rec.autos.simulators

by **Brian Jackso** » Sun, 14 May 2000 04:00:00

> >F1 cars are much lighter and, as a result, are less
> >likely to withstand direct impacts. This fact also plays a
> >part in the need to have errant cars restrained before
> >hitting anything solid (see Senna, Ratzenburger, etc.).
> >The CART cars are heavier. They are required to protect
> >the driver in some serious collisions with the walls
> >on the oval tracks. The fact that the CART cars evolved
> >with that as a primary consideration (and the F1 cars did
> >not) is what differentiates the two series more than
> >anything else (that and the ludicrous amounts
> >of money tossed around in F1.)

> This, however, isn't quite so clear-cut. The mandatory impact
> tests for F1 and CART cars are slightly different, so it's
> hard to directly compare them, but from what I can deduce
> without actually having one of each chassis to crash-test
> for myself, the standards are fairly similar. It seems that
> CART cars and F1 cars are required to be able to handle
> similar impacts.

The difference being that CART, unfortunately, has a pretty regular,
ongoing, real time testing program for this while F1 does not. Very,
very few F1 cars run into concrete walls the way the CART cars do on a
fairly regular basis during testing, practice, qualifying, and racing on
oval tracks. Crash tests are fine but any engineer can tell you that
theoretical laboratory tests are pretty usually much less informative
than is data gathered in real world conditions. Think back to Mark
Blundell's horrific, near head-on with the wall at Rio a couple of years
back. he had *nothing* to moderate his impact. Compare it to
Schumacher's incident last year that broke his legs after passing
through (pretty useless) sand pit and a pretty big pile of tires.
Anecdotal for sure but still...

Brian

by **Geoff Schule** » Mon, 15 May 2000 04:00:00

On Sat, 13 May 2000 17:07:43 -0700, Brian Jackson

-<Snip most of Brian's post, I agree with almost everything>-

True.

This, however, isn't quite so clear-cut. The mandatory impact tests
for F1 and CART cars are slightly different, so it's hard to directly
compare them, but from what I can deduce without actually having one
of each chassis to crash-test for myself, the standards are fairly
similar. It seems that CART cars and F1 cars are required to be able
to handle similar impacts.

Geoff Schuler
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Remove REMOVE. to send me e-mail.
------------------------------------------------
Fight Spam! Join CAUBE
(Coalition Against Unsolicited Bulk Email)
http://www.caube.org.au/

by **The Enigmatic O** » Mon, 15 May 2000 04:00:00

What is regrettable is the absolute lack of knowledge shown in this
thread. The wall that Moore hit was not close to perpendicular to the track.
The long lense used in the shot most people saw of his crash exagerrated the
angle in a huge way.

-Tim

by **Dave Henri** » Mon, 15 May 2000 04:00:00

> What is regrettable is the absolute lack of knowledge shown in this
> thread. The wall that Moore hit was not close to perpendicular to the track.
> The long lense used in the shot most people saw of his crash exagerrated the
> angle in a huge way.

> -Tim

The fact that Ritchie Hearn had spun in a very similar fashion and
location
into the same wall just a short while earlier proves the freak nature of
Greg's crash. You might say the wall wasn't the culprit but the access
road
that launched his vehicle for it's final few moments.
dave henrie

by **The Enigmatic O** » Mon, 15 May 2000 04:00:00

Right. He just hit at a really bad angle and that can be blamed on the
shift from grass to the paved access road. Anyway.

-Tim

by **Pat LaTorre** » Mon, 15 May 2000 04:00:00

Something else which many poeple haven't considered, (which I picked up
from talking with a Winston Cup official back in '77) is that NASCAR doesn't
like to run races in the rain because most of the fans don't like to sit out
in the rain! Please keep in mind that while NASCAR (and to a lesser extent
all other forms of motorsports) are "racing", they realize their primary
purpose is ENTERTAINMENT. If you don't provide what your customer base
wants, they don't give you their money---like it or not that IS the real
world! I'll repeat what I said above, most people don't really enjoy sitting
out in the rain. After twenty-five years of racing, while I can say I do
enjoy watching good drivers compete on a wet course (periodically) I can
think of more enjoyable things to do than stand outside and get soaked (I'm
still waterlogged from working in the pits at Vancouver last year <g>).
Enjoy,
Pat LaTorres

by **Kirk Lan** » Mon, 15 May 2000 04:00:00

More accurately, it was the grass before the access road...it was all gone,
but when Hearn went over it, it was there, but he tore it up, leaving the
road higher than the surrounding area. My solution: PAVE THE THING.
There's no stands back there; why is it all grass? For TV? If it had been
paved I doubt either Hearn or Moore would had even hit the wall, but rather
done a few pirouettes and gone on.

