What F1 car is this? and

To me its obviously a botched repair job on the Schumacher crash car. The monocoque is a single unit and can not break so cleanly. I have also never heard of carbon fibre having a limited life span and can't understand why it would.

What I'd like to know is did the driver (assuming it wasn't the owner) know that he was getting into a car that should never have been on any track.

Cheers
Simon

 

It's not the #193 chassis. It can't be. Look at the pics more closely. The winglets in front of rear wheels are different than those on MS' Silverstone car, also the side head protection ends different on Kroysman's car. There was another meeting of old ferraris at Spa. Two f399's were present (at least). I saw those pics, and this car (although similar in shape) looks quite a bit different from the other one (dunno who was driving it).

 

http://www.f1bb.com/f1forum/index.php?showtopic=116&st=1200

Some pics of both f399's here.

 

Well, if this isn't the car that Schumacher crashed in Silverstone in '99, then that makes it even more difficult to explain how the Kroymans F399 came apart.

However, someone said earlier in this thread that the Silverstone '99 accident chassis was repaired and used again later that season. Just because the rear winglets are different in the two pictures doesn't prove anything; the engine cover, which the winglets (or 'flick-ups') are a part of, are updated and replaced frequently throughout the course of a season. The winglets on the Kroymans F399 are likely just an example of the design used towards the end of the season.

 

Could it be that the chassis is bonded at that place? The break looks incredibly clean. Maybe the chemical properties of the bond change over the years.

 

Having done my own research, I can't confirm whether chassis #193 was indeed the one Michael Schumacher used during Silverstone 1999, but it is definately the Kroymans car. One source says the Silverstone 1999 car was chassis #192, and another says it was the #193 chassis.

this source claims it was #192.

this source claims it was #193.


this source, along with several others, confirm the Kroymans car is chassis #193.

UPDATE: Just found this piece of information:

"Sunday July 4, 1999

Yesterday morning at the Fiorano circuit, Luca Badoer carried out the shake down of the three F399 which will be used in the British Grand Prix, scheduled on next 11th July at Silverstone. The Italian test driver completed a total of 29 timed laps: 9 with Irvine's race car (chassis 191, best time 1.02.858), 7 with the T-car (chassis 193, best time 1.03.253) and 13 with Schumacher's race car (chassis 192, best time 1.02.969)."

 

The material obviously fatigued somewhat and FAILED. Despite the large use of Carbon Fiber in F1 cars, the data on Carbon fiber is VERY young when comparted to contemporary materials (steel, Al, iron, etc). Especially in regards to fatigue and life span. Their is just not as much data on composite materials, nor history or how/why they fail.

Why do you think so few airplanes use composites in their structures and wings (the 777 was the first to use it extensively in commercial aviation). They simply don't have enough data to say it will last "this" long. Also, it's very tough to detect cracks or fatigue in composites versus metals.

 

The comments that the Silverstone chassis was repaired and then re-raced by Ferrari has to be nonsense.

Lets think about it, a racing them with a budget of over $500 million per season for some strange reason did not just replace the monocoque and risk their top drivers life and performance!

No way!, that monocoque would have been thrown away just like just about every suspension part, bolt after a SINGLE race. Remember all cars are completely stripped after every race and test session and many, many components replaced.

Also remember a team like Ferrari do not just make 2 cars per year but something like 6 to 8, depending on accidents.

If that monocoque was repaired it would have been for a display only model and never to be raced ... maybe somebody on the 2nd or 4th sale forgot to add that detail

Again it looks to me like what was first thought about carbon fibre, ie. it had a short useful life is coming true and these cars should NOT be raced and probably NOT sold on by the race teams and just donated to a museum without an engine or without engine internals!

Pete
ps: It will be interesting to see how the McLaren F1's (F50 and Enzo) hold together in 10 years time ... could be major, major depreciation if one falls apart!

 

First of all I am very glad that Frits only suffered minor injuries. There seems to be quite some confusion about what has happened to Frits Kroymans at Laguna Seca and what car he was driving. The car in question is his F399 which he bought directly from Corse Clienti F1. No show car, rebuilt rolling chassis, etc. It was an official event of the Corse Clienti F1 in connection with 50 yrs. Ferrari NA. Since I chose to not be personally present I was just told by telephone that he hit a wall after a bend. I do not know whether something broke on the car or it was a drivers mistake. Apparently you cannot see the curve when entering it. As to the damage of the car I will post more information (if possible) after I have phoned with Italy tomorrow.

 

Thanks for your effort Nigel.

I think Pete is right. According the the following source, which states chassis #192 was the one Schumacher crashed (not #193), its use doesn't extend beyond that race. Chassis #193, on the other hand, was used for the remainder of the season.

