The Anatomy Of A Tragedy - The Safety Flaw Revealed By Craig Breen's Crash
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 มี.ค. 2024
- This video is not intended to blame any organisation or individual. The death of Craig Breen was an unexpected event. No organisation or individual was negligent, however the crash has unveiled a safety flaw that must be addressed.
- ยานยนต์และพาหนะ
Interesting video and you do have some valid points that I agree with but you also have a lot of facts wrong regarding polycarbonte and the grades that could be used - consider this , as far as im aware this is only the 2nd kind of this particular type of intrusion incident that I know of in the last 22 years of manufacturing these products , whether the window had a slider kit installed or not , polycarbonate @ 4mm thick would not withstand the direct impact of a fence pole hitting it , it would either push the whole window into the car or break the window - I agree as a manufacturer that the door windows should be thicker , the fact they they need to be removable is a also a must because of all the accidents that result in jamming of the doors and there are far far more instances of this happening than actual window intrusion .
A fence post hitting the vent cover would more likely just push the vent cover window inside the car and not necessarily break the window .
As for grades of polycarbonate and the FIA testing videos - Aerospace grade - not really such a thing unless you start to consider properties such as flame resistance, optical quality, etc the products used in Aerospace share the same base resins as the windows manufactured for race cars , they tend to be thicker or laminated or 90% of the time a totally different material called stretched Acrylic, if you actually look at the canopy tests with the wheel , your more than likely looking at between 8-12 mm thick which is for one HEAVY, very difficult to manufacture and not indicative of the strength of different grades but more indicative of how a thick well designed fighter jet canopy can withstand an impact
Applying a STRENGTH requirement - again without the understanding of polycarbonate , its not as simple as just having a quoted strength , as the mechanics of the window also need to be addressed - fixing holes, glue, coatings etc can all significantly affect the strength of a window - currently the regulations stipulate a thickness of between 3.8 and 4.2mm all round ( excepting the windscreen which remains glass) - Personally I would like to see 6mm door windows and 3 mm could be used on the rest of the car to compensate for the extra weight on the door windows - especially on the top tier WRC cars where excursions into the greenery happen at high speed
Your very welcome to contact me , even visit our factory for a more in depth chat as this is certainly a very interesting topic - P4P
Very good points, if I ever revisit this topic I'll definitely contact you. Living in Australia I'm not sure visiting the factory would be an easy option though. One thing I should clarify with regards to "aerospace grade" polycarbonate, this is a slight paraphrase of the term used by the FIA when they conducted the canopy test they used the term "aerospace spec polycarbonate", so when I refer to aerospace-grade polycarbonate, I'm referring to what the FIA defines as "aerospace spec", which in that case was the fighter jet canopy.
@pauldavenport7403 your knowledge of poly carbonate is impressive. The focus of this video is on future solutions. More secure side windows and closed cockpits.
Really simple and something which that FiA technical idiot Jerome Touquet will never figure out.
FiA's silence on this matter is deafening but the coverup is normal. It has happened many times before
Still to this day, it hasn’t fully sunk in that Craig isn’t with us anymore. 2023 was the year for him to prove to the world just how capable he was!
RIP KEN AND CRAIG
He was well on his way to doing so, I feel his first WRC rally win wasn’t far off, he was frighteningly quick in Sweden that year.
The fact that Ott Tänak experienced a way worse crash and was still alive, while Breen got killed from a simple accident makes it really shocking.
What Tänak's crash are you talking about?
@@Thinking0012020 Monte Carlo
@@Thinking001 probably the one where he crashed into a lake
@@britishgaming6that one was with Ford, I think. OP is probably referring to the Monte Carlo 2020 crash where Tanak was driving an I20 (sorry if this is a double post; TH-cam isn't showing my other reply as posted for some reason).
@Thinking001 i mean 2020 in Monte Carlo, when Tänak barrel rolled off a hill
I'm not so sure a solid window would've stopped that log. The problem with that accident is the angle of impact more than anything else. Those tests with the fighter canopy have a fairly shallow angle of impact, and a tire strike not only has a wider impact area, but a much softer material to cushion the blow. To protect against a direct 90⁰ impact from a solid, focused point would require a window that's significantly thicker than the fighter canopy, which is already extremely thick to begin with.
The windows can obviously still be strengthened, but there's another piece of low-hanging fruit that could also help in mandating closed helmets, which also allows for improved driver cooling via the system used by Indycar and NASCAR, with a vent connected directly to the helmet. Visibility wouldn't be affected that much as the containment seats already kill a good chunk of peripheral vision, and the combination of a moderately strengthened window and a proper closed helmet means anything that does get through the window now faces a significantly stronger helmet.
I see your point about the angle being different, but I think that's negated by the significantly lower speed (I say
@@FailedRacers Regarding the amount of force, you're missing something else. The canopy only had to deflect the weight of the wheel, while the window would've had to arrest most of the weight of the car, as it's effectively the projectile being deflected in this case. And again, the area of impact is very much working against the window here, that log's impact area is much, much smaller than the wheel, and doesn't have the benefit of a rubber tire to absorb and distribute the load. This looks like a perfect storm of misfortune to me, with the only thing that could've stopped that log being armored glass, assuming the window itself doesn't get popped out of its mountings.
Yeah. I too see this as very hard to protect against. I'm not sure if a closed helmet would've helped in this case either.
There's plenty that can and needs to be done, but at this point we just need to wait and see if FIA are actually ready to do what it takes.
Deaths at rallies happen yearly though, although usually at much lower level, and the uncontrolled environment is inherently much much more dangerous than that of a racing circuit.
@@griffinfaulkner3514another important factor is that the canopy windows used as demonstration are actually more similar in design to tank armor, as their effective thickness increases with the degree of slant. In cars, the windows are more similar to old tank armor, where the only way of strengthening is to increase thickness, increasing weight.
I've been involved in rallying for 40+ years. For a period I was also trained on a rally rescue unit. I've seen and heard of many 'freak' accidents such as that involving Breen. Rallying will never be 100% safe. BUT let me say that the balance between safety and extraction needs to be considered. Rallying is NOT circuit racing where you have immediate rescue and full medical services mere minutes away. When a rally car goes 'off' professional rescue services can be 15 minutes or more away, if a casualty is trapped by excessive safety equipment this prolongs aid and extraction further. For that reason I disagee with the safety measures proposed in this video, while they may prevent a 'freak' accident such as Breen's, the unintended consequence might be to reduce survivability more generally. Also, that window slot is NOT primarily for cooling, as suggested, but rather for communication at stage start and end between rally car crew and rally officals, (time controls, passage controls, service areas) enclosing the crew to such an extent as suggested makes this difficult if not impossible, and the opening of doors to do such is problematic (I've seen a few time keepers knocked down by rally crews excitedly opening doors at control points, rather than passing time cards through open windows slots). A story to finish to illustrate from 30 years ago in the days of alluminium roll cages! A rally car hits a tree, the crew compartment is undamaged, but the co driver is trapped she has also swallowed her tongue in the impact and is unable to breath.....access to her is paramount, seconds matter, not minutes. A first aid trained marshall is first on the seen and clears her airway. 10 minutes later the rescue crew arrive and safely extract her protecting her C spine. She was thankfully otherwise uninjured as a visit to hospital confirmed. Had the safety measures suggested been in place the outcome could have been so different! Safety measures need to be robust but they can't cover every eventuallity, like the argument for and against seat belts, safety measures have to imrpove safety generally, but there will be specific incidents where they don't!
I agree, Breen’s accident was very unique in the nature that the impact happened to land in a weak spot. Changing the regulation and safety standards for a ‘freak’ accident could put in jeopardy all of the other safety measures already in place
This post by Revup1 is the only content in this video, and in this comments section, that displays any amount actual understanding of the rules, regulation's, and requirements for safety inside a rally car. As a former safety steward for SCCA Pro Rally, Rally America, and the American Rally Association, I can confirm everything that Revup1 has said is absolutely accurate, and true.
Mandating for changes in the windows would not have made a single bit of difference in the outcome of Craig's crash. Mandating a full faced helmet as others have suggested in the comments, would not have changed the outcome of Craig's crash.
The real issue in Craig's crash was that a non-vehicle rated guard rail was placed next to the road. And had it not been Craig at a shake down for the rally, it is likely that, at some point, someone else would have also lost their life by taking a 6 inch log to the face at 50mph when they lost control of the car in that corner. That isn't something a full face helmet, or the lack of a window flap is going to prevent. Unless you make that ballistic aircraft rated polycarbonate look like it's mounted to the side of an MRAP door, the door frame of a Rally1 won't handle that level of force impacting it, or any other typical road going vehicle for that matter.
