, probably won't see i-2-i on this one, but try to find that STR incident and take a look. It was in the middle of the 2010 ChineseGP at the end of that huge back straight. Not sure which driver, but when he hit the brakes hard, one disc exploded and for whatever reason totaly demolished the whole suspension on both sides of the car. Both front wheels went flying, one narrowly missing a Chinese TV Camera man as it bounced over the fence at the end of the gravel trap.
Even if I don't have a point, worth watching, spectacular incident. Better than flying Petrov.

Page 1 of 2
1 2  »

Join the conversation - Add your comment

Please login or register before adding your comments.

Although the administrators and moderators of this website will attempt to keep all objectionable comments off these pages, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the poster, and neither Crash Media Group nor Crash.Net will be held responsible for the content of any message. We do not vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message, and are not responsible for the contents of any message. If you find a message objectionable, please contact us and inform us of the problem or use the [report] function next to the offending post. Any message that does not conform with the policy of this service can be edited or removed with immediate effect.

© 1999 - 2014 Crash Media Group

The total or partial reproduction of text, photographs or illustrations is not permitted in any form.