That's what I heard too, but couldn't be certain from the pictures and video. Yea, it was in 1996, the first Melbourne Grand Prix. In the second Brundle pic below, you can see the rear undertray and chassis separating from the tub. Also below is a photo of the Indy Lights crash from 2000 I mentioned.
I'm not a qualified engineer but..............racing sailing boats were using CFC before GP cars, and that's what I used to do. CFC (Carbon-Fibre Composites) is a laminate of fibres in resin, just like GRP (Glass-Reinforced Plastic). Before carbon was affordable in large quantities to anyone except aerospace companies, a firm called Gougeon Brotheres pioneered a technique for boatbuilding called WEST (Wood Epoxy Soaked Technique) whereby a boat hull or whatever was built up by laminating strips of thin plywood or veneer with thin epoxy, which soaked through it, and the whole thing was baked in an autoclave or heated vacuum bag, just like with CFC. The thing is, any engineer will tell you that every material expands and contracts with temperature, and deforms under load - not much, necessarily, but some. And every movement either loosens the fibreswithin the resin matrix or, if it is a bending load, snaps a few - so over a period of time and usage, even without a hard impact that breaks the whole component, plywood, or GRP, or CFC, all get softer. Old racing boats, whatever they are made of, get soft (and slow) - and I believe old CFC racing cars that have been driven hard, despite the design and laminating skills of the builders, will too. BUT...........that F399 failure isn't a failure due to softening or progressive failure of any sort - it's a weak point in the tub that has snapped cleanly. I can't believe Ferrari made it like that (unless someone produces a photo of an identical failure in Schumacher's car at Silverstone 1999), so it has to be that the car has been taken apart for some reason or had a new front section badly grafted on, without the continuity of the fibres across the joint being maintained. In the F1 rules the first tub of a new design has to be destructively impact-tested to prove compliance - there are nosebox and rear crash-structure impacts and a perpendicular side impact. The forward part of the sidepods is usually moulded with the tub to improve side protection (there was a series of excellent drawings in a recent Cavallino showing the 1999-2003 F1 Ferraris which shows this) but designers allow for diagonal impacts and huge twisting loads in their CAD-programmed CFC lay-ups, because torsional stiffness is about the most vital part of a racing-car. Just my $0.02. Paul M
What I suspect the case is that Kroymans car was a demonstration car, and sold as such by Ferrari. All reports say that the incident happened at slow speed that they were just put putting around, and he got on the gas a bit too hard and the rear came undone. I think I read somewhere that Ferrari sells some cars with the understanding that they are for display only and not to be raced I suspect this was one of them. Whither or not a slow speed lap would fall under the definition of Demonstration per the sales agreement is questionable, but clearly this chassis was not meant to be raced.
I'm sorry to say that You're wrong, because Kroymans can't race/demonstrate the (real!) car on a circuit without the help of the Corse Cliente. I've been to several Corse Cliente events here in Europe and believe me, most owners drive those F1 cars really fast. No way they are told by Ferrari to keep it slow let alone keep it in a showroom. Ferrari is responsible for this accident, not Kroymans.
Based on how thorough barchetta.cc's info is, I'd say it appears much more creditable than Autosport's rather sketchy info.
I'm a bit mystified about the chassis numbers of the F399's raced by Ferrari during the 1999 season. I just went through all of the Autosports for the 16 races. There is no record of chassis #192 being used as the RACE chassis at any event, by either driver (although they do not list numbers for the Australian event). That does not match up with barchetta's info. Does someone have Autocourse, or some other source with details of chassis numbers? Ferrari certainly had spare cars at all of the events, and I have no record of the chassis numbers of these cars. Autosport could be wrong, I suppose, but so could barchetta. As I said in an earlier post, Autosport says that Schumacher drove #193 in Great Britain, where he crashed and broke his leg. #193 is shown as his race chassis at Brazil, San Marino, Monaco, Canada, and France. Autosport also says that Mika Salo drove #193 later in the year at both Germany and Belgium, which does not seem likely if the carbon fiber tub was seriously damaged. Of course I don't have any firsthand knowledge, just reporting what I read and where I read it.
I was sent this link w/more images of the wreck - and of Mr. Kroymans walking around afterwards. > http://www.thoughtballoon.com/hugh//crash/
It's possible that they stretched the car a bit, because Kroymans is such a tall guy, and that the car broke at just that point !