At the end of the day, while the videos author has his heart in the right place, his understanding of the circumstances, and the engineering involved, is wildly off base.
@bigbuckoramma I see your point, but the thing is, the handrail consisted of two horizontal logs. The upper, and the lower. This meant both the top half of the door, and the bottom half hit the same sort of object at the roughly the same angle and the same speed. This makes it somewhat of a side by side test of the window and the bottom half of the door. The window was fully penetrated. The bottom half of the door wasn't even visibly dented. Furthermore, is it reasonable for there to be absolutely no window strength requirements in the Rally1 rules? The window is the only thing seperating crews from external debris. Furthermore, strong windows won't necessarily mame extraction and escape or medical access harder, especially if they're mounted in a quick release way, you can make things which are very strong in one direction, but not so strong in another. Think of train couplings, they're very simple to decouple, but when locked in, they can hold hundreds of tonnes. Adding a latching mechanism that can be undone by hand, but won't come undone from a hard impact is entirely doable. For this impact to be survivable, all the window needed was to be as strong as the bottom half of the door.
@@FailedRacers I am sorry to say, but this only solidifies my opinion that you are extremely out of your depth on the subject matter.
The crash reconstruction is extremely easy to visualize if you consider the damage to the car. If you hit a vertical post, the top of the post will move away faster than the anchored bottom of the post where it is pivoting. The top rail will side slip the vertical post as it moves away from the car striking it, while the lower rail will get forced down to the ground under the vertical post. As the car sheers over the vertical post, the skid plate will ride up the lower rail and vertical post like a 50/50 grind on a skateboard. Simultaneously, the top rail will almost be floating in mid air, and simply go through the side window.
Now, directly inside the window is a significant amount of impact foam, as well as the side guards on the seat for the head restraint system. The carbon that the seat pan, and subsequently the head side rails, is made from is significantly stronger than a polycarbonate window ever will be. That didn't stop the log either.
The morbid reality is that Craig was likely thrown forward by the impact, and the log impacted the side of his helmet with tremendous force, as the weight of the car effectively shoved him into the log, and crushed his skull. Sorry if that is a bit graphic, but this is the morbid reality of racing accidents.
We have seen what a small metal spring can do to a higher safety impact rated helmet with the Philippe Masa accident in F1. And even still, despite the halo and materials improvements on helmets, open cockpit helmets still suffer from damage, and drivers get concussions from debris impact.
And we also have a prime example of a car impact with an actual vehicle rated guard rail, in the form of Robert Kubica's accident. Another prime example of the fact that freak accidents can, and will, happen.
As for the mounting of a piece of polycarbonate...polycarbonate is extremely flexible, in all directions, by design. A ballistic canopy is not simply a 5mm piece of perspex bolted up in a fancy frame. The F-16 cockpit that you showed F1 testing during their Halo development, is a ballistic rated polycarbonate composite sandwich that is over 3/4 of an inch thick, and it's strength comes from the curvature of its shape, and the fact that there is nearly 4 inches of it mounted into the cockpit surround. We can also look at something like the Indy Car AeroScreen, developed largely by the same people who make the F-16 canopy. It is still 1cm thick, and is anchored into a titanium frame, that captures nearly 3/4 of an inch at the top and center rib, and nearly 1.5 inches at the bottom mounting to the chassis. And most of the impact resistance and strength of the system is provided by the titanium frame, which is essentially a Halo with a windscreen to keep debris out. The polycarbonate itself is not doing the heavy lifting, and it's intrusion resistance is bolstered by being installed on a curve, and bolted through the afore mentioned titanium frame, and it's only several inches tall. These are all things that you can not do on a typical side window without making it look like an armored car, because that is effectively what it would have to be, in order to work as you think it would/should. Because a large flat multi layer composite piece of ballistic polycarbonate capable of stopping a 6 inch log from penetrating it at 50+ MPH and stopping a ton of car, would have to be well over an inch thick, and the door frame to mount it would look more like the Presidential limousine, than a race car.
A train coupler mechanism is not trying to grab onto and hold a piece of flexible plastic who's entire purpose is to deform and absorb energy under stress. A simple frame with a simple mechanical latching system isn't going to work to stop the kind of force loads you are talking about, any more than you can stop a car by standing in front of it.
The side windows are already polycarbonate, and already riveted to the door frame. And actually increase the integrity of the door frame, as well as provide a lighter and safer alternative to glass. There is a reason things are done the way they are in a rally car, and not the way they are in a GT or Touring car.
Like I said, your heart is in the right place, and that is commendable, but people with a lot more engineering knowledge and backgrounds than any of us here in the TH-cam comments section, have looked at these sorts of issues, and have yet to find a better alternative. And there is likely good reason for that.
At the end of the day, whether we want to admit it or not, Rallying is the most dangerous form of professional motorsports on 4 wheels. And the very nature of the roads and surroundings rally takes place in, make it inherently dangerous. And no matter how safe we try to make the cars, or the roads, there will still be deaths in our sport. And when we can advance safety, we will. But oftentimes the circumstances are simply so specific, and so random, that no amount of engineering can prepare for the inevitable.
@@FailedRacers I think we are right to have the discussion, and regulations should be constantly in review to improve safety, and for that reason I've subscribed and I applaud your video for asking the question. However, conducting a forensic investigation based on what can be seen in a short video clip of a car being loaded onto a transporter is purely speculation, we don't know that the lower part of the door withstood anything, we don't know if a window 'failure' was the reason for the severity of the accident. I've know the FIA to introduce some stupid rules over the years, but by and large they always act to improve safety and I expect they will, eventually, do what is right in regard to Craig Breen's accident. I find it telling that @bigbuckoramma mentions MRAP doors. You can make a vehicle ridiculously safe, but from personal experience in another life I've lived, even MRAP's can be penetrated, and I've seen the aftermath of armoured vehicles being blown off roads without being penetrated at all, but trapping the crew inside resulting in death. Thanks for the reminder @bigbuckoramma, but I think it does reinforce the point of protection vs extraction. As this accident happened on a rally recce it would be pertinent to ask if the organisers had identified this danger on the stage, and if there was an intention to place a protective barrier in the location for the actual event.
Drivers would turn off air conditioning if they're allowed to because it would sap horsepower, so the FIA would have to mandate a regulated air conditioning system
Easiest way around this is to hard wire the ac clutch to the battery with no intermediate switch other than the compressors over pressure switch. Or switch to an electric ac compressor and have the ecu log it's state during the race, anything out of place would show up in logs.
The way it's done in WEC is max cockpit temperature. Anything >32° and they get a warning. If it happens twice, a 20s time penalty.
The Dodge Challenger SRT Demon managed to figure out how to have air conditioning and not sacrifice horsepower
@@patrickracer43 incorrect, the Demon still uses an engine driven air conditioning system and sacrifices around 1 horsepower while it's turned on. For a car to not lose horsepower while air conditioning is turned on the air conditioning system would have to have an efficiency of around 110%, which would mean outputting more energy than it takes in, which breaks just about every known last of physics, most notably the first law of thermodynamics
There's a system in use in the WEC/GT racing that would work, based on a trick AC clutch that only engages when the engine is off-throttle, under braking. While I don't know the details, I wouldn't be surprised to find it was as simple as adding a pressure switch to the brake system that only allows the AC clutch to energize when the brake pedal is used, i.e when the power used by the ac has no effect on performance. Something like this would probably work fairly well on a rally car, where most courses are corner heavy...
Also A/C would be safer in rainy condition because it could unfog the windshield much faster
That too! The amount of fogged up windscreens in recent rallying is certainly a problem
@@FailedRacersnot to mention, instead of having an opening in the window, you could just have it somewhere else (Bonnet, roof, wherever) and redirect the air via a tube into the cockpit
Afaik rally cars already have electric heaters to combat fogging, but in very high humidity there's only so much you can do.
@@963robo IRC this hole is for giving documents on start, u can see in smaller local rallyies
I've always been thinking why AC isn't more widely used in motorsports in general, not just WRC. Just use standardised equipment in more or less standardised spot on the car so that the impact on performance is similar for everyone. I know motorsport is all about performance, but if we can sacrifice a little bit of it for drivers safety and comfort, then why are we not doing that?
