Formula Ford role-bar efectiveness

I saw the huge accident at zandvoort at June the fourth.
A car flipped upside down and the car landed on the drivers head instead of the role-bar.

Is it a construction or a design failure and is it bound to happen again? I'd like your opinion

It really depends on: How fast was the car going?? And what did they hit?? And how old was the car?

I've seen plenty of FF accidents which you wouldn't have thought anyone would have survived, however the driver has simply walked away. So therefore the roll bar should be able to stand up to it.. however, if you remember Pedro Diniz rolling his F1 car and the roll bar coming off - it didn't seem much but he safety devices failed on the most modern safe race car!!!

Motor racing is dangerous and bad things happen..

The car was moving at about 200 KPH and it was a new Van diemen. but the first impact should have slowed the car quite a bit.

If you go upside down and land hard at 125 mph, I think you can expect trouble!! In such a situation I don't think you can blame the car - those cars are built strong, but go off at high speed and anything can still happen...

I have never had the displeasure to see a Formula Ford invert, so I can't really comment.
I did however see a Caterham Roadsport flip, and the roll bar on that broke in two, the driver was VERY lucky, VERY lucky indeed, as his car landed right infront of me, and his head was resting about 3 inches from a wooden pole!

I think it could be because it is a Van Diemen. Last season we found that the Mygale was built much stronger than the VD. On many occasions VD wishbones were bent after minor impacts with other cars but at the same time the Mygale could be smashed into and just shrug it off. I dont remember any rolls from last season that from either make but I'm sure that the mygale would have taken it better than Van Diemens

I agree with Mackmot.

We have a formula ford team ourselves in Holland and we have two new Swift-coopers.

Two races ago a Van Diemenhit our lead car which lay in second. our car and his had gone up a meter or so.

His entire front left side had broken of and our car went on to capture fifth place.

I think the van Diemen design is focused on a light weight car rather then a strong one.

Being a Van Dieman, it doesn't surprise me. If I remember correctly, they had the same thing happen last year. They professed 'surprise' as the structure supposedly met the impact calculation requirements.

Here in the States, the SCCA has mandated that all hoop structures be constructed of 1.375x.083 4130 alloy tube as a minimum, irregardless of whether or not an alernative design passes the engineering tests. Van dieman was trying to get their cars thru homolgation using 1.0 tube for aero & weight purposes. Most of us manufacturers here have settled on designs using double hoops - we perfer the overkill factor in safety. The adage is that a dead driver won't spend any more money to repair his car.

Part of this the reason for this concern for driver safety is the running of ovals. Concrete walls are rather unforgiving !

One thing most people also forget is that when you bend a tube to the tight radiuses that VD & some other manufacturers use, is that the wall thickness on the outside of the bend will shrink to about 1/2 of its original thickness. This rarely is taken into consideration when performing the stress calculations. The thought of having only .04 or so of steel between me & disaster scares me, & I'm fearless!

So yes - it's a design problem & is likely to happen again.