BS!. You buy a car from somebody and if it fails the previous owner is at fault ... no way! ... that is insane logic. Ferrari had finished with the car and sold it on ... now new owners responsibility to maintain and look after. Many parts make up a F1 car, and many parts need to be replaced before any driving is attempted ... remember these cars are designed close to the limit, thus most suspension components should be replaced with NEW stuff regularily, etc. If is 100% possible that this car was a Ferrari model (or a repaired car that should never have been raced again) made for display purposes only (they make heaps of these for marketing reasons). We have no idea what instructions were passed to the new owner ... and the subsequent owners. Look at the F50 GT1 ... owner was told NEVER to race it in a race ... and he has never done that just attempted to demonstrate it. There is also no way Ferrari made the tub like this to RACE ... either somebody else has modified it, OR it should not be racing! Pete EDIT: Just read this: Thus as Ferrari F1 Corsi Clienti are running the car it is 100% their problem ... as they are the new runners of the car. I can see this branch of Ferrari closing down real soon!, by having set up this branch they stupidily have put themselves into continue maintenance of old, retired race cars ... it would be a nightmare to maintain them. They would have to make NEW tubs every so many years ... crazy, crazy waste of money IMO.
Well Ferrari should theoretically be making bucketloads of cash from the venture. There's no shortage of 50 year old millionaires who want to play 'pretend F1 driver.' Like Koby said, Barchetta.cc's info is likely much more credible than Autosports; just look at the detailed chassis history they provide. I also found a second source which stated that during Silverstone 1999, chassis # 193 was the T-car, #192 was Michael's racecar and #191 was Eddie's racecar. According to the #192 chassis history, it was retired after the Silvertone race and obviously isn't the Kroymans car (as someone else provided closeup serial number photos).
OK - so I was looking through the 1999 Autosports for further information on the F399, and I came across this: FERRARI PLANS RADICAL TWO-SEATER Secret plans for a two-seater Ferrari passenger Formula One car, with a side-by-side layout, have been unearthed by Autosport. The Italian team is hoping to outdo archrival McLaren, which last year unveiled the first two-seate Grand Prix car. Ferrari believes its seating arrangement will give passengers an experience not afforded by the inline layout of the McLaren P4-98T. Sources have said that a dummy steering wheel for the passenger was considered early in the project, but the idea was discarded because there was too great a risk of distracting the driver. The team hope its car will be as fast as this years F399. The McLaren has been 10 seconds a lap off the F1 pace. Ferrari has developed an ingenious solution in order to let the passenger sit almost alongside the driver while maintaining the original wheelbase. The passenger will sit slightly behind the driver with their legs angled in towards the center of the car. That guarantees an unobstructed view forward - something not provided by the McLaren, in which the passenger sits behind the driver. Fears about the ability of a passenger's neck to withstand the g-forces of an F1 car will be resolved with a high-tech neck support. The passenger's shoulder and hip fit into a molded carbon structure behind the driver. The area houses a fuel tank large enough to allow a five-lap demonstration run at most F1 circuits. Ferrari is tight-lipped about how the car will be used. It is believed that race drivers Michael Schumacher and Eddie Irvine will give rides to potential road car buyers to provide them with genuine insight into the performance of the ultimate Ferrari. Insiders hint that it could also be used by Schumacher as a teaching tool that would give Irvine an insight into exactly how the German consistently outpaces all his peers. That could help the Irishman boost his partner's title challenge. The car has been built to satisfy F1 dimensions and rules, so it could in theory be raced this season. That would allow Ferrari to exploit loopholes in the rules to score double points in the constructor's championship as it bids to beat the faster McLaren. The sport's governing body was unavailable for comment. So - I thought MAYBE Kroyman's car had been modified to become the two-seater! With a different bulkhead! Hey, I was on to something! Then I noticed the issue date: April 1st, 1999. DOH!!!!
Having taken another look at the photos, it appears that the break is indeed worryingly similar in location to where Schumacher's F399 chassis failed at Silverstone. Perhaps what we're witnessing isn't a botched modification but rather a design flaw in the F399 which has been there all along? I've reversed the Kroymans photo to make the comparison easier.