Winning is more important than comfort lol. It doesn’t get that hot with the roof vent open
Depends on the rally. In Acropolis, cockpit temperatures reach as much as 60°
@@FailedRacers I’m aware. I’ve been in cars with a cockpit temp over 150F during summer rallies. It’s still manageable as long as you’re hydrated and I can tell you that no one will want to run AC even in those conditions
Mostly weight savings. Any additional weight that isn't necessary adds fractions of a second, if not whole seconds of time. Same reason why drivers are expected to maintain good size and physicality.
The problem is more about what the car is hitting. A flying wheel gets deflected but a fence post and rail are planted in the ground and don't deflect easily. Also hitting a post or rail along its length means there is a far higher cross-sectional density which further aids penetration.
By tragic coincidence, Craig Breen's previous co-driver Gareth Roberts was also killed by a rail that penetrated the car through the bulkhead/fire wall. Another incident happened in Turkey 2004 when a metal rod went through the floor of Gronholm's car and got lodged in Timo Rautiainen's thigh.
There's a reason why armour piercing rounds are long rod penetrators.
U forgot about R.Kubica where guardrail penetrated car and almost killing him.
It's easy to say "fit stronger" windows, but it's a much more complex task in reality, and I don't believe the comparisons to canopies is entirely fair. The angle of a canopy promotes deflection of the object, which is not what would have happened in the case of the fence hitting the relatively vertical side window of Breen's car. Similarly, it doesn't account for the much larger surface area of a tyre compared to the more focused impact of a long, slender piece of wood.
Another challenge is that the side windows are mounted to a relatively weak part of the door. The frame is not substantial, and is mounted to the upper part of the door across a relatively small surface area, which leaves lots of scope for deflection or even failure. If you look at older cars, it's possible to bend the window frames with your hands (it was a common method for breaking into cars some years ago) and, while doors have now got a lot stronger, it does illustrate where one of the major weak points is. To offer a significant increase in protection, you would not only need to use thicker window material, but also make the upper part of the door much stronger (to prevent the fixings being broken and the window from simply being pushed out of the frame). You may even need to revise the door aperture in the body shell itself to transfer some of the load from the door and into the body.
On top of all of that, we need to remember that maximising safety is about balancing risk factors. If a car is upside down, or the doors are somehow jammed, the ability to kick the windows out becomes the primary means of exit (or of a rescue/medical team gaining access to the crew). If we make the side windows much stronger, and the crew can't get out of a car that's on fire, we end up with a whole different kind of tragedy.
We should always, always be looking for ways to make motorsport safer, and I don't doubt that there is scope for improvement in this area (simply because there is ALWAYS scope for improvement), but I think your video does slightly over-simplify the challenge of implementing the changes you suggest, as well as not recognising some of the potential drawbacks. While tragic, Breen's crash was certainly not a revelation. It's long been known that side impact is the most dangerous type of collision, while piercing incidents are also high-risk (see Timo Rautiainen's injury back in 2005). It was a terrible, terrible moment for motorsport, but the "fix" is anything but simple.
After reading your comment i immediately thought of mclaren f1 and GMA t50 side window having another bar where the original purpose is structural integrity. I can see this would works on this case, and window doors can be easily fitted on the bottom section of the window. But it would introduce problem mostly spiritually since rally cars are int he spirit of modified road-going car, and having such feature probably would kill the spirit since you'll need an entirely new door model.
I think there's more simpler and easier solution for it, but maybe we need to wait for the final report to truly understood the whole detail of the accident.
Yeah but if there isn’t even a regulation of how strong it needs to be that should be addressed
race planners should have walked te track... noticed the new fence... and did a risk assesment... hind sight 20/20 .... but.... just looking at how it was orientated before the crash was scary
@@keithromano3157There are all sorts off obstacles like that of rally stages, they are normal roads, I bet a car had been up and down that road 50 times.
@@alieffauzanrizky7202 I think they could do something else in general with safety in mind. Rally 1 cars had a tendency to loose their parts and panels in and accident,trunk lids flying around are quite common. If you loose a panel,the things behind it are exposed to any intrusions. They could add something like a small deflector made of poly-carbonate of whatever material into the door,like the Halo idea is not to make a canopy like the fighter jet but something to deflect large objects. Maybe 1/3 of the window,the closest part to the driver would work,I think you could simulate something like this to prevent direct hits on the occupants while being reasonable easy to rescue.
You present the broken vent window as a smoking gun of sorts. It is not. A broken vent window does not mean the post intruded via the vent window. The window undoubtedly experienced significant deformation in the impact, and this alone would be enough to break the vent.
As it stands, the windows are primarily an aerodynamic or driver comfort comfort device. To make them into a structural safety device in the event of a similar crash to Breen’s would require a total redesign of the door, door mounting, the window itself, and potentially the spec safety cell.
This would add significant weight very high up on the car. It’s not impossible, but it is a serious challenge to implement.
Additionally, “aerospace grade” polycarbonate is not a thing. That’s a blanket term that could refer to many different materials, in the same way that “aerospace grade aluminium” is potentially 7075, 6061, 2024, etc…
The difference between the tire impact and the Breen crash is two fold. The tire has many times greater surface are than the end of the fence post, and much less inertia than an entire rally1 car. This means there is less stress on the polycarbonate over a larger area, and less force is required to decelerate/deflect the tire. Additionally, the shape of the cockpit provides strength beyond what a flat side window can provide.
It’s possible to create a side window system that features windows of 1”+ thickness and and mounts to accommodate, but it may be trading off all the safety advantages of the current solution in regards to driver extraction. Additionally, there are many instances of fence post cockpit intrusion that have not occurred via a window, so the problem still remains. Trying to minimize the risk of a low percentage occurrence may just introduce more risk in more common crashes. There may not be a significantly better solution than what is currently in use.
Good point well made sir.
A thicker window would not have to mean that driver extraction is harder though, you could keep access the same while still making the cars safer.
Sorry but what load of rubbish. Have you ever worked with a vehicle that's been in an accident, or motorsport. A fence post would easily pierce a car door be it metal, carbon fibre or carbon kevlar. You seem to talk like you know what your talking about but clearly do not. Psi research it, for example say a car weighs 1 tonne, and said post was 1 inch in diameter 2204 lbs per square in. Also the slide windows ain't for temp it's for access without opening the door. Cockpits of rally cars produce a positive pressure to stomp dust etc entering the cock pit.
You really need to think be for rabbiting on about something you don't have a clue about.
I lost a mate due to a tree branch coming through the door and impaling him. This and breens accident were just that accidents something that's un planned. Many people would have been effected by this on the build team for the car and the crews keeping them going and you have pointed the finger at the design team and build team. Have some respectfor those who were involved. Rally drivers and any motorsport driver are a different breed, they have amazing skills and abilities and always push. Things go wrong accidents happen and it's no ones fault.
They just don’t get it, another case of someone on there computer but having no concept of the reality
i agree 110% with you!!
I think something you completely missed out on is that rally drivers don’t wear full face helmets leaving their face much more exposed. Which is a very simple safety fix with minimal negative implications besides more heat and loss of tradition
Open face helmet allows stuck driver or co driver to yell out the window for help.
@@ericford911 Full face helmets don't go into your mouth. You can still shout fine. Have you ever worn a full face helmet?
I agree full face helmets should be a must, why not protect the hole face for everything.
@@Dingle-Berriesit is much more difficult for mouth to mouth resuscitation with a full face helmet. Each competitor has to do a specific test before the event to be allowed to use a full face helmet.
Majority of helmets these days are semi open face.
It's another Dale Earnhardt situation in my books but unlike NASCAR the FIA hasn't done alot to fix it which take it as you want especially with the information we have is unacceptable
The fact that NASCAR allowed drivers without a HANS device to drive at all as insane at that time!
Jacky Stewart called out Earnhardt a few earlier during the 24h of Daytona that driving without neck protection could easily kill him.
A few weeks later exactly that happened..
It could’ve all been prevented.
The only reason NASCAR mandated HANS devices was that three drivers passed before Dale and one more passed after (Kenny Irwin, Adam Petty, Tony Roper, and Blaise Alexander). NASCAR aren't saints, but that only brings to question how much we have to tolerate these things as "freak accidents" until they happen enough in a row that something needs to be done.
The FIA is better than this. Jules' accident was a freak accident, yet they still mandated the Halo eitherway. They need to do better.