Ferrari F399 Chassis #192 History

Ferrari F399 Chassis #193 History

 

Hey, it was only Eddie Irvine and Mika Salo. No big deal...


PS: I'm being sarcastic here, ok, so don't flame me.

 

If 192 (the car MS crashed ) was fixed and retired - then it can't be/isn't the Kroymans car.

If Kroymans car is 193 (which is purported to be true by the latest info) then there are two possible reasons for the failure:

1. the chassis/tub/bulkhead design is identical b/w both cars - therefore, both cars are succeptible to similar bulkhead/tub failures. Not entirely impossible. Or, since Mr. K. is bigger than MS - the tub/bulkhead was altered to accomodate his build - leading to such a bizzare failure.

2. the chassis / carbon fiber is simply aged past its usable date - and therefore, this freak accident (by nature of the failure) drummed up a lot of unrelated speculation re: integrity of the tubs/shody repair work by ferrari. This (probably) has more credence since we've seen (contemporary) cars wreck at race speeds (Kimi's wing failure, for example) and the tub didn't shear.

It wouldn't make sense, in my mind, for ferrari ( a huge money f1 team) to attempt to repair a carbon fiber tub (knowing that getting carbon fiber back to as new condition is nearly impossible), while a privateer lemans team like rollcentre would write off a tub (the one crashed @ lemans after M. Short was rudely bumped by Bourdais) in an attempt to save money and reuse a busted tub in competition. It doesn't add up.

Moreover, since a friend of Mr. K's has chimed in stating that he does in fact own the car, lets lay to rest any speculation that the clienti guys could be mad at him for crashing his own car.

In the end (until we know the chassis # - for sure) we won't really know which car it is. If Mr. K. owns 192, then I suspect their to be more questions relating to the fact of a crashed tub being put back into track use. That's a questionable tactic. If, it is made clear that the tub of the car was significantly moddified to accomodate a larger driver, then there would be more serious questions about the nature of the work done.

Below you can see Mr K in the car, on track. Notice how much higher he sits in the car than either Irvine or MS did.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

CF remains strong and fine, its how well the fibers are woven and held together that degrads with time (and light exp.).

The question of resins really. How long lasting is the resin used to make the car.

 

Hi all,

Let me first say that I'm shocked by this accident and relieved that Mr. Kroymans is ok.

If there's any doubt about the s/n of this car I can prove it's 193: I have only recently taken pictures of the car in the showroom of Kroymans including the s/n plate:





BTW does anyone know to whom the autograph on the car belongs?

Ciao, Peter

 

That's Schumi's...seen it before on a Ducati... and on this hat.....

 

So if it turns out that this is indeed a clienti corsi car this whole story does not bond - pardon the pun, couldn't resist - well with Ferrari's reputation. I think some potential investors are going to have second thoughts about it now.

PS: If I had the money, I would go for a seventies or early eighties car anyway. No turbos, no computers, no carbon fibre. Take it to your local Ferrari shop for maintenance.

 

Okay, so considering this car has been proven conclusively to be chassis #193, then it definately wasn't the car Schumacher crashed at Silverstone, which was chassis #192.

In that case, lets have a closer look at the history of chassis #193 for the '99 season:

193 1999/Apr/02
F399
upgraded with 651 parts
Date Result Event Driver # Reference
99 - SF
99/Apr/02 fastest lap 1.02.851 Fiorano, shake down 12 laps
Schumachers race car for Brazilian GP Irvine
99/Apr/09 3rd, 1.19.621, +0.740
air 23-19°C
track 25-21°C Brazilian Grand Prix, Sao Paulo do Brazil
second free practice, 28 laps Schumacher 3
99/Apr/10 4th, 1.17.578, +1.010
air 20 C,
track 20 C Brazilian Grand Prix, Sao Paulo do Brazil
qualifying, 11 laps Schumacher 3
99/Apr/11 2nd, 72 laps, +4.9s Brazilian Grand Prix, Sao Paulo do Brazil Schumacher 3
99/Apr/24 rain and clouds Fiorano, 6 shake down laps Badoer
99/Apr/30 5th, 1.29.534
air 22 C
track 38 C San Marino Grand Prix, Imola
second free practice, 27 laps
stopped on the last laps - right rear tyre lost pressure as a result of a hole in the rim. This was probably caused by a stone caught between the brake caliper and the rim. Schumacher 3
99/May/1 3rd, 1.26.538
air 22 C
track 45 C San Marino Grand Prix, Imola
qualifying, 11 laps Schumacher 3
99/May/2 1st,
1:33.44.792
air 22 C
track 45 C San Marino Grand Prix, Imola Schumacher 3
99/May/8 air 22-24 C
track 32-34 C
sunny with clouds Fiorano, 11 shake down laps
99/May/13 1st,
1:22.718
air 18-20 C
track 26 C Monaco Grand Prix, Monte Carlo
second free practice, 32 laps Schumacher 3
99/May/15 1st, crashed
1.22.71 Monaco Grand Prix, Monte Carlo
second free practice, crashed after improving his fastest time, 193 could not be repaired for qualifying Schumacher 3
99/May/22 1.03.912 Fiorano, shake down 7 laps
Schumacher's race car for the French GP Schumacher
99/Jun/25 1st
1.17.912
air 25-27C
track 40-50C French GP, Magny-Cours
free practice, 9 laps Schumacher 3
99/Jun/26 6th
1.41.127
air 18-17C
track 18-17C
heavy rain French GP, Magny-Cours
qualifying, 10 laps Schumacher 3
99/Jun/27 5th
72 laps, + 47.881
air 20-16C, track 19-16C
dry and heavy rain French GP, Magny-Cours
steering wheel problems Schumacher 3
99/Jul/3 1.03.253 Fiorano, shake down 7 laps
T-car for the British GP Badoer
99/Jul/19 1.03.779
(191, 193 or 195) Fiorano, shake down 7 laps
T-car for the Austrian GP Salo
99/Aug/7 Zandvoort, 5 demonstration laps
Formula 3 Marlboro Masters Badoer
99/Aug/8 Zandvoort, 9 demonstration laps
Formula 3 Marlboro Masters Salo
99/Aug/19 1.28.942
air 22-30 C
track 32-50C
sunny Mugello, 82 laps
Irvine
99/Aug/20 1.28.648 Mugello, 59 laps
Irvine
99/Sep/1 1.26.428
air 30 °C
track 52 °C
sunny Monza test,
44 laps Irvine
99/Sep/2 9th
1.25.633
air 30 °C
track 52 °C
sunny Monza test,
set up
77 laps Irvine
99/Sep/3 1st
1.23.927
air 19-22 C
track 24-30 C
cloudy and sunny
Monza test,
87 laps Irvine
99/Sep/14 1.28.515
air 18-30C
track 32-43C
sunny Mugello, 66 laps Salo
99/Sep/15 1.28.011
air 17-27C
track 17-45C
sunny
then cloudy Mugello, 79 laps Salo
99/Sep/16 air 17-24 °C
track 17-30 °C
rain
cloudy then sunny Mugello, 1 lap Salo
99/Sep/15 1.03.092
air 25-24C
track 39-28C
sunny then cloudy Fiorano, 59 laps Badoer
99/Sep/16 1.02.521
air 20-22 °C
track 28-32 °C
clouds
sun and rain Fiorano, 72 laps Irvine
99/Sep/28 1.02.851
air 19-23C
track 18-33C
clouds
sun
rain
more sun Fiorano, 83 laps Badoer
99/Sep/29 1.02.375
air 20-23C
track 21-37C
sunny Fiorano, 84 laps Salo
99/Sep/30 1.02.500
air 21-27C
track 25-43C
sunny Fiorano, 82 laps Salo
99/Oct/5 1.02.663
air 14-15C
track 10-12C
alternating rain and sun Fiorano, 60 laps Irvine
99/Oct/6 1.02.254
air 14-17C
track 13-25C
sunny with a few clouds Fiorano, 98 laps Irvine
99/Oct 193h - converted to 0651 specs
99/Oct/7 Fiorano, 10 laps Irvine
99/Oct/7 1.01.11 Fiorano, 58 laps Schumacher
99/Oct/8 1’00”941
air 13-24 °C
track 11-18-13 °C
sunny Fiorano,
34 laps,
43 laps, artificially wet Schumacher
99/Dec/5 - displayed at the Bologna Motor Show wearing r#3
00 - Expo Hannover, displayed in the Monaco pavillion

Ferrari F399 Chassis #193 History

From the above information, what does "converted to 0651 specs" mean exactly? Also, the car appeared to have had an accident during FP2 of Monaco; how bad it doesn't specify.

This of course doesn't help to identify work carried out after the '99 season, which could explain any modifications made for private customers or repair work for accidents the car had when it was no longer being raced.

 

carbon fiber does not fatigue. it can fail... like pretty much anything. I've never heard of someone throwing out a frame because of a fatigue factor. And i dont think airplanes use it because of the cost. What could of happened to that chasis was that it was poorly built (which i doubt) or like you all been saying repaired.

Plus i dont think ferrari and mclaren will build a chasis for their road car out of carbon fiber without knowing what they are getting into.

I have heard that carbon fiber sometimes fail at extreme temperature due to the matrix used to harden it. what do you all think?

