rec.autos.simulators

by **pez** » Tue, 11 Jul 2000 04:00:00

I dont think anyone has mentioned the fact that the tubular steel nascar
frames dont deform much on impact, and most forces are transfered to the
driver. The open wheel cars are almost all designed with crumple zones made
out of the carbon fibre, absorbing energy.

The fans probably wouldnt like it as it would mean cars not finishing races
due to damage, but it would be alot easier on the drivers...

pez

by **Target** » Tue, 11 Jul 2000 04:00:00

Would these still work in *** crashes at Talladega and Daytona?
Racer X
Veteran Sim Racer
#4 Corvette C5-R in the GTIC
#24 Monte Carlo in the DORL
Victory Lane-
http://www.racesimcentral.net/

by **Bruce Kennewel** » Tue, 11 Jul 2000 04:00:00

A small observation, if I may, Pez.

The tubs that are used in F1 are designed NOT to crush. Repeat...NOT crush.
It is this very fact that makes the F1 tub (and, I assume, the CART tub)
such a relatively safe place to be when compared to, for example, an F1 car
of the 1970's or 1960's.

--
Regards,
Bruce Kennewell,
Canberra, Australia.
---------------------------

by **Ed Solhei** » Tue, 11 Jul 2000 04:00:00

The tub itself is not made to be de-formable.. however, all singleseater
cars today got some sort of energy-absorbing areas or parts in them.
Areas such as side-pods, nose-boxes aswess as certain areas of the sides of
the tubs are *designed* to be deformed - and thus absorbe some of the
impact-energy incase of a colission with something solid.

Ed_

> A small observation, if I may, Pez.

> The tubs that are used in F1 are designed NOT to crush. Repeat...NOT
crush.
> It is this very fact that makes the F1 tub (and, I assume, the CART tub)
> such a relatively safe place to be when compared to, for example, an F1
car
> of the 1970's or 1960's.

by **Bruce Kennewel** » Tue, 11 Jul 2000 04:00:00

Isn't that what I said.....that the TUB wasn't designed to crush, Ed?!

He gave the impression that he thought if NASCARS were made out of
carbon-fibre then they'd CRUSH, thus absorbing the impact.

--
Regards,
Bruce Kennewell,
Canberra, Australia.
---------------------------

> The tub itself is not made to be de-formable.. however, all singleseater
> cars today got some sort of energy-absorbing areas or parts in them.
> Areas such as side-pods, nose-boxes aswess as certain areas of the sides
of
> the tubs are *designed* to be deformed - and thus absorbe some of the
> impact-energy incase of a colission with something solid.

> Ed_

> > A small observation, if I may, Pez.

> > The tubs that are used in F1 are designed NOT to crush. Repeat...NOT
> crush.
> > It is this very fact that makes the F1 tub (and, I assume, the CART tub)
> > such a relatively safe place to be when compared to, for example, an F1
> car
> > of the 1970's or 1960's.

by **John Pavlice** » Tue, 11 Jul 2000 04:00:00

There's a couple problems with this. First, since the cars don't go as
fast, they are moving at a slower speed on impact than an IRL or Champ car
does at an oval. Second, if an IRL or Champ car dove head first into the
walls like has happened in the case of Petty and Irwin, the driver'd be
just as dead since the cars are designed to take more of a side blow than
these two did. Most times when a car makes contact with the wall, it is
heading at a rather large angle with respect to the wall (I am defining a
head on collision as a small angle so you can better understand) so most
of the velocity of the car at the time of collision is not into the wall
but along the wall, which won't cause a problem in the safety of the
drivers.

-Pav

> I dont think anyone has mentioned the fact that the tubular steel nascar
> frames dont deform much on impact, and most forces are transfered to the
> driver. The open wheel cars are almost all designed with crumple zones made
> out of the carbon fibre, absorbing energy.

> The fans probably wouldnt like it as it would mean cars not finishing races
> due to damage, but it would be alot easier on the drivers...

> pez

by **daxe** » Tue, 11 Jul 2000 04:00:00

Wouldn't the hefty weight of a Winston Cup car also be a factor in the
effectiveness of deformable parts or crumple zones?