No Dale brought it on himself, it was a well know issues, with a know fix, all the information was avaliable to him, the sponser had said they would pay for the Hans device so he wasn't out of pocket. But he active protested again the requirement of the Hans device, and got other drivers to back him preventing them becoming mandatory before his death, he went so far as to referring to the Hans device as "that damned noose" to reports before the race.
@@therealdeemz_ The FIA had already been developing the Halo half heartedly for 5 years at that point. it began creation after the death of Henry Surtees in F2 and near fatal accident of Felipe Massa in F1, both in 2009
@@rolux4853 evidence?
In "this is rally" compilations, by Mr.M, there are footages of two separate accidents from Poland. Two different crews, at two different rallys, had their cabin/cockpit penetrated by wooden fence posts. But not from the sides. At first accident pole went in through the back window, and stopped by piercing through the windshield/ front window. At second accident, pole went in directly through the windshield and stopped onto something behind the crew. Miraculosly, at both accidents, wooden poles went through the cabin exactly between the driver and co-pilot, leaving them unharmed, but stressed out, of course.
So, not only polycarbonate side windows are susseptible to being pierced by long stiff objects and i don't see any simple and rational solution to that safety issue.
Also, i don't know if rally cars are in any way more resistant , to prevent the accident like Robert Kubica's at 2011, when guardrail pierced through the firewall, almost killing Robert at the spot...
I thought the window vents were meant for the crew to pass their time cards to marshals without opening the door.
Also that, but they're open on road sections for cooling
@@FailedRacers No not "also that". Teams are not in a rush to hand in their time cards. Transit times between stages are ample to discourage speeding on public roads. The 5 seconds it takes you to open the door will not make one lick of difference.
@SteinOnkel yes, 'also that'... mainly that, in fact. Have you seen some of the gaps between stages at rallies like Ypres, for example? There are often around 30 minutes between the start of one stage and the start of the next one. So that's start one stage, complete it (potentially with issues - car or incident), get your timecard completed, drive the road section (where in Belgium the speed limits are unbelievably slow and there could potentially be traffic with some of the stages being at the end of the working day on a Friday near towns), stop to make any repairs or at the very least check tyre pressures, arrive at ATC and check in, start the next stage.
Appreciate it may seem a piece of cake to open the door, but remember that the co-drivers sit very low and far back, so it won't be as easy as you and I opening the door in our road cars and passing something over it either.
These two elements together - the window slot is pretty much necessary, rather than a 'nice to have'.
With regard to the point in the video that windows currently have to be removable without tools, the window vent doubles as handle that can be used by marshals to pull the window out.
@@jameswilliamson512 "You and I in our road cars" - speak for yourself there, buddy. I'm a co-driver and know damn well where I sit, thankyouverymuch. Repairs? Why would that factor in? If your car breaks before the next service - that's tough luck. Transit times are exactly that: transit.
Again, if the transit times are not long enough and force teams to rush, that is a completely separate issue.
It seems to me most people commenting on this video have never been within five feet of a rally car and have no idea what they are talking about.
My comments will definitely take flack, but this guy clearly knows nothing about rallying
While Craig's passing was a great and very unfortunate tragedy, making the side windows stronger will not bring about any improvement in safety. It would be better to put 40kph speed limiters on the cars.
Your knowledge of the modern rally car seems to be extremely limited. You want to improve the strength of the open area you can see. what you cant see is the weaknesses in the non see through areas. A piece of tin or carbon fiber 0.7 to 1mm thick will not stop the passage of a log or arm-co barrier rail through the car. I have seen my fair share of cars penetrated by wood and steel structures. they are part of the risk of cross country motorsport unfortunately, and short of making them like a tank, you cant stop objects entering the cabin from all directions
There is also no useful ventilation whatsoever from the vents in the side windows, in fact most drivers keep them closed in a stage to prevent dust entering. If you knew anything about rally cars you would know that the ventilation comes from the roof, and is directing cool air onto the two drivers often through a filter, so there is no need for air conditioning in most events. In events where they run through very high ambient temperature for hours on end, like the desert, the cars already have AC, because it is a performance advantage.
I think the best solution , according to your view, would be to fit 60mm bullet proof windows to the side , front and rear screens. That should almost be safe enough don't you think. Then the body, roof, and floor needs to be 10mm 6082 plate......
I'm not quite sure how the occupants will exit in the case of a water crash with such strong protection, but perhaps a full scuba kit will be mandatory solution.
A better solution is to ban all forms of competition, that will eliminate a substantial risk factor for all people.
I dont believe you have to remove the small window opening, rather improve its strength.
For example the opening could remain the same size but have the sliding hatch piece be larger than the hole. The larger size would dissipate the energy and make the piece stronger. Then reinforce the mounting of it with narrow metal support (like the front window bar shown in the video). It would reduce visibility slightly, but if it's mounted further back, it should be limited in its impact.
This is such an important topic. Ridiculous it has been this long without a response from the FIA. Hope this video blows up and gets the attention it deserves.
Thank you for this video. This was a bold step for you and your channel and I appreciate the solemn tone and informative nature of this documentary. I do understand why you were initially a bit tentative over broadcasting it. After all, the title of Failed Racers brings to mind Laff-a-Bits and Whacky Racers vehicle antics and concerns from you and your viewers over whether or not both sides would take this story seriously and respectfully. The comments so far, and from what I have seen from a couple of minutes into the video suggest congratulations and job well done. Maybe you should do some special episodes that examine other motorsport fatalities or serious accidents caused by safety or overall design issues, such as Keith Odor and Gregg Hansford's 1995 touring car accidents that resulted in changes to touring car roll cages, the mysterious Jim Clark F2 crash and NASCAR's hair-raising (But non-fatal!) Car of Tomorrow smashes! Keep up the good work. You have done the memory of Craig Breen a service.
The course organizers are just as at fault as Craig’s crew chief, and the FIA. Firstly as an organizer it is a great responsibility to prevent issues like this. Anyone who’s spent any time in Rally would see that log fence and immediately question why something wasn’t placed in front of it, either a safer barrier or a hay bale. Either would have been more than substantial at preventing this. Therefore the organizers should be held responsible.
Like wise, we can not fault simply the windows strength, as looking at the piece post collision shows minimal damage to the window itself, simply that it was blown out. If this vehicles doors do not have window frames, this may have been the reason. If such is the case it should be mandated that no vehicle which is manufactured without window frames shall be eligible for homligation. The lexan must set inside of the frame, tight, and be removable without tools.
Another critical fault of the windows is slider construction. Sliders must be constructed of a piece which is at least 1” larger on both sides than the opening, be on the outside of the window, and have securement rails bonded which are no less than twice the thickness of the window material. There needs to be a spec set for the material, publicly listing at least two suitable materials which are available to the general public. The slider being placed on the inside means debris can punch it out, where as a larger piece than the opening being placed on the outside would make entry of debris much more difficult.
This is a multifaceted scenario which requires addressing several key issues.
Material, construction and securement of the side windows.
Stage design and fatality prevention
We can do better.
It’s not an air vent !!! It’s way too small for that. It’s a small window to pass there time card through or talk to someone.
You may have a valid point it makes the window weaker but I’m not not anything would be strong enough stop a fence rail .
Solution is to make rigid aluminum frames for mounting windows, make the frame have a mechanical break away. You see them in Frag 5 armored humvees. Basically it's two or four levels with retention pins in them. They can be open from inside and outside without tools.
I cannot think about what was James thinking when the car came to a stop and Breen was just a body
In my completely unprofessional opinion, the fence post is the issue. I understand stage rally doesn’t take place on a circuit but having a fence post pointed directly at the apex of a corner just seems ludicrous. This accident is was just a freak instance. Rest In Peace, Craig.
I didnt expect such a error in the safety of rally cars such a simple mistake took a life and could take many more
And btw i love your videos such a good work
There's nothing wrong with the window.No technical regulations need to be changed. In fact, unfortunately the road they were testing on wasn't prepared correctly. There should've been a barrier, stack of tires, something that can prevent that kind of penetration in front of the handrail.
RIP Craig!
Few problems with the theory of adding AC:
1. What if it fails (How would you cool just with the roof scoop?)
2. Who would use it because it will cost time on rally
3. In case of a crash, toxic waste from ac will go into nature already mixed with oil exct… + the ac gas can be toxic for the drivers in case of the crash if they cant get out of the car…
Solution in my eyes:
1. Full face helmet
2. Higher grade poly windows
3. Mandatory curve in the window so if there is a similar impact between 45-90 degrees with a strong pointy object it can deflect easier.
