rec.autos.simulators

by **Tim** » Mon, 08 Oct 2001 20:14:15

As a motorcycle fanatic, I'm partial to runoffs, but admit they're a
difficult proposition at an oval. Very difficult in the case of a
banked oval, since you don't want the edge of the track where the
runoff starts acting like a ramp. Like you said, it'd require the
traps to also be banked. From that point we get into hundreds of other
problems, from visibility to junk from the runoff wanting to avalance
down the track after someone goes off, etc.

Without a total re-think of track layout, the only way to truly stop
the deaths is deformable barriers on the walls.
That'd still require pushing walls and grandstands back so the racing
line isn't changed.

I've been to Flemington speedway, a "mostly oval" short track in both
unpaved and paved layouts. After it was paved, the NASCAR modifieds
started going ungodly fast for such a short track. To try to minimize
injury Flemington started putting huge foam blocks on the corner
exits. Cars hit the blocks hard enough to create a mini styrofoam
snowstorm on the track a few times a night, but the foam is saving
lives.

To me, oval design is one of those things that should have started to
change when track designs started to evolve with safety in mind in the
late 70's/early 80's, but they never did. Now we have cars that are
faster than ever on a track who's fundamental layout that hasn't
changed since the 50's. Because of that, I don't think there are any
really easy answers.

Tim

by **Rafe McAulif** » Tue, 09 Oct 2001 21:19:22

Agreed, but like I said in my other post, I think there are measures
that can be taken. My idea of deformable but "slideable" barrier I've
seen at some circuit before (but I can't remember where) so it could
be done. Money is the biggest problem...

Rafe Mc

by **btgos** » Tue, 09 Oct 2001 22:30:26

True the foam at Flemington did reduce driver injury. Two of the local Long
Island drivers went to Flemington, and had very severe accidents. Both
resulted in injury, but could have resulted in very severe injury, or
possible death (both drivers retired from the injuries suffered at
Flemington) . So the foam does work. But from an entertainment stand point,
it did slow down the flow of the event, and we have to realize that NASCAR
is not going to do anything that will make the events longer. They have
already started shortening some of the races to make it a more appealling
package to television, and this trend will continue. It is said to say, but
the marketing of NASCAR will effect the changes that might be made in the
name of safety.

btgoss

by **Don Jenning** » Wed, 10 Oct 2001 02:37:09

"Chairborne" wrote ...

Boy, I'm no expert at all, but I find it hard to believe that NASCAR fans "dissatisfied with the level of examination" ever read NASCAR's report on the incident. I admit it was a tough read, because there's a lot of physics involved. (Don't know if it still is there, but it was available at www.nascar.com.) I'm not sure what the examination could have included that it didn't. It seemed to me that they obtained the services of leading experts in the fields of crash dynamics and biometrics to reconstruct what actually occurred inside the***pit of the 3.

As for the length of time the examination took, I'm not sure how that would compare to the length of time taken in the Senna case. But it amuses me when a couple of friends of mine talk (as you have suggested) about NASCAR's "conclusion" as if it was pre-determined and bogus. I'm not sure about your friends' access to information, but I am quite positive about the sum of my friends' access. They came to their "conclusion" late in February with only the aid of their televisions and a couple sixers of Coors. If they happen to be included among the "awful lot of NASCAR fans" that you mention, it would be good to discount their testimony ;-)

by **Don Jenning** » Wed, 10 Oct 2001 03:28:21

"Tim O" wrote ...

I agree, but both of these answers involve making the track more able to handle increased speed levels, as you have said. The Watkins Glen stock car course was changed a few years ago after the problem of cars launching out of Turn 5 (the Outer Loop) after cutting a tire down finally resulted in a death. (Ironically, the death occurred during impact with a tire barrier IIRC.) Since that time, NASCAR has made some of the same kinds of changes at Watkins Glen that FIA has made at its circuits, including the presence of a chicane, gravel traps, and foam walls. As you and others have mentioned, its much less feasible to make those changes at ovals.