~daxe

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

by **John Pavlice** » Tue, 11 Jul 2000 04:00:00

Good point, I didn't even think about overall momentum.

-Pav

> > There's a couple problems with this. First, since the cars don't go as
> > fast, they are moving at a slower speed on impact than an IRL or Champ car
> > does at an oval. Second, if an IRL or Champ car dove head first into the
> > walls like has happened in the case of Petty and Irwin, the driver'd be
> > just as dead since the cars are designed to take more of a side blow than
> > these two did. Most times when a car makes contact with the wall, it is
> > heading at a rather large angle with respect to the wall (I am defining a
> > head on collision as a small angle so you can better understand) so most
> > of the velocity of the car at the time of collision is not into the wall
> > but along the wall, which won't cause a problem in the safety of the
> > drivers.

> Wouldn't the hefty weight of a Winston Cup car also be a factor in the
> effectiveness of deformable parts or crumple zones?

> ~daxe

> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

by **pez** » Tue, 11 Jul 2000 04:00:00

hehehe, funny how type often leads to misrepresentation....

i meant surround the driver, who would sit in a rigid structure, or tub as
most are called, with deformable parts to absorb energy in crash
situations....rather than having the whole thing rigid, as it is now.....

those nascars at the moment bounce around all over the place during crashes,
like marbles, compared to most open wheel vehicles, which bounce like
eggs....

pez

>Isn't that what I said.....that the TUB wasn't designed to crush, Ed?!

>He gave the impression that he thought if NASCARS were made out of
>carbon-fibre then they'd CRUSH, thus absorbing the impact.

>--
>Regards,
>Bruce Kennewell,
>Canberra, Australia.
>---------------------------

>> The tub itself is not made to be de-formable.. however, all singleseater
>> cars today got some sort of energy-absorbing areas or parts in them.
>> Areas such as side-pods, nose-boxes aswess as certain areas of the sides
>of
>> the tubs are *designed* to be deformed - and thus absorbe some of the
>> impact-energy incase of a colission with something solid.

>> Ed_

>> > A small observation, if I may, Pez.

>> > The tubs that are used in F1 are designed NOT to crush. Repeat...NOT
>> crush.
>> > It is this very fact that makes the F1 tub (and, I assume, the CART
tub)
>> > such a relatively safe place to be when compared to, for example, an F1
>> car
>> > of the 1970's or 1960's.

by **pez** » Tue, 11 Jul 2000 04:00:00

you think thats fast????

230mph impacts into the outside wall at michigan in cart and the car just
slides along, due to the deformabe front side crumpling....like an
egg.....the NASCARs seem to bounce around in similar situations....like
marbles, totally rigid....

pez

>>I dont think anyone has mentioned the fact that the tubular steel nascar
>>frames dont deform much on impact, and most forces are transfered to the
>>driver. The open wheel cars are almost all designed with crumple zones
made
>>out of the carbon fibre, absorbing energy.

>>The fans probably wouldnt like it as it would mean cars not finishing
races
>>due to damage, but it would be alot easier on the drivers...

>>pez

>Would these still work in *** crashes at Talladega and Daytona?
>Racer X
>Veteran Sim Racer
>#4 Corvette C5-R in the GTIC
>#24 Monte Carlo in the DORL
>Victory Lane-
>http://www.racesimcentral.net/

by **pez** » Tue, 11 Jul 2000 04:00:00

I remember a crash in an indycar race in Surfers Paradise where a driver had
a big impact, the car crumpelling where it should have and then the exposed
tub slowly hitting the wall. The driver said the last hit was the worst
because all of the energy absorbing parts had gone, and the force of the
small impact was transfered directly to him, as happens with rigid srtucture
cars, as happens with nascars. Im not saying get rid of the tubular
structures all together, a rigid section around the driver needs to be kept,
but the front, sides, and back could all be designed to crumple on impact
and absorb energy. The only downside to this would be alot more DNFs due to
'rubbin' and tapping the walls etc.

For a better analogy, try hitting a concrete surface with a
Crowbar....DOING, all the energy is passed up the bar to your arm as its a
rigid structure. Now do the same, but stick an empty coke can on the end -
not so bad now as the can crumples on impact, absorbing alot of the force.

thoughts?

pez

>I dont think anyone has mentioned the fact that the tubular steel nascar
>frames dont deform much on impact, and most forces are transfered to the
>driver. The open wheel cars are almost all designed with crumple zones
made
>out of the carbon fibre, absorbing energy.