4. Drivers must sit as close as they can to the b pillar in the cage (for easier understanding, move seat back + whole dashboard so they are more
protected by the roll cage + structure of the car) and they wont loose the front visibility
The ac gas is 400-600 grams only it’s not 4 kg of gas. It disappears into the air without you noticing . And newer gas is beter for the environment.
@@ThaDutchDK1989 Yes, new gas is better for environment, but toxic for people in contact with water and selfignition in 405C (761ºF).
I thin we need AC not only for cooling but as anti dew device
Angles of impact is the key. Fighter jets canopies are somewhat curved or, when flat, made of ballistic materials. A bubble like window would deflect everything, to a point. Another example of this concept is the angle of armor vehicles/tanks and/or stealth-low radar signature aircraft construction. The angle impact or incidence of windows and windshields is critical.
All plausible solutions.
But A/C not only adds weight, but also burns more fuel, subtracts horsepower, and also creates condensation that can leak onto the road surface and staging lanes. Definitely make the windows stronger, and maybe look into a mini net that can be stretched across where the ventilation hole is so it adds some protection, but doesn't obscure driver vision.
AC should become mandatory as it is for GT and WEC cars
Condensation is minimal, though? You're not chilling the cars down to extremely low temperatures either, unlike a normal road car, so there'd be not much of an issue there
Nets are illegal as well for a lot of countries.
the issue is not a small movable side-windows but object intrusion in habitacle. See Kubica rally crash.
F1 got it figure out with a survival cell and a halo around the hear. Not perfect but way better that nothing for the head. But on rally car, you have the safety cell that absorb the big force of a crash and protect but big gap of nothing between the tube. The ideal is to have something like a survival cell, material on every gap and add windows that withstand object intrustion. We probably get a Army Tank or a Skoda Octavia WRC.
I think the work must be done more on the stage side. Yeah, a know "RaLlY iS A DangErOuS sPOrT, dOn'T be A Kid" but wood and steel barrier are now a big no-no on competitive stage form quite some time now and the FIA is the one to approve or not a stage to be "safe" after securing those barriers. Because is was not a rally stage but a private day of testing on a public closed road, the FIA didn't check the stage for danger, you can clearly see on the picture of the turn the wooden fence, that thing will never be seen on a WRC stage, either a concrete wall or just no run at all in this section.
I won"t blame Hyundai or FIA on this but I hope that every team and organisation will learn to better detect and mitigate stage potential danger like barrier.
I could be wrong but I always thought the little sliding window was just so they didn't have to open the door to talk and hand papers to officials at the controls. They have a roof vent to provide positive air pressure to help keep dust out, that would give them fresh air as well. I think if it was cooling they wanted they'd use a more aerodynamic option like the NACA ducts that are widely used in lots of racing motor racing disciplines. V8 Supercars have NACA vents in the back windows and pipe the air around inside with ducting. They don't have air conditioning, but they have cool suits and the helmets are fed fresh cool air as well. So are they really necessary? Because there's plenty of ways to get air in the car and it's probably safer to have s sealed window and just open the door at the control.
I could imagine that the argument against AC is the weight and "what if it fails".
But on a side-note...can't the roof scoop serve as (backup) ventilation?
Air conditioning would add weight, but if it's mandated, everyone has the same disadvantage. The rules in WEC for aircon failure are a warning followed by a 20s penalty if it isn't fixed, the roof scoops would have to stay as a backup, maybe with an opening or closing flap for if the aircon is working or not. I think mandating that the air con must come from a production car would make it less likely to fail as well, since air conditioning failure doesn't usually happen on cars under a year old.
@@FailedRacers most AC failures come from debris puncturing the evaporator.
As a motorsport engineer you have to understand some issues in what you talk about:
1- Polycarbonate doesnt have an "aerospace" grade in terms of strength rather in optical qquality with regards to canopy curvature and its constructive and destructive ability that being said i do understand you mean the testing of it if am not mistaken
2- Race car design is complex and hard and therefore we cant possibly make the car perfect in every aspect that being said you must realize that 1 accident cant force a change in safety because the probability of a log penetrating a window is very low and if we start accounting for and engineering of every conceivable safety risk we wont be making a race car we might as well just pack up and go home.
3- The good point you make about windows is their frame, I admit that might be a very underappreciated safety part of the car but unfortunately inertia and stiffness of such a small and narrow gap is too great to be overcome even with a thicker window, its kinda like making a gap in a building and expecting the same slabs and beams combination to bear the inherent extra loads from the resulting moment generated, therefore the vent is a structural weakness and in my opinion the solution cant be AC but a page out of LMH and put a vent at the top or bottom of the windshield and duct it to the face of drivers in a way that doesnt impact visibiity
I was on my way home last year while I got a push up message saying Breen died. I had to pull over and get a minute to fully understand what happened, especially since the pics shown didn't indicate why.
20 years ago, RX car windows were a mandatory 5mm thick macrolon, no vents, solid fix on the door. That never failed.
A roof vent is enough to cool the cockpit. Apart from the first year of hybrid, even in hot rallies, drivers always close the window vent during stages. I do it to reduce wind noise!
As for the timecard, open the damn door.
Or better, use transponder with gate.... U don' t need hole or open door.
on the subject of full face helmets Ayrton Senna was killed by a small suspension component hitting his helmet. a mix of speed, angle, size and shape of object impacting and how things are anchored. the perfect storm and it can be all over
The helmet today is much better than Senna's though. It may be nothing if he had today's helmet.
You wouldn't even need something like air-conditioning. Ban the Window vents and make the teams go back to wing mirrors fitted with Air intakes.
I post this comment as someone who knew Craig personally and we were members of the same Motorclub and as someone proud to have been part of the guard of honour at his funeral .
This video and your assessment of what happened is , and I don't say this Lightly ... pure and utter bullshit.
In particular your poor attempt to recreate via simulation the accident .
Mandated ac , good luck trying to extract drivers from cars with windows to the spec you're bullshittin on about .
It was a 1 in 10 million incident .
Your points regarding ac etc is again ,just pure bollocks .
Rallycars are safer now than ever .
Polycarbonate windows for example,are used in many classes of clubman cars here in Ireland .
Craig's death was a freak accident and a tragedy.
In my opinion the cause was the organisation of the test and lack of bales placed on the turn with the fence /handrail .
Before you post videos like this consider the family and friends/ clubmates affected by this incident.
I can understand why you're unhappy with this video, but there's a couple of things I should explain that may have been misunderstood here. I was initially unsure whether to post this video, I made a community post asking whether it would be acceptable, if the outcome was close I would not have posted the video, but 95% of respondents said that I should post it.
Regarding the simulation footage, as was mentioned at the start, this footage was not a reconstruction, but an illustration. It was a different corner, at a higher speed in dry conditions. This was for viewers unfamiliar with what happened to visualise roughly how the car went off. The use of simulator footage was deeply considered before I made the decision to include it.
You're probably right that I should have mentioned other contributing factors though, the hand rail absolutely should have had a bale in front of it, that would have almost undoubtedly changed the outcome.
In terms of the windows, my issue is not with polycarbonate itself. Polycarbonate windows are safer than glass. My issue is with the regulations, which don't have any requirement for the strength of the windows whatsoever. I referred directly to the specific relative FIA documents. I don't think it's reasonable for there to simply not be any regulations on the strength of the windows. It's also possible for a strong window to be removable without the use of tools, this can be through the sort of latching mechanism used, it's also possible for some materials to be strong in some directions and weak in others, such as having a window that's hard to push inwards from the outside, but easy to push outwards from the inside or pull outwards from the outside. With a strong window spec, there are still many solutions to extraction.
The decision to post this video was not taken lightly and was only made after significant approval from a relatively large number of people. Robust discussion about safety concerns is how changes happen, and it's how modern rally cars have become as safe as they are, but rallying will never be 100% safe and improvements can be made. This video discussed one possible improvement.
I must say I definitely agree with you on rallye cars as the stages often have trees, railguards or fences close that can quickly become a fatal projectile, like in this case or when Robert Kubica's car got pierced by the railguards a few years back in rallye.
Despite this, for GT3, GT4, TCR and other classes that race under much more controlled circumstances and on racetracks with runoff areas and specially designed impact barriers, I think this is far more negligeable.
