rec.autos.simulators

Can anyone tell me why gravel traps are a no-no for Nascar? I accept that
grass and pavement are perfectly fine for slowing wayward cars. But surely
gravel is acceptable also because we don't have the problem of airborne
wrecks to the degree that single-seater racing, in other words, stock cars
are less likely to launch over gravel, catch an edge and flip.

Or is it the case that gravel is not an option because it may prevent cars
escaping the trap and resuming the race.

Us thrifty New Englanders use gravel at Watkins Glen and i thought Sears had
a couple (not sure after the latest makeover).
 The rest are ovals, or roval if'n ya count Pocono. But after the *** at
said track this weekend, i suppose anything is better than wet turf.
 Maybe tradition, maybe access or maybe just to keep grass as an escape
route instead of a death sentence, like you said.

Yeah, I think about 30 feet of gravel would have helped quite a bit in
slowing down the 1 car on Sunday.  One thing for sure is they need to do
away with those guardrails that need an hour or two to repair!

-Tim

id have thought a nascar going sideways into gravel at 150mph on an oval
would be liable to flip a few times...

pez

I agree, when the body of the car would hit that gravel, it would probably
flip the car many times. That may be the reason they dont use gravel traps,
especially at a high speed track like Pocono. Even the F1 people are going
away from grass and gravel traps now in favor of asphalt in those areas ...

Phillip

would be liable to flip a few times...

I forgot to make the point in my original post that roof-flaps et al
contribute towards minimising the risk of inversion, though essentially
you're probably right.

I think _maybe_ they are too heavy, and it may _increase_ dig-ins and
rollovers.

We're talking about 3400 pounds of metal here, with far more compliant
suspensions than are found on F1, Cart or IRL cars.

Just a guess...

-Larry

The drivers life is more important than a 2 hour delay.

The 'give' in those guardrails saved Steve Park, and possibly Dale Jr's
lives Sunday.  I'll never be convinced otherwise after seeing it 25 times.
At a BARE MINIMUM Dale's car would have smooshed Steve's car into a pile of
junk about 2 feet wide at most.

If that would have been a concrete wall, we'd be having a much different,
more serious conversation today.  I honestly feel that.

I got the impression that on Speednews Sunday night, Larry McReynolds felt
the same way.

-Larry

i still havent seen the video cuz i cant pay 10 bucks to watch some crash

i still havent seen the video cuz i cant pay 10 bucks to watch some crash

That guardrail did a hell of a job absorbing Park's car as Junior's car
shoved it in there. Maybe they can make those ground posts into a shear
device that will breakaway from a mount planted in the ground. That way they
can just bolt new ones in quickly and re-weld the rails to them.

I agree that the guardrails did their jobs perfectly and may have saved the
drivers from serious injury.  My point is, they need to find a solution that
will do an equally as good or better job then what the guardrails did
without the time required to fix them.  Energy absorbing walls, tire walls,
gravel, or something similarly effective should be looked at IMO.

-Tim

I agree.

But I will also say that if there is ANY increase in potential injury,
regardless of how long it takes to fix, the drivers come first and the guard
rail stays.

-Larry

And, much higher CG's.

TP

Two years ago, when we were helping Sears Point engineering redesign a new
configuration of  "The Chute"....using our simulators and mock races via
online to establish "racing data" for various configs of "The
Chute".......we also addressed the issue of what type of run offs the track
could alternately install......instead of gravel traps.  The current
configuration of "The Chute" was one of the three design choices that we
presented to the Winston Cup drivers at the Sears race that year.  We
actually used that configuration (not knowing at the time that it would
actually be the one constructed) to test various run off materials and
surfaces.......we ran online races and recorded data about average race
length, number of yellows (local and full course) and that sort of thing.
We also kept data with regard to incidents and car damage....particularly in
the two turns where gravel pits would be used...or could be used.  Today,
those gravel pits do not exist....primarily because we proved to the Sears
Point engineers that the actual track surface itself.....slowed the cars
equal to or better than....the gravel traps.  Part of the reason this is
true....is because you are not taking away the control of the driver over
his race car.....by changing the surface to something he is not used to
racing on....or has no idea how to control his race car on.  The track
surface.....is the best place a driver can use his skills....to recover from
a spin, slow the car using the throttle/brakes......etc.  If he manages to
stay off the wall (which is enhanced by moving it way back from the track
surface edge....but maintaining "track surface" between the edge of the
track and the wall/barrier.....he can simply drive away.  He can't do that
if trapped in a sand trap.  This reduced full-course yellows at Sears
Point.....for both WC races that followed installation of "track surface
asphalt"....in place of the gravel traps (although, the new T4a......never
existed prior to these races....but its run-off area would have been a
gravel trap....had this "study" not been so conclusive).

