DRO said the motor exploded, and shrapnel took out the rear wing, followed by a series of events that tore the car apart. My question is: at what point (and why) would the monostrut configuration of wing been any different/ better in this kind of incident? I have seen many old threads that used to tout the benifits of the Mono in cases like this, but I don't understand why When the wing gets damaged, it unloads the rear of the car, dual or single strut..Can anyone give me some insight?
Martin - 1. DRO quoted "eyewitnesses" - did the "shrapnel" destroy the wing (which may be in the right lane in one of the photos) or the left struts? I cannot believe that anyone's vision is good enough to definitively determine exactly what happened - or that their brain could process information that quickly. That being said . . .
2. I was not a believer in the monostrut until I got a really close look - no one here has gotten a closer look as far as I know. The tube structure that supports the wing looked very strong. Because it is centered, it appears unlikely that parts from an engine explosion or tire failure could cause it to fail. Also, I would think because the vertical airfoil is so large, it could act as a rudder to stabilize the car in the event that the wing is damaged.
3. What happens if the wing is damaged? I don't think anyone knows!
One thought would be to engineer the wing to break away (like the junction between the back half of the chassis and driver's compartment) if it is struck. Result? The downforce dissappears evenly and hopefully, the vertical element helps keep the car going straight.
4. It is painfully obvious that when debris strikes any part of the current setup, a catastrophic failure is almost a certainty, usually resulting in the chassis separating unevenly.
Probably more "insight" than you wanted, but I saw this go very smoothly down the track at 326 mph. I'm now a believer. As always - JMHO