Finally, the windshield can only protect in certain cenarios such as from small flying carbon debris for example whereas in open wheelers these can already act as dangerous projectiles (e.g. F1 when Felipe Massa lost consciousness due to a screw hitting his helmet).
My idea/proposed solution, at least for the side windows would be to replace the safety net that is there to prevent head injury or libs hanging from a car in a crash with a much finer and larger net, like a fishing net, covering the entire window section. My reasoning:
1. It could potentially provide more side visibility than the current nets that have pretty wide straps (potential positive side-effect)
2. It could protect the driver and their limbs from side impact forces in a crash like the existing one, but due to the smaller grid size and rope size, it could also prevent (especially medium to large) debris such as wooden poles or sticks from entering or penetrating into the car
i mean ... this presents as though the car has a flaw.... a fence post is an environmental issue that race planners should have looked at befoe they even started practice ... the flaw wasn't with the cars... it basically got shot with a projectile.. not saying it wasn't 100% preventable.. but not by redesigning the car.... maybe better side windows??
NOT a “major” safety concern; a one in a million, very unfortunate set of circumstances. Motorsport is inherently dangerous, it’s impossible to protect against every conceivable possibility, nor should we want to.
RIP Craig 🇮🇪
Big shame that the FIA, the media and the people dont talk about the if and whys this accident happened. Props to you for doing this video. We NEED to discuss the accident more, so that it doesnt happen again.
Im shocked to hear that theres 0 standards on the strenght of the side windows, thats just completely unacceptable for a sport so dangerous to have so little cockpit protection.
What good is a roll cage if the windows are flimsier than a piece of paper and so easily fail? Im cant stress how chocked I am, the drivers are under more danger than Ive ever imagined.
I think the reason the FIA doesnt talk much about the accident is because they know that they were responsible for Craigs passing, the negative press it would generate to openly talk about the reason why Craig died, it would be just too much for them.
Something I was thinking during the video too was, where exactly did the pole hit Craig? Was it on his body? Or on his face? If it was a hit to the face then we could discuss the mandotory use of closed face helmets in rallies.
Then again, if they were to simply, as you said, put a ventless window made of aero grade policarbonate and put air conditioning on the car, that just wouldnt be necessary.
the fia have a long history of not dealing with the most important parts to a crash :: the halo project took 5 years of being dragged arround slowly before too much pressure forced the FIA to finish it, lack of good yellow flag rules in f1 were a major reason for Bianchi's death and still haven't been addressed
A very good video! Just frightning to see how small the crash actually was... Really hope that the FIA & WRC see your video :)
Im from Croatia and remember that day was so cold and windy.
People in Zagorje have there and then wooden fence to their land. I bet its an old person so he can climb easyer while holding on to fence .
RIP Breen. You are not forgotten
"polycarbonate" is just plastic and in f1 testing tires also take some of the force of off the canopies so it's not really comparable to a lot harder objects that you could hit in rally. Honestly I don't get why they wear open helmets, in 00s some drivers still ised full faced helmet and personally I would use one in any type of race I entered.
Also don
t agree with your suggested safety changes. One additional thing to the other points people have made, is that the window is required to be "breakable" by the driver/co-driver in the event a door jam, to allow the occupants to escape. A thicker stronger windows, attached more securely will make this impossible.
So this would prevent the many lives saved in the past by a breakable window, due to fire, smoke, or water submersion events.
There's ways around this too, having some sort of latching mechanism that can be undone by hand, but won't come undone when pushed inwards would solve the escape issues
What a waste of time. Empty assumptions from the clueless guy who only played rally video games.
Narrator constantly tries to talk lower than he can actually talk, so he crackles through the whole video. Ffs how annoying.
It was vaguely informative but what was the point of the video??
It sounds like they want the side windows to be as strong and structural as the main windshield while also being able to "just pop out" for rapid extraction. Simply not possible.
The vent and A/C critique also falls flat when you're talking about rally. A/C is a lot of complexity and weight that is intentionally omitted and worked around *most* of the time, with no major issues. You also can't compare circuit/street racing setups to offroad racing setups.
This event is a "wrong place, wrong time" tragedy (with lessons to take away), not a "FiA did bad" tragedy
So, in short, to prevent this in the future: full face helmets, a second roofscoop that enters into the cabin, instead of a vent hole and a curved window to dissipate the energy from window-hits into the door and roof.
Besides this, when I saw the news, I was so stunned I had to take a day off.
I bet the boss man had a good laugh about that 😂
They could just do a different kind of Air inlet, maybe in the roof. Or seek inspiration in other racing series their are a lot of different solutions for cooling the driver(s). It doesnt has to be as "complicated" as fitting a AC.
I have for a great many years advocated aircon in WRC cars, but ut would have to be tamperproof and work automatically within set parameters so that it cannot be turned off by the crew to gain a power advantage
No, just need a tamperproof thermometer, Like WEC, u get warning and next penalty
in my completely unprofessional opinion, i reckon that air vents in the back windows would be a good idea since the only thing in the back is the hybrid unit, which is going to be banned anyway, and a/c would only need to be used in hotter events or to prevent the windscreen fogging up (as someone else already said)
Rally drivers risk their lives to do what they do, and Craigs crash is an example of what can go wrong. I'm worried that what is outlined in this video is going too far with safety in motorsport. The reality is it was a freak accident. So many things had to happen just how they did for it to kill Craig even though it was such a minor crash. But he could have ended up in a river just like the recent fatal crash in New Zealand. You look at Robert Kubica's crash and see that no amount of safety equipment can 100% protect you at 180+ km/h when the only thing between you and a guard rail is some metal, foam, glass and a helmet. It's a question of where do you draw the line, where is it safe enough. and i think right now, especially when you look back at the likes of Group B, you have to realise it's pretty amazing how safe they are. Just look at Tanak's Monte Carlo crash for proof. Sure, make the windows stronger, but don't add air conditioning, making costs higher and adding another part that can break to the cars. My point is Rallying will NEVER have NO risk, so we need to accept what happened was simply due to some exceptional circumstances, and find rational ways to fix it without going over the top. Rip Craig
There can never be no risk, but air conditioning wouldn't really cost that much. These are million dollar cars. If you mandate that they have to use an air conditioning system from a road car, it really wouldn't cost Toyota or Hyundai that much to fish an air conditioning unit out of a Yaris or an i20, and it wouldn't be likely to go wrong either. From the viewer's perspective, it doesn't make a difference if the cockpit temperature is 32° or 50°, at the moment, it's usually the latter.
I agree and also say that the wooden fence was not made for safety of the road users like a standard guardrail but a boundary for the pedestrian to not fall off the cliff. Unfortunately accidents happen and can be deadly
Extra oversight can often catch issues. I was following the build of Georg Plasa's Judd/BMW hillclimb car at the same time I was building a roll cage. I (mechanical engineer) immediately saw a problem, and even mentioned it to a few folks. After his crash, it seemed clear to me how the frontal impact and the unusual cage bracing transverse to the firewall contributed to the distortion around the driver's door that collapsed the cage in that area.
Unfortunately, since AC saps power from the engine, I bet most teams would tune it down to the bare minimum and/or entirely turn it off. I guess that could be policeable by sensors and penalties if they’re turned down/off, but still. And there’s also still the need for a backup should it ever fail because they’re still rally cars and thus prone to failure. For that, probably ban window cooling vents and allow for/mandate more cooling outlets like F1 did for this season
Such an awful accident!! When I heard it was the widow that was part of the cause of death I was thinking the windows should be made stronger too!!! Would making the vent vertical help?? Ye shocking no air can 🙄
Good video! Excellent reasons for mandatory aircon. I can’t see any reason for not improving the regulations given the potential consequences of not doing so.
Having read some of the comments here, it seems that there's a lot of nuance to the issue. "How much stronger?" is a question that has to accompany any discussion of strengthening side windows.
What thickness of polycarbonate could actually have prevented the fence rail from entering the car? Is it practical to design, manufacture and install a window and attachment system that is strong enough to prevent a repeat of this accident? What consequences might it have in other kinds of accidents?
Perhaps the reason that there's been no published report from the FIA investigation yet is that they're still arguing about what to recommend as a way forward.
I'm gonna assume the argument for no A/C is 1 the extra weight added to the car and upset the balance of the car and lastly the A/C will rob the car of performance.
There must be another solution that can be implemented instead of A/C. I 've a feeling that the FIA will not act on this as they'll put it down to a freak accident. If that's correct, freak accident it maybe but it does not mean it wont happen again.