Ofcourse I don't know what garanties Ferrari through Corse Clienti give to their customers and what the do's and don'ts are in this "race series" (they're not racing, just enjoying themselves). I'll try to find out though, because I know someone who might know. I think it's great to see these cars exercised. They're awesome. But picture this: on almost every Corse Clienti event they line up the cars on the grid for a group photoshoot. All the modern cars are pushed away afterwards to the pitlane whereas the guys with the old cars just watch all this pushing and pulling with a smile, then put their helmets on, get in their cars, push a button and off they go! Ah, the good old days... The modern F1 Ferraris who are used for display purposes are mockups. No engine. The intriguing fact is that even these cars have some sort of serialnumber and even these cars get upgraded...funny world, Ferrari.
Guys I have just had another thought. What year was it that Ferrari changed their car mid season from a low nose to a high nose. I actually think it was an earlier year ... but they did make modifications to the tub, not just the nose cone. Naturally the car looked ugly but it was faster (a bit). Could this break relate to those modifications? Pete
No, because they're completely different cars separated by 3 years. The designer also isn't the same, a new person being brought in to design the 1998 F300 and onwards. Anyway, below I've posted pictures of the original low nose 1996 Ferrari F310 and the modified high nose F310/2. All the Ferrari Formula One cars after this were high nose until the 2001 season, when new regulations were introduced, many aimed at improving safety. I suggest you have a look on the Ferrari website (they have an extensive history section covering all of their F1 cars) or see if you can find the issue of F1 Racing from 2 months ago which featured a huge section on Ferrari and "Schumi's rides", an article covering in detail all the different cars he has driven so far in his F1 career.
I don't think it's a bonding agent that failed, as when there is a fracture from a crash with fiberglass and other somewhat similar "cloth like" materials, it's the material itself that fails. Glue 2 pieces of wood together, than smash them. I have never seen a case where it was the glue joint that failed; it's always the wood that fractures.
The only problem with that theory is that when carbon fiber fails, it always splinters; it's never a clean break. That's because some of the fibers in the layup are at 45 degrees to either horizontal or vertical. If the material itself had failed, there would be more of a zig-zag effect at the break. I'm convinced that this car had some kind of joint that failed.
Ok, so i spent 2 days doing test on carbon fiber. I made a single sheet of carbon fiber using west epoxy resin. now considering that that being an F1 car, the carbon fiber has many layers and its cooked, and use advanced technologies it should be much much more stronger than mine. my results.... if i grab the carbon fiber like a piece of paper and rip it, it's easy to break. doing a tension test (by puling from both sides of the sheet) i found very difficult to break it (actually i havent been able to break it). An F1 car is pretty much subject to the second kind of forces. the fiber being streched and pulled. SO....in conclusion the car being relatively new, i guess fatigue should be ruled out. either a desing flaw, or a fix flaw. PS: I apologize if you guys stopped arguing about this or im repeating something new, or actually found out what it really is, didnt bothered reading the 2 extra pages of forum since i been working on my garage.....plus it was really fun to work with carbon fiber. HERE ARE THE PICS: http://www.imagestation.com/mypictures/inbox/view.html?id=4149520891&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.imagestation.com%2Fpicture%2Fsraid136%2Fp2b5acaba7603734cebfd1394e7e50a42%2Ff754a9fb.jpg&caption=image0001 http://www.imagestation.com/mypictures/inbox/view.html?id=4149520888&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.imagestation.com%2Fpicture%2Fsraid136%2Fp88add6b0bf0b4fe6b14494d312144bd1%2Ff754a9f8.jpg&caption=image0004
What is so insane about the logic? Would you also say that Firestone is not responsible for the Ford Explorer debacle? Ferrari built the car with a now very obvious default. Without that default the tub would not have been compromised like it was. How can the current owner know about or be responsible for Ferrari's shoddy work on this particular car? Are we talking about the same thing or did I read your post wrong(my bad if so )?
If they sign a release then is not their fault. but remenber that lawsuit about that doctor and its ferrari. one of his tired blew up at high speed becaues it was not rated for that speed, think it was 160mph. he sued ferrari for not selling the car with a tire rated for that speed and lost because ferrari said that in US you can't go that speed. So, if ferrari sold those race cars just for display only, and the owner choose to race it. then its the owners 100% fault. ferrari didnt not intend for those cars to race. I'm not sure how that bussiness work, so this is just a though. George
But the program run by Ferrari is for these cars TO race. And this car was not for disply only, otherwise it would not have the engine or proper electronics.