It was interesting.....but right near the end of this testing
process....after the track had decided to use asphalt run-off areas and no
gravel traps.....an inspector from F1 visited Sears Point (unrelated to the
new construction....it was an "inspection" trip that had been set up a year
earlier.....between F1 and SMI officials....since F1 regularly looks at
possible new race sites.....on an ongoing basis).  I personally walked the
track with him and Bob Davis, the Sears Point engineering department
architect.  We discussed at length with this F1 official.....the concept of
the asphalt run-offs....the data we had collected using the
simulators.....and so forth.  The guy took copious notes....but he was
highly skeptical of the track's decision to remove the gravel traps....and
use asphalt track surface.  I have no idea if we influenced him.......but I
can only observe the fact that F1 began replacing many gravel traps....with
asphalt track surface run-offs....over the next two years.  Coincidence,
maybe?  Maybe not.

While I will never get public credit for this concept becoming used in
real-world racing....I know in my heart when I had the idea.....and when we
tested it in our simulators.  I really don't care about the public credit
anyway....it wouldn't do anything for me or Pabst-Racing that we aren't
already doing.  I know that prior to this.....we had not found an instance
where a gravel trap had been replaced by asphalt track surface at any race
track in the world.  Today....its rather common.  I don't think I was the
only person on the planet who had the idea....but it was my idea to try it
in the sim....and a lot of the people at Sears Point....thought I was crazy
(so did the F1 official....but he took notes about our sim race data
anyway).  We did prove them wrong....and the gravel traps are gone!  I can
report the fact that since the gravel traps were removed, there has not been
a single full-course yellow....because of a trapped race car.....in a WC
race at Sears Point (there have been two of them now on the new "Chute"
config...which is where the gravel traps used to be).  Prior to this new
config......WC races (in the previous five years) averaged 7 full course
yellows per race....four of them for trapped cars in gravel traps.  That
data we had determined as part of our testing....that we presented to the
Sears management.

I can offer some collaborative proof (so to speak) of all this by the way.
During this whole process....I had an extensive discussion with Chris
West....via a VROC chat conversation.  We discussed at length....a couple of
hours worth, via "whisper chat" one night.....about the whole idea of using
track surface instead of gravel traps.  We even discussed him doing some
testing for us using a test track in WSC.....but it turned out we didn't
need to do that.  I think if Chris happens to read this post......that he
will remember this conversation and say so.  At least, I'm pretty sure he
would remember the conversation.....?

There's a couple of things about the asphalt run-off surface that you guys
might find of interest:

1.  It needs to be kept clean....or relatively clean...during a race.  The
asphalt can't be allowed to get dirty/dusty or covered with too much
debris....between races.  Therefore, it needs to be cleaned thoroughly
before a race event.  Sears used fire trucks....to hose down the surface and
clean it prior to both WC races.

2.  During the race itself, when ever possible, the marbles and tire debris
that could collect on it....needs to be cleaned off.  What Sears did....was
station sweepers at both areas....and would sweep the marbles and tire
debris from the asphalt run-off....during yellows (however, during the first
race....there was only one full-course yellow....for an incident in turn one
I think...so the run-offs never could get fully swept).

3.  Additional "slowing power" can be achieved by banking the asphalt
run-off surface slightly.....opposite to the likely travel of race cars
sliding or spinning into the zones.  You will see this very easily in the
asphalt run-off at T4a at Sears....even in N2K2...its very obvious I think.

By the way, grass is the worst possible surface you can use to slow race
cars.  Frankly, its so bad it shouldn't even be allowed to exist anywhere
near the racing surface on any race track.  But, many race tracks have not
figured this out yet.....a few of them have (like California Speedway at
Fontana).  Not only does it do almost nothing to slow the cars....when its
wet or damp...the cars can actually accelerate in the grass.  Drivers have
almost no control over the race car in a spinning crash....on grass
surface.....i.e., no grip....no control!  Also, since the grass surface is
not solid at all.....holes can hide directly under the surface that can grab
the race car's wheels when in a side ways slide or spin.....and flip the car
very easily.  Even the soft-surface nature of grass.....can easily allow a
wheel to dig in.....and flip the car.  Grass is terrible...it needs to be
removed from the racing surface edge...at all race tracks!  But, the nice
green look of the grass.....contrasts the dark asphalt racing
surface.....quite nicely for the benefit of the TV cameras and racing
fans.....and its cheap and relatively easy to install over large surface
areas.  So, I don't think you will see it disappear....over night.  But, my
guess is that in five years.....it will be a rarity to see grass infields
and so forth.

What Sears Point is now considering......since they've moved back the
hillsides substantially in the area of the esses.......is actually paving
about 60 feet either side of the track as it runs and curves down through
the esse turns......and impregnating the asphalt when its laid down.....with
some type of  "green" dye (can't use paint...it would decrease the friction
of the asphalt way too much).....so that this looks like grass....on TV!
I'm not kidding you.....look for this at Sears in the next couple of years
(budgets allowing it ....of course).

Okay.....that's my contribution to the topic of  surface types and run-off
types....on race tracks.  Back to sim racing!  .......lol.....

Regards,

Tom

news:ai4hf1$880$1@paris.btinternet.com...