RIP Craig, very much missed :-(
This is true, but modern air conditioning systems don't reduce the power by much, maybe 1-2hp. There would be a drop in performance from air conditioning, but it would be such a small drop that it wouldn't be noticeable.
@@FailedRacersWhile this is correct, I'm sure you know how packed the rally cars are. I doubt there is much room for a/c to be able to be fitted. Yes the performance drop will be minimum. It's a drop all the same.
Also there would be when the a/c to be used either on for everyone on a particular rally or off?
mate tthat blue screen made me jump thinking I BSOD'd again before the text came at tthe start of the video.
damn son. subscribed.
the issue with making windows strong enough to allow projectiles to enter is what happens if the occupants only way to escape is by kicking that window out?
This is where having some form of latching mechanism would work. For example holding the window in place with some sort of lever, if the driver or someone outside the car twists it, the window will detach, but if it's pushed or pulled on, it won't move.
I get your point but those “vents” aren’t vents the are just little openings as the windows dont go up and down. There are large vents on the roof of the cars that direct air if required.
I do agree that better protection in this are would definitely be a great addition to what is generally a safe carbut freak accidents will sadly happen and not everything can be accounted for.
The issue I see is that the handrail shouldn't have been there, when there is a chance of a car hitting it. The cars have to be safe, but so does the 'track'
Great video!
I agree totally. One major difference in terms of loadcase is that most impacts we've seen tested were deflecting an object, due to the impact angle.
Would be interesting to know how a perpendicular impact looks like on a airplane cockpit.
For something to penetrate an object, the impact angle probably needs to be within 90° +/- 30°. So that would make a different load case. My guess is, that if it's not strong enough, one could do it with a thin fibre reinforcement. Thinking of a mesh like thing like in heated windows, but not to heat them, but to reinforce them if necessary. Could be thin steel mesh, aramid (kevlar) or potentially dyneema.
I'm pretty sure, this problem could be solved without making the rescue teams live even harder if sh*t hits the fan with one of those cars.
Airliner cockpit window must withstand a frozen turkey at max continuus speed (cruise)
I honestly thought it was a freak accident that couldn't be avoided; windows be the weak point? Of course! But, damn, yeah, there is *way* more to it. Thanks for making this; it sucks Breen's chances of survival could have been higher if we only took the time. Hopefully ot can be avoided in the future.
Seems so obvious. Hopefully the FIA acts soon. This video does other drivers a service, thanks. RIP Craig.
Thank you for this video. It was perhaps a tad long to get to issue but it is very useful for anyone preparing a car. The FIA have been sitting on their hands.
Lexan is very much a wonder material and as obviously holes are not a good idea (just ask any orthopedic surgeon who operates on motorway victims).
The strength of the door frame is also obviously important and Craig's unfortunate sacrifice should contribute to saving others. Observations noted.
Just make the roof scoop a bit larger where needed. Safari might need larger ones than Sweden.
Gregoire Munster lost his left rear window in Sweden this season from a slight tap of a snow bank too
That's interesting, I didn't get to see much of Sweden thisvyear because I was in Bathurst watching the 12hr, do you know which stage it was when he lost it?
Great explanation, thanks for this video. Craig is missed deeply by the whole rallying community, such a great character and a great driver.
The thing about the air vent, I think they're keeping it for two reasons. The first is handing the time card on the time control points. No problem, you can just open the door. The other reason is, it's sort of a back up in case the window blower breaks and your windows start fogging up. But perhaps an air vent in the roof could deal with that.
Let's hope something is done to prevent any more fatalities.
The issue with adding an AC to a Rally car can be easily explained
It takes away power from the engine when in use.
There has to be a Electrical driven AC somehow made to cool the cabin.
Now I only have experience as a Car Mechanic but there has to be a solution for cooling the interior as well as keeping a full aerospace-spec polycarbonate frame door windown for safety.
This is why it'd be mandated, and also required to be based on a production car's air conditioning to prevent teams from developing expensive WRC spec aircon. Sure it'd take power, but all the cars would lose the same amount of power, and if everyone is slower, noone is slower.
@@FailedRacers Even if the AC is been changed
The fact that the Fence was made from wooden logs instead of wooden planks is questionable too.
a Log is tougher then a plank
Why place them there if a year prior they were absent?
Ive been at the crash site a few days after the crash, the corner is barely a corner the sheer amount of bad luck in that accident is insane, if Craig hit that fence with any other angle he would've been fine
‘That little something’ happened a bunch of times in motorsport history… and they all leave us very young.
you cant predict accident, cant predict how the way the car crash, every accident is different, and motorsport are dangerous, you can do is learn from every accident and improve the safety, reduce the risk, then rest of is luck.
Absolute Quality Video. Respectful for the Sad Loss of Craig Breen but to the point.
FIA always hides the "results" of their investigations or if the results are published; they always blame the driver (i.e. Jules Bianchi).
The opening itself isn't the problem. As You said rules to make the window stronger and with stronger more resistant mountings to the door would help so much already. Optimized vent shape would help too
i remember Hirvonen was disqualified for windows haveng like 3mm instead of 5 or so
I hate these plexiglass windows. Not that they offer almost 0 protection they are ugly af. They starting using them in 09..
Imo this isn't a reasonable solution. Robert Kubica had metal crash barrier going through the firewall into the cockpit. Object intrusion is just a risk that rally drivers need to deal with.
Maybe a more reasonable approach is to look at the actual injury. Maybe mandating formula style full face helmets is enough. Maybe having a better emergency response plan could be the answer.
Also having AC in race cars just isn't going to happen. Why bother with the complexity and weight, when a pipe directing airflow from the outside like many GT3s do is enough.
Great video and analysis. Everything is right, but I would like to discuss one thing. I am drawing from my knowledge of V8 Supercars Australia. Windows on Supercars have long narrow holes on the window edges for marshals to peel them out and help extract a driver in case of an incident when doors are damaged and not opening. So there has to be some kind of a hole to grab the window and it has to be flexible enough so the person can peel it off. If it has no holes, there is nowhere to grab. Also. if the window is too strong and mounted so it cannot be detached like it shown in the video, it is unlikely a person will be able to peel it off. There should be some compromise found so the crew will not be trapped inside the car in case of the serious accident, but at the same time, should not be injured because of lack of protection.
My idea for this is based on the rear windows. The rear windows are held in with a series of metal pins that you twist to remove. If these are made of titanium and used as the front window mounts, they can be strong in the event of a crash and easily removable
@@FailedRacers sounds reasonable
@failedracers4452 Another idea would be to have handcranked windows that raise and lower like on old cars. The mechanisms are light and easy to use, would allow the driver and co-driver to open the windows to talk to the marshals, etc.
But are those metal pins that hold the rear windows fixed from inside or outside the car? Because exactly, the issue is having a mechanism that makes it easy for crews to get out of the car in case of a crash that could jam the door, if it’s fixed from outside the car, the crews inside wouldn’t have a way to twist those pins to get out, also hand cranked windows would very likely going to jam/break the mechanism in a sideways crash that damages the door, so Rallying is in a spot kinda similar to very early formula racing was, where having no driver protection was better because having the driver being launched outside the car in a crash was more safe (at that time) than having the driver to stay inside the car while it’s crashing/rolling, in Rally, very likely that they consider more safe having weaker windows for making it easier for crew/rescue being able to pull them out when needed, also yeah, Rallying is the most dangerous form of Motorsport as well, circuits are very controlled environments, while there are all sorts of things in public roads where Rally cars go flying
I also believe it was a 1 o'clock or 11 o'clock, where the car decelerates rapidly at a narrow angle. That's what killed Dale Earnhardt at 2001 Daytona 500
Loved the video, I still miss Craig to this day. FIA needs to fix the sports safety, but it is unlickly. On the subject of air condition, NASCAR and IndyCar uses a similar thing and there was a time in WRC when Peugeot used air condition from 2003 and onwards in hot rallies
The windows are specifically designed so that they can be popped out of their frame in the event of an accident where you cannot open the doors because unlike glass they cannot be smashed and with laminated windscreens it is unrealistic to be able to break the windscreen out. Cooling is actually from the roof vent and not the side windows, they are for adding time cards and also make for a good grap point to pull the window out externally. I think Breen's crash was just a freak accident and whilst it is very sad for majority of accidents that occur the current safety measures in place are a good happy medium balance between safety and ease of extraction but rallying will never be 100% safe and neither will any form of motorsport. This accident can be scrutinised as far as you'd like but I think the main safety issue in this accident was having a handrail of that construction so close to the edge of the road and on the outside of a corner. There could have been multiple safety measures put in place for this including cautions in the notes, caution boards put on the route or choosing another piece of road for testing that didn't have an obstruction like that in a potential run off area. Rip Craig
My cousin was driving her vw passat home after work one night when she lost control and veered off into a wooden fence. A post came through the windshield and grazed the side of her head. She suffered some pretty good scratches. The post even had some of her skin and hair on it. A half inch in the wrong direction could've ended with her having her neck snapped or massive brain injury. No car is impervious to cockpit intrusions. It was just a freak accident. We put our lives in danger anytime we get into an automobile and no amount of safety equipment will make a difference sometimes.