 

Well the chassis of Formula 1 cars simply don't have an assembly point where the Kroymans car broke; it would defeat the entire purpose of the safety tub, and as you can see from the photos, if the assembly point broke at high speed, it would very likely result in a Zanardi type accident (driver's legs fully exposed).

The whole point of the safety tub is that it is one solid piece constructed of carbon fibre, and that energy in a crash is supposed to be absorbed by the sidepod and radiator, nose cone, tyres, etc, and the tub remain intact to protect the driver.

The reason I was so shocked to see this photo was that the place where the car broke goes against every design principle employed to protect the driver. The fact that the car broke so cleanly too (i.e. no jagged edges of broken carbon fibre) indicates that this was an artifical assembly point that failed. Now that can only be possible in a modern F1 car if this was a modification performed, I assume (to keep the car legal during the actual '99 season) after the car had been retired from active service.

What it was modified for we can't yet be certain of; however, it obviously made the car completely unsafe to track at high speed.

 

The point is that carbonfibre has only been around for a relatively short period and thus we do not know its fatigue life.

Most uses have been for highly stressed items that have a very short life expectancy anyway ... insert F1 race car, military plane, etc.

I think the aircraft industry would use it if a weight saving could be made ... think of the fuel savings, etc.

When F1 cars were first made out of carbonfibre IT was discussed then that they should be destroyed ... when this changed I do not know, but for some reason they are now being sold in to private hands.

We also have to remember that F1 cars are built with many items (like wishbone bolts, etc.) that are designed to only last one race meeting ... how dangerous would this car be in private hands when the funds for these titanium bolts is not available?.

Pete

 

The Aviation industry does use Carbon Fibre in the construction of aircraft. The B2 bomber uses lots of CF in the airframe. Airbus makes the majority of the tails in CF as does Boeing on the 777.

In fact the failure of the tailfin CF mounting lugs on the American Airlines A300 that crashed in November of 2001 is atributed to improper operation of the rudder by the pilot.

The new Boeing 7E7 Dreamliner is rumored to have the fuselage made out of CF on top of a aluminium skeleton.

 

People were discussing earlier how far back the car should crumple or break in an accident, where the safety tub starts and ends, just what exactly is within design tolerences and what isn't. I'll try to shed some light on this topic just to show how far out of tolerence the Kroymans accident was.

Someone posted this photo earlier, which shows extremely well the extent of the carbon fibre safety tub. Regulations state that the driver's legs must not extend past the suspension struts and wheels, and the front end of this assembly is also the very front of the safety tub. This is also where the nosecone joins the rest of the chassis. The nosecone is designed to crumple to oblivion in a high speed head-on collision, and hopefully absorb most if not all of the impact energy before it's transferred to the safety tub and start injuring the driver's legs.

Below is also a picture of Massa's 300kmph head on crash into the tyre barrier in Canada this year; he walked away from the accident, and the nosecone was no-existant afterwards; it had crumpled and smashed away to nothing leaving the front of the tub completely intact.

Webber's accident in Brazil 2003 illustrates to what extent the front of the car is designed to break away in a frontal crash. This is the exact level of damage seen in Massa's accident as well as when Rubens smashed into the tyre barrier last year when his rear wheel flew off; i.e. within design tolerences.

As you can see, it is vastly different from what we see with the Kroymans F399.

 

Now the question i have is did Fritz find another F1 car to use on Sunday?? here are a couple of pictures that i shot durring the sunday warm up for the F1 Clienti driverswith in a miniute of each other take a look at the driver in the first shot how high he is sitting up in the car and the similar helmet. compaired to the second picture driver sitting low and custom painted helmet.

 

When it comes to the side and rear of the car, the photo I posted above gives a pretty good indication; the sidepods are designed to completely break away along with the radiators, and the entire engine compartment can be torn off the car, although I've never seen this occur in F1 (unlike in Indy Lights). The most damage I've seen to the rear of the car in F1 is McNish's accident at Suzuka in 2002, when he slammed backwards through the metal barrier at 300kmph.

In the Webber photo above, you can see a large spike sticking out the very back of the car. This is a piece of chassis which, along with having the rear wing on top and hazard light attached to the back, is designed to crumple away just like the nosecone of the car, except this time in a direct rear impact. One of the reasons for having this rear crumple piece instead of relying on the engine and gearbox alone for energy absorption (despite the fact that at first glance they seem to "shield" the driver in a rear impact) is that the latter two (which are constructed of metal) are very poor at absorbing energy and deforming compared with carbon fibre, and would transfer alot of the energy directly into the driver's back.

In the McNish accident, the rear chassis and sidepods were completely obliterated. Still within design tolerences, however.

 

Martin Brundle at Melbourne ... possibly the first Melbourne GP ... in his gold Jordan. Engine and tub separated by my memory.

Pete