What about looking at the flip side of the problem for ovals, and address making speed levels fit the tracks more safely. Why are we slaves to increased speed, thinking it's a given and we have to change other things to accommodate it. My boss (who is definitely not a fan of racing of any kind) has often said that he would like to see those guys driving a Monte Carlo right out of the show room like they had to in the old days. I know that sounds silly, but elements of the idea have merit. Hasn't the proliferation of F1 chicanes been entirely to limit the speed with which the cars approach the succeeding corner? So if you're not going to put a chicane in at Loudon, the only way to slow the cars approach to Turn 1 is to use slower cars. If my guy and your guy are bumper to bumper at 120mph, is the racing really that much more exciting when they're bumper to bumper at 160mph? Everything's a trade-off, but I'm thinking changing the cars instead of the tracks would be the easiest way to add safety without sacrificing competition.

by **John Pancoas** » Wed, 10 Oct 2001 03:46:23

Well said IMO. The problem is the speed of the cars, nothing less. Slow
them down. There's many ways this is possible, and making the cars more
"stock" is a worthwhile more. This can be down and the car's safety
features remain intact, contrary to what most speed enthusiasts preach.

Change(increased speed year after year) for change's sake is never good, and
this is a classic example.

-John

"Tim O" wrote ...

I agree, but both of these answers involve making the track more able to
handle increased speed levels, as you have said. The Watkins Glen stock car
course was changed a few years ago after the problem of cars launching out
of Turn 5 (the Outer Loop) after cutting a tire down finally resulted in a
death. (Ironically, the death occurred during impact with a tire barrier
IIRC.) Since that time, NASCAR has made some of the same kinds of changes
at Watkins Glen that FIA has made at its circuits, including the presence of
a chicane, gravel traps, and foam walls. As you and others have mentioned,
its much less feasible to make those changes at ovals.

What about looking at the flip side of the problem for ovals, and address
making speed levels fit the tracks more safely. Why are we slaves to
increased speed, thinking it's a given and we have to change other things to
accommodate it. My boss (who is definitely not a fan of racing of any kind)
has often said that he would like to see those guys driving a Monte Carlo
right out of the show room like they had to in the old days. I know that
sounds silly, but elements of the idea have merit. Hasn't the proliferation
of F1 chicanes been entirely to limit the speed with which the cars approach
the succeeding corner? So if you're not going to put a chicane in at
Loudon, the only way to slow the cars approach to Turn 1 is to use slower
cars. If my guy and your guy are bumper to bumper at 120mph, is the racing
really that much more exciting when they're bumper to bumper at 160mph?
Everything's a trade-off, but I'm thinking changing the cars instead of the
tracks would be the easiest way to add safety without sacrificing
competition.

by **Dave Henri** » Wed, 10 Oct 2001 05:40:19

I haven't looked at the ARCA speeds at C***te, but surely they are
already way below those of the Busch and WC series. How much slower do you
need to go?
dave henrie

> Well said IMO. The problem is the speed of the cars, nothing less.
Slow
> them down. There's many ways this is possible, and making the cars more
> "stock" is a worthwhile more. This can be down and the car's safety
> features remain intact, contrary to what most speed enthusiasts preach.

> Change(increased speed year after year) for change's sake is never good,
and
> this is a classic example.

> -John

> "Tim O" wrote ...
> > The problem is its not all the fault of unsafe cars. In fact, I think
> > about 95% of the problem is antiquated track design. I don't think I
> > can remember a NASCAR death that didn't involve a car hitting a
> > concrete wall.

> > Runoffs are the answer <snip>
> > The stopgap answer is deformable barriers <snip>

> I agree, but both of these answers involve making the track more able to
> handle increased speed levels, as you have said. The Watkins Glen stock
car
> course was changed a few years ago after the problem of cars launching out
> of Turn 5 (the Outer Loop) after cutting a tire down finally resulted in a
> death. (Ironically, the death occurred during impact with a tire barrier
> IIRC.) Since that time, NASCAR has made some of the same kinds of changes
> at Watkins Glen that FIA has made at its circuits, including the presence
of
> a chicane, gravel traps, and foam walls. As you and others have
mentioned,
> its much less feasible to make those changes at ovals.