Great video and the big question is why still no report from the FIA a year on from the crash. This makes me suspicious and the reason must be revealed.
Although it seems suspicious, the FIA just generally doesn't seem to release reports on fatal crashes. They did with Jules Bianchi's crash, but other fatal crashes haven't had their reports released. I should state that the regulations were written without the benefit of hindsight, whilst this video was. I don't believe the FIA was negligent here as this most likely isn't something anyone would have thought of without the benefit of hindsight.
As an irish man this one still really hurts. We never have much representation in motorsports. Has his co-pilot said anything since or is he still understandably silent??
As far as I'm aware Fulton hasn't said anything since, understandably
Great video, good job on handling things respectfully :)
This is possibly a massive universal issue within the FIA’s and pretty much every other governing bodies regulations across mostly all racing disciplines and will mean a lot of headaches for them to design and formulate specific systems across the board for different door designs which are deemed adequate, a car of any spec wether it be rally 1, rally 2, group a, group n doesn’t matter, every car that touches the tarmac can be victim to the exact same result! Anything, literally anything just about is capable of coming through a poorly fitted or PC window, some cars have frameless windows like the BMW m4 for example they will have to do so much research across the breadth of mechanics that goes into mounting, fixings, the mechanics of the specific window and door system. It’s almost impossible to regulate universally.. but for the highest echelon of rallying to have no regulation with regards upon how the window is fixed is truly crazy, those things should be put together with diamond screws and be gusseted into the door frame using the best performing thermoplastics you can find in our solar system. The change in regulation across the board is going to take years to formulate! Full face helmets, aerospace grade PC, FIA rated fixings and FIA rated Devices to fix window in other places as well as the door, seen some things on @ruskiweldfab with relation to window locks which are a good system to prevent protrusion on frameless windows, a revised or removed window hatch.
Some kind of regulation should be in place to at least give manufacturers a kick in the arse to make sure that their windows are some what impenetrable because if the manufacturers are not told they will do what ever they can to make sure their systems are as light and performance effective to the rule book as possible.
This incident sent ripples through the motorsport world at the time of its happening and since the announcement of the incident I haven’t heard a single thing about it other than the loss of a real talents life! RIP Craig Breen, you were one hell of a hand mate! Hope there is something fast waiting for you in heaven.
I think the people who design WRC cars know more about the physical properties of polycarbonate than we can learn from the Internet, and as for a stronger door glass mount, I suspect that although you claim that a stronger side window mount is possible, you cant' provide an engineering blueprint for such a mount, so you cant really know if it is even technologically possible in WRC car. Building a perfectly safe rally car is impossible due to the nature of the sport. Rally cars must be robust, but also easy for drivers to exit in the event of a life-threatening accident, in which the car can be in any possible position on different terrain or underwater. This accident does not show a fatal flaw in the design of rally cars, as it is impossible to predict when a freak accident will occur. You can die after you fall on the sidewalk when you trip, does that mean all sidewalks have a design flaw? We are no longer living in the 1980s, rallying is not as popular as it was back then, and as a result, it is not profitable for car manufacturers to intentionally put drivers' lives at risk. Certainly an interesting video, but in my opinion, the claim that the side windows of rally cars are their fatal flaw due to bad regulations, and the FIA is attempting to cover up this issue for some reason, is mere sensationalism.
Nobody is suggesting a coverup. All I've stated is that the FIA hasn't revealed specific details which is why I can't say exactly how the window broke, whether it was just the vent or whether the main window also broke, either way, the vent is the structural weak point where the intrusion started.
@@FailedRacers Your observation about the side window being a structural weak point is absolutely correct, the problem is that the windows in the doors of WRC cars are permanently fixed, and the slider not only acts as a vent, but allows drivers to talk to people outside the car and pass documents to race officials without opening the car door. Opening and closing a car door doesn't seem like something particularly problematic, but if the panels are misaligned, once you open the door it can be difficult to close it properly, which, in addition to wasting time, carries the danger of opening it during a stage. Even if it was not your intent for this video to suggest a cover-up by the FIA, it appears that way. Watch it again and pay attention to how the issue of regulations is visually presented. We see FIA officials covering up the damaged car, especially the driver-side window, as you talk about the fact that the FIA has not released specific details about the accident and how the window was damaged. It definitely looks like the FIA wants to hide something from us. I'm not accusing you of deliberate sensationalism, I just want to point out the shortcomings of this video, and my intention is not to bash you, but to give you some constructive critique becouse i enjoy your content.
Thank you for saying everything I thought about this video way more precisely and delicately than ever could. Talking about this is fine, doubting the FIA makes sense, but the tone seems to apportion blame based on speculation, very limited knowledge and a narrow scope of consideration. Compared to people who's actual jobs it is to allow the best pilots in the world to send these absolute rockets down dangerous public b roads with a surprisingly high level of saftey this video is armchair science. You cannot solve a problem like Craig Breen's death in a 15 minute video. To act like your concept will absolutely save lives without putting more at risk with this alone is ignorant at best and at worst, arrogant and a tad insensitive. I like his content too so hopefully he takes this feedback on board.
To be honest if there was no safety regs loads of drivers would 100% just attach engines to bathtubs and hope for the best
Always wanted to know what happened to him (since i begun watching WRC season that year) than those people who just profit out for this out for greed and general disrespect
Which i unfortunately experienced when Ken Block died wanting to know what happened only end up to those bad crowd
They could implement strengthened poly carb windows that are hugely thicker, could also have them latched so they’re mounted rigidly but I’m almost certain that would cause issues of escape if the door was wedged shut after impact etc. honestly it was a freak accident and I don’t think much will change, purely because it can’t be realistically be changed
Why do you talk with that crackling voice? You're not a Kardashian.
You had me until you suggested the cars have airconditioning. There are lots of technical reasons not to use it in rally cars. What gas would they use? (134a has been phased out, 1234yf is flamable, CO2 maybe). Thinking environmentally, you would effectively be sending a lot of gas out onto rally stages that has a high chance of being relesed. How would you make the AC condenser survive a rally? Are you going to give the teams more time in service to discharge and recharge the system everytime its in their way? Also the added cost and added weight.
There is no way to protect the car from poorly attached railings and other elements of the environment - Kubica's car was pierced through the engine bay and firewall into the crew cabin. Cars would need to look like a teardrop or flying saucer to have any chance to deflect long, blunt objects.
It's absolutely asenine even in 2024 rally cars do not have any air-conditioning. And they have to race within the equator a lot of the time!
For racing cars without air-conditioning, cabin temps can often rise to nearly 70°C in hot climates.
Alternative to your solution, you could start having basic crash strength and location requirements for rally stages
A guardrail intrusion after all is something that's happened before, something Kubica still bears the effects of today
As for the cooling argument, you can always just cut a couple small holes underneath the windscreen or into the roof. Airconditioning is heavy so you won't find manufacturers opting for it voluntarily, and as I've just eluded to other options exist as well
Finally, as mentioned in other comments, in certain situations that occur more frequently than cockpit intrutions the car may necessitate the removal of the door(s) or window(s) to extract a driver or codriver. Making strong sturdy mountings for the side windows may have a negative impact on this
A stronger window wouldnt have helped in this deeply unfortunate crash, ( speaking from 10 years of crash testing and safety testing vehicles) and could potentially cause more deaths from drivers trapped in cars on fire. ( more frequent i believe than window intrusions)
A slightly stronger window may help in a lesser crash ( small branch etc. entering cockpit) but it would still need to be easily removable by the occupant.
Stiff solid windows don’t really work when it’s an ease of escape option
So I don’t think your conclusion is really viable, unless you can come up with a VERY VERY STRONG window that pushes out not in