--
Kirk Lane

ICQ: 28171652
AIM: Kirker64
(IM me twice so I can reply...using a beta client)

"The time has come for me to kill this game
Now open wide and say my name"
- "Space Lord", Monster Magnet

> > What is regrettable is the absolute lack of knowledge shown in
this
> > thread. The wall that Moore hit was not close to perpendicular to the
track.
> > The long lense used in the shot most people saw of his crash exagerrated
the
> > angle in a huge way.

> > -Tim
> The fact that Ritchie Hearn had spun in a very similar fashion and
> location
> into the same wall just a short while earlier proves the freak nature of
> Greg's crash. You might say the wall wasn't the culprit but the access
> road
> that launched his vehicle for it's final few moments.
> dave henrie

by **Brian Jackso** » Mon, 15 May 2000 04:00:00

> But still... the fact remains that the *required* impact
> standards for each series are remarkably similar. Saying
> that CART cars must be stronger just because they are
> heavier is simply wrong.

I don't believe I said that. It's certainly not what I meant. What I
meant to say is that the CART car's required higher minimum weight gives
the designers more room to move to protect the driver with added
strength. It just stands to reason that an extra 200 pounds of car,
_applied_correctly_ (especially on cars the size of these) can mean a
big difference in impact resistance, etc.

Regardless, taking the position that "the mandatory impact tests for
both series are remarkably similar" equates with "therefore the cars are
remarkably similar in their integrity" is fallacious. That the (minimum)
standards defined for the tests are similar in no way implies or
guarantees that the cars are as well.

Brian

by **Geoff Schule** » Tue, 16 May 2000 04:00:00

On Sat, 13 May 2000 23:08:46 -0700, Brian Jackson

>> >F1 cars are much lighter and, as a result, are less
>> >likely to withstand direct impacts. This fact also plays a
>> >part in the need to have errant cars restrained before
>> >hitting anything solid (see Senna, Ratzenburger, etc.).
>> >The CART cars are heavier. They are required to protect
>> >the driver in some serious collisions with the walls
>> >on the oval tracks. The fact that the CART cars evolved
>> >with that as a primary consideration (and the F1 cars did
>> >not) is what differentiates the two series more than
>> >anything else (that and the ludicrous amounts
>> >of money tossed around in F1.)

>> This, however, isn't quite so clear-cut. The mandatory impact
>> tests for F1 and CART cars are slightly different, so it's
>> hard to directly compare them, but from what I can deduce
>> without actually having one of each chassis to crash-test
>> for myself, the standards are fairly similar. It seems that
>> CART cars and F1 cars are required to be able to handle
>> similar impacts.

>The difference being that CART, unfortunately, has a pretty regular,
>ongoing, real time testing program for this while F1 does not.

Yet there have been no changes to CART impact standards since the
introduction of the higher head restraints... at the same time as they
were introduced in F1.

Yet, even with all this supposed "real world" data, the mandatory
impact tests for both series are remarkably similar.

But still... the fact remains that the *required* impact standards for
each series are remarkably similar. Saying that CART cars must be
stronger just because they are heavier is simply wrong.

Geoff Schuler
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Remove REMOVE. to send me e-mail.
------------------------------------------------
Fight Spam! Join CAUBE
(Coalition Against Unsolicited Bulk Email)
http://www.caube.org.au/

by **The Enigmatic O** » Tue, 16 May 2000 04:00:00

(Sorta) agreed. But isn't one reason for having grass to keep racers
from getting too low on the track allowing them to hit at a very severe angle
if they lose it and shoot up? That was why they added grass to Indy, right?

-Tim

by **Jeff Salzman** » Tue, 16 May 2000 04:00:00

(major snip)

Agreed. The point is that both NASCAR and CART seem to be losing, on
average, a driver or so a year for the last few years. While F1's
certainly not exemplary, if you average F1 since, say, 1990, and
compare to CART, the difference is quite significant. Maybe F1's just
been lucky, but then again, F1 cars ain't hitting 240 on a 2.5 mile
oval either.

Agree completely.

