rec.autos.simulators

by **Geoff Schule** » Wed, 24 May 2000 04:00:00

>> >> 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.

>> >I would argue that CART cars not being stronger and safer has
>> >no basis in fact either.

>> And you would be wrong. As David said, the required impact tests for
>> F1 cars are now more stringent than for CART. That's the fact, easily
>> verifiable. Just look at the rules of the two series.

>No, the facts are not easy verifiable.

Yes they are. Read the rules.

No, I am making a statement based on testing *results*. F1 cars pass
the tests, otherwise they don't race. So do CART cars. The tests for
F1 cars are more stringent than for CART cars. QED.

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

by **Geoff Schule** » Wed, 24 May 2000 04:00:00

On Mon, 22 May 2000 22:31:28 -0700, Brian Jackson

>> It doesn't matter how many times I read it, or you repeat it, it
>> doesn't suddenly prove that CART cars are stronger. Unless you can
>> come up with some *evidence* to back up your conjecture that CART cars
>> are built far stronger than they are required to be, and that F1 cars
>> aren't, then the only verifiable fact remains that F1 cars are
>> required to meet more stringent standards than CART cars.

>This is why you're having so much trouble with this. No one at this end
>was attempting to "prove" any such thing.

You made the bald statement that CART cars are stronger because they
are heavier. I was simply countering that for the myth that it is.

Because you haven't any...

On the contrary, when it comes to crashworthiness standards, they
*must* be used that way. They are the only verifiable numbers to use.

-<snip>-

Now you are starting to play in my ballpark...

From my 18 years as an aircraft accident investigator, I can safely
say that when Boeing (or any other aircraft manufacturer) design and
build a new plane, they *do* have a test that says "will the wing
stand up to at least X pounds of pressure?". That is the whole point
of the ultimate load tests. They are *required* to test to meet
minimum standards, otherwise they don't get certificated. Most of them
do continue the tests to failure, simply to get an indication of the
margin they have over the minimum, and to determine
*if_they_can_lighten_the_structure* to improve performance. If there
is sufficient margin, then they *LIGHTEN* the structure.

Are you seriously suggesting that CART designers are too stupid to
lighten the structure to close to the minimum necessary to pass the
tests, and give up the competitive edge they could gain from that
lightening?

That's the only inference that can realistically be drawn.

You obviously have no idea about the process of designing or
manufacturing high-perfornmance structures where weight is a critical
parameter.

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 **Brian Jackso** » Wed, 24 May 2000 04:00:00

> "Brian Jackson" wrote

> > 2. You have a blind spot that isn't allowing you to see the flaw
> > in your reasoning. As long as you maintain that these tests
> > are a reliable and accurate means of comparison, then we have
> > already said all that needs to be said.

> Actually, Brian, it is you and the other posters who seek to argue
> that CART cars may well exceed the minimum CART standards who have
> the blind spot. This is motor racing. The chassis builders are in
> competition on performance, not safety. Anybody who didn't build their
> car to the limit of the regulations (and, in the case of CART, the
> market price) would be uncompetitive. If the impact tests in F1 are
> tougher, then the chances are that the cars aren't weaker. Accept it.

Regardless of the line of reasoning, it is all pure speculation. So I
won't accept it as fact. Sorry.

Webster defines "debunk" as "to expose the sham or falseness of". So
far, all either of you has done is to offer up a differing opinion that
uses test criteria - not test results - to "prove" your position. You
both need a semester in a logic class.

by **John Franc** » Wed, 24 May 2000 04:00:00

Not QED at all. You have failed to demonstrate two points,
both of which are necessary before your conclusion is valid.

These are:

1) The CART cars would fail the F1 tests

2) The tests are a valid way of measuring safety.

Until you can proves both of these points you have nothing to
offer but an assumption, based entirely on your opinion.

Incidentally, an F1 car would fail some of the CART safety
requirements; there isn't enough deformable structure beside
the driver. But that doesn't prove an F1 car is less safe
than a ChampCar, either - all it proves is that the tests
and requirements don't always measure identical things.

by **David Bett** » Thu, 25 May 2000 04:00:00

"Brian Jackson" wrote

Rude little bastard, aren't you? I really can't be bothered to discuss
this with you any further. You clearly know little or nothing about
racing. People build down to the regulations. The regulations
define the cars. If the regulations define stronger cars, they
are stronger.

The automatic presumption that CART cars are stronger than F1 cars is
nothing more than that - a presumption. It has no basis in fact. The
only 'fact' available is that the F1 cars have to pass tougher crash
tests than the CART cars. It's hardly rocket science.

(Why on earth is it that some people have to keep defending their
position in an argument they have clearly lost a long time ago? Must
say something about their intelligence, I suppose.)

--

"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 **Newto** » Thu, 25 May 2000 04:00:00

> "Brian Jackson" wrote

> > You both need a semester in a logic class.

> Rude little bastard, aren't you? I really can't be bothered to discuss
> this with you any further. You clearly know little or nothing about
> racing.

Perhaps you should read some of the earlier posts that were written by
Brian. He's probably one of the most astute posters on this newsgroup.
Brian comes and goes, as his job dictates. The intelligence of the
newsgroup drops while Brian is gone, but we all look forward to the day
he returns. However, it will take quite a bit to raise the intelligence
now that you've joined the group.

Newton

--
http://www.myeloma.org Information and services for everyone battling
multiple myeloma, a cancer of the bone marrow for which there is
currently no known cure.

by **Pat LaTorre** » Fri, 26 May 2000 04:00:00

I was standing at the break in the wall, driver's right right at "Pit-out".
Everytime we had a restart I was ready to move out with a quick-jack if someone
spun in T-1, so we could drag them back into the lane and get the turn clear
quickly. Fortunately, I didn't get to do any work during the race other than
keep a couple of spare radios dry for the people working out in the lane (we had
radio problems big time due to the rain).
Enjoy,
Pat LaTorres

by **Eugene Cha** » Wed, 31 May 2000 04:00:00

Stringent regulations and strength are two different spheres. A champcar is
much, much heavier than an F1 car, and mass makes a difference in the force
of an impact...So while safer in F1, F1 cars are not necessarily stronger
than champcars.

>>>>> 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.

>>>> I would argue that CART cars not being stronger and safer has
>>>> no basis in fact either.

>>> And you would be wrong. As David said, the required impact tests for
>>> F1 cars are now more stringent than for CART. That's the fact, easily
>>> verifiable. Just look at the rules of the two series.

>> No, the facts are not easy verifiable.

> Yes they are. Read the rules.

>> You are making an assumption
>> based on testing procedure, not on any results.

> No, I am making a statement based on testing *results*. F1 cars pass
> the tests, otherwise they don't race. So do CART cars. The tests for
> F1 cars are more stringent than for CART cars. QED.

> 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/

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...