>The fans probably wouldnt like it as it would mean cars not finishing races
>due to damage, but it would be alot easier on the drivers...

>pez

by **pez** » Tue, 11 Jul 2000 04:00:00

check out
http://www.speedvision.com/pub/articles/racing/09commentary/000710.html as
it sais pretty much what im getting at (and more!)

pez

>I dont think anyone has mentioned the fact that the tubular steel nascar
>frames dont deform much on impact, and most forces are transfered to the
>driver. The open wheel cars are almost all designed with crumple zones
made
>out of the carbon fibre, absorbing energy.

>The fans probably wouldnt like it as it would mean cars not finishing races
>due to damage, but it would be alot easier on the drivers...

>pez

by **John Pavlice** » Tue, 11 Jul 2000 04:00:00

Do you realize that you agree with a guy who appears to be saying that
these cars need airbags, traction control, and anti-lock brakes? He also
goes on to say how Sprint cars are better than NASCAR in safety due to
crumple zones. I don't think that I've ever seen a sprint car crumple
except when it flips over and lands on the wing. Besides, if you look at
NASCAR, the actual NASCAR series include huge numbers of drivers so just
saying they have more means nothing. Take just one series of NASCAR,
let's take Winston Cup in this case, and compare it to the others.
There's hardly much difference in on track fatalities in the past 10 or so
years. If you want to make a more fair comparison in terms of numbers,
clump IRL and CART together and compare it. The point is, NASCAR is just
as safe as any other series out there and a crumple zone on a NASCAR would
do precisely***. A head on collision at 155 mph will be fatal no matter
what you do to the cars, unless somehow you are going to have pillows drop
out of nowhere the instant before an accident happens, and even then, I
wouldn't hold my breath.

-Pav

> check out
> http://www.racesimcentral.net/
> it sais pretty much what im getting at (and more!)

> pez

> >I dont think anyone has mentioned the fact that the tubular steel nascar
> >frames dont deform much on impact, and most forces are transfered to the
> >driver. The open wheel cars are almost all designed with crumple zones
> made
> >out of the carbon fibre, absorbing energy.

> >The fans probably wouldnt like it as it would mean cars not finishing races
> >due to damage, but it would be alot easier on the drivers...

> >pez

by **Eldre** » Tue, 11 Jul 2000 04:00:00

>> There's a couple problems with this. First, since the cars don't go as
>> fast, they are moving at a slower speed on impact than an IRL or Champ car
>> does at an oval. Second, if an IRL or Champ car dove head first into the
>> walls like has happened in the case of Petty and Irwin, the driver'd be
>> just as dead since the cars are designed to take more of a side blow than
>> these two did. Most times when a car makes contact with the wall, it is
>> heading at a rather large angle with respect to the wall (I am defining a
>> head on collision as a small angle so you can better understand) so most
>> of the velocity of the car at the time of collision is not into the wall
>> but along the wall, which won't cause a problem in the safety of the
>> drivers.

>Wouldn't the hefty weight of a Winston Cup car also be a factor in the
>effectiveness of deformable parts or crumple zones?

>~daxe

Furthermore, in multiple vehicle wrecks at Tally and Daytona, the crumple zones
would lose their effect after first impact. The following impacts would
transmit the same energy to the 'cocoon', anyway. In F1, CART, etc. there's
usually just one impact, not 10-12 as cars pile into the smoke screen like in
NASCAR...

Eldred
--
Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999
Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett
GPL hcp. +70.45

Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you
with experience...
Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

rec.autos.simulators

Deformable NASCARs.....?

Deformable NASCARs.....?

Deformable NASCARs.....?

Deformable NASCARs.....?

Deformable NASCARs.....?

Deformable NASCARs.....?

Deformable NASCARs.....?

Deformable NASCARs.....?

Deformable NASCARs.....?

Deformable NASCARs.....?

Deformable NASCARs.....?

Deformable NASCARs.....?

Deformable NASCARs.....?

Deformable NASCARs.....?

Deformable NASCARs.....?