What reports are you reading? NASCAR is not losing viewers- every
little offshot of the formula seems to be on TV live. My father, whose
socialization consists of a toothless concubines, wet-t-shirt
contests, and the occasional screw-top wine, even watches BGN. Not
that he's representative or anything, but if you'd have told me ten
years ago that a junior NASCAR formula would be getting any time on TV
at all, I'd have been amazed. And this was when CART was much bigger
in terms of TV domination.

The turnout on today's (canned) telecast of the race in Japan at
Motegi looked like the attendance was poor. They mentioned 61K people-
something about restrictions due to infrastructure, but come on,
61,000 people? More people can sit at a single American football
game...and this is the same country that had 2 F1 races a year for
what, three years? If you trim out the people going that got in free
from Honday and Toyota, well, figure it out yourself.

Same problem here, except w/F1 and- talk about hard luck- the World
Rally Championship. We get 1/2 hour summaries, six months later and
only on Speedvision, which has less market penetration than 50-inch
diameter ***plugs.

Just about any CART fan in the states that I know would disagree with
you. Most of the tracks CART runs at are not being expanded for
NASCAR. Was Detroit moved due to attendance? I've not been following
that series, but I did hear that mentioned...

True to a point, but given what a phenominal package CART had to offer
before the idiotic split w/IRL, you'd have thought they could have
done better. The TV coverage hasn't helped a bit- I don't see CART
showing in-car shots from any angle other than the roll-cage; yawn.
Put the camera on the front wing....you'll get viewers just from that
sort of thing. TV race coverage in the states sucks, I won't even
start on ESPN's 'coverage' but ABC has really sucked as of late too.
Meanwhile, F1 is getting bigger and bigger.

But let me say that the world TV-feed of F1 is SHIT SHIT SHIT. One
in-car driver? Yawn. The digital feed at Montreal (I watched
Jumbotrons at the circuit) was incredible- so far as the weak TV
coverage, it's certainly not the sport, it's the cash-g***s wanting
to sell the digital feed instead of free air-broadcasts. FIA better
wake up- I don't care what pretensions they've got about pushing F1 in
the US, but you keep showing these dogshit TV feeds, you're not
getting any new viewers. I turn on NASCAR, I can see a camera showing
a guy's brake-disc glowing. I turn on F1 (if I can) and I see
Barrichello's head while Schumacher is close enough to see the nuts on
Hakkinen's gearbox. Some people just don't get it.

I can certainly appreciate the tone of your point- I hope you're right
(it's much easier to go to a CART race than F1) but I won't hold my
breath!! ;)

Take care,
Jeff

by **David Bett** » Tue, 16 May 2000 04:00:00

"Brian Jackson" wrote

> > But still... the fact remains that the *required* impact
> > standards for each series are remarkably similar. Saying
> > that CART cars must be stronger just because they are
> > heavier is simply wrong.

> I don't believe I said that. It's certainly not what I meant. What I
> meant to say is that the CART car's required higher minimum weight
> gives the designers more room to move to protect the driver
> with added strength. It just stands to reason that an extra 200
> pounds of car, _applied_correctly_ (especially on cars the
> size of these) can mean a
> big difference in impact resistance, etc.

But safety is not the reason for the extra weight. It is about cost
reduction. Heavier cars are cheaper to build. And making it heavier
for the same structural integrity actually makes it less safe as there
is more energy to dissipate in an accident.

Actually, I think you will find that the mandatory impact test for F1
are now comfortably more stringent than those in CART, although it is
a few months since I checked.

I'm afraid that the CART cars are stronger and safer thing is one of
those bits of assumed wisdom which it turns out has no basis in fact
whatsoever. At the end of the day, the cars in both series are
incredibly safe and getting safer, but it still comes down to luck.
After all, Senna didn't die because his car was weak or because he hit
a concrete wall - he died because a suspension arm pierced his helmet.

--

"In the end it's always a matter of more accelerator and less brake" -
Frank Gardner

Photo albums:
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=10440&Auth=false

by **Dave Henri** » Tue, 16 May 2000 04:00:00

Yet I've seen on the Tube several interviews over the years by
F1 bigwigs ie Williams, and Dennis, and while this is anecdoctal, they
all basically said the F1 car would have to be structurally improved to
run safely on ovals. I beleive F1 drivers also added to this saying
they wouldn't WANT to run 240mph with the cars they drive today.
I can't add names and dates so take this with a grain of salt.
dave henrie

> "Brian Jackson" wrote

> > > But still... the fact remains that the *required* impact
> > > standards for each series are remarkably similar. Saying
> > > that CART cars must be stronger just because they are
> > > heavier is simply wrong.

> > I don't believe I said that. It's certainly not what I meant. What I
> > meant to say is that the CART car's required higher minimum weight
> > gives the designers more room to move to protect the driver
> > with added strength. It just stands to reason that an extra 200
> > pounds of car, _applied_correctly_ (especially on cars the
> > size of these) can mean a
> > big difference in impact resistance, etc.

> But safety is not the reason for the extra weight. It is about cost
> reduction. Heavier cars are cheaper to build. And making it heavier
> for the same structural integrity actually makes it less safe as there
> is more energy to dissipate in an accident.

> > Regardless, taking the position that "the mandatory impact tests for
> > both series are remarkably similar" equates with "therefore the cars
> > are remarkably similar in their integrity" is fallacious. That the
> > (minimum) standards defined for the tests are similar in no way
> > implies or guarantees that the cars are as well.

> Actually, I think you will find that the mandatory impact test for F1
> are now comfortably more stringent than those in CART, although it is
> a few months since I checked.

> I'm afraid that the CART cars are stronger and safer thing is one of
> those bits of assumed wisdom which it turns out has no basis in fact
> whatsoever. At the end of the day, the cars in both series are
> incredibly safe and getting safer, but it still comes down to luck.
> After all, Senna didn't die because his car was weak or because he hit
> a concrete wall - he died because a suspension arm pierced his helmet.

> --

> "In the end it's always a matter of more accelerator and less brake" -
> Frank Gardner

> Photo albums:
> http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=10440&Auth=false

by **David Bett** » Tue, 16 May 2000 04:00:00

"Dave Henrie" wrote

I don't doubt it. But don't forget that the F1 impact tests have been
made more strenuous year by year for some years now, without any need
to raise the minimum weight. In fact, the cars have been getting
stronger and lighter as designers seek to optimise weight distribution
by the use of ballast.

Personally, I'm not very happy about running the current CART
machinery on superspeedways either.

--

"In the end it's always a matter of more accelerator and less brake" -
Frank Gardner

Photo albums:
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=10440&Auth=false

by **Kirk Lan** » Tue, 16 May 2000 04:00:00

Actually, they are, but as a whole, ALL sports have been losing viewers
recently, so NASCAR is not losing any more than NBA or NHL...

You're talking the Belle Isle race that CART does, right? They're moving
that because it SUCKS. Fans hate it, teams hate it, drivers hate it. It
SUCKS. They do want to stay in Michigan for another road race, but they'll
always have some presence there with the Michigan oval. And not all tracks
are being expanded for NASCAR - road courses for one, and some ovals that
NASCAR doesn't race.

That was actually the IRL splitting off of CART...Tony George wanted to
start another league that would be more cost controlled and more American.
Not doing particularly well on either, and it would all have been peachy
between the two except for one thing - the Indy 500.

Yes, the world feed of F1 blows. ABC's coverage of almost anything blows
too. NASCAR and short-track racing (i.e. ASA, WoO, etc) are the only sports
that repeatedly get good TV feeds, because the former has loads of cool
onboards and reporters who know what they're talking about (most of the
time...Paul Page and Sam Posey are both idiots, but they don't do NASCAR
much do they?) and the latter really only needs a few cameras to cover
almost every angle of the .5 mile or less ovals.

--
Kirk Lane

ICQ: 28171652
AIM: Kirker64
(IM me twice so I can reply...using a beta client)

"The time has come for me to kill this game
Now open wide and say my name"
- "Space Lord", Monster Magnet

rec.autos.simulators

Moderately OT; Stupid CART...

Moderately OT; Stupid CART...

Moderately OT; Stupid CART...

Moderately OT; Stupid CART...

Moderately OT; Stupid CART...

Moderately OT; Stupid CART...

Moderately OT; Stupid CART...

Moderately OT; Stupid CART...

Moderately OT; Stupid CART...

Moderately OT; Stupid CART...

Moderately OT; Stupid CART...

Moderately OT; Stupid CART...

Moderately OT; Stupid CART...

Moderately OT; Stupid CART...

Moderately OT; Stupid CART...

Moderately OT; Stupid CART...