> What about looking at the flip side of the problem for ovals, and address
> making speed levels fit the tracks more safely. Why are we slaves to
> increased speed, thinking it's a given and we have to change other things
to
> accommodate it. My boss (who is definitely not a fan of racing of any
kind)
> has often said that he would like to see those guys driving a Monte Carlo
> right out of the show room like they had to in the old days. I know that
> sounds silly, but elements of the idea have merit. Hasn't the
proliferation
> of F1 chicanes been entirely to limit the speed with which the cars
approach
> the succeeding corner? So if you're not going to put a chicane in at
> Loudon, the only way to slow the cars approach to Turn 1 is to use slower
> cars. If my guy and your guy are bumper to bumper at 120mph, is the
racing
> really that much more exciting when they're bumper to bumper at 160mph?
> Everything's a trade-off, but I'm thinking changing the cars instead of
the
> tracks would be the easiest way to add safety without sacrificing
> competition.

by **John Pancoas** » Wed, 10 Oct 2001 06:17:32

Er, so what if they're slower? Still can be to fast.

-John

> I haven't looked at the ARCA speeds at C***te, but surely they are
> already way below those of the Busch and WC series. How much slower do
you
> need to go?
> dave henrie

> > Well said IMO. The problem is the speed of the cars, nothing less.
> Slow
> > them down. There's many ways this is possible, and making the cars more
> > "stock" is a worthwhile more. This can be down and the car's safety
> > features remain intact, contrary to what most speed enthusiasts preach.

> > Change(increased speed year after year) for change's sake is never good,
> and
> > this is a classic example.

> > -John

> > "Tim O" wrote ...
> > > The problem is its not all the fault of unsafe cars. In fact, I think
> > > about 95% of the problem is antiquated track design. I don't think I
> > > can remember a NASCAR death that didn't involve a car hitting a
> > > concrete wall.

> > > Runoffs are the answer <snip>
> > > The stopgap answer is deformable barriers <snip>

> > I agree, but both of these answers involve making the track more able to
> > handle increased speed levels, as you have said. The Watkins Glen stock
> car
> > course was changed a few years ago after the problem of cars launching
out
> > of Turn 5 (the Outer Loop) after cutting a tire down finally resulted in
a
> > death. (Ironically, the death occurred during impact with a tire
barrier
> > IIRC.) Since that time, NASCAR has made some of the same kinds of
changes
> > at Watkins Glen that FIA has made at its circuits, including the
presence
> of
> > a chicane, gravel traps, and foam walls. As you and others have
> mentioned,
> > its much less feasible to make those changes at ovals.

> > What about looking at the flip side of the problem for ovals, and
address
> > making speed levels fit the tracks more safely. Why are we slaves to
> > increased speed, thinking it's a given and we have to change other
things
> to
> > accommodate it. My boss (who is definitely not a fan of racing of any
> kind)
> > has often said that he would like to see those guys driving a Monte
Carlo
> > right out of the show room like they had to in the old days. I know
that
> > sounds silly, but elements of the idea have merit. Hasn't the
> proliferation
> > of F1 chicanes been entirely to limit the speed with which the cars
> approach
> > the succeeding corner? So if you're not going to put a chicane in at
> > Loudon, the only way to slow the cars approach to Turn 1 is to use
slower
> > cars. If my guy and your guy are bumper to bumper at 120mph, is the
> racing
> > really that much more exciting when they're bumper to bumper at 160mph?
> > Everything's a trade-off, but I'm thinking changing the cars instead of
> the
> > tracks would be the easiest way to add safety without sacrificing
> > competition.

by **Dave Henri** » Wed, 10 Oct 2001 07:15:01

But if ARCA is too fast how slow do you go? Do you put 150mph speed
limiters on the cars? C***te isn't even one of the fastest tracks.
Altanta is even quicker... And certainly the flat Loudon track where Petty
and Irwin lost their lives last year isn't nearly in the same speed rating
as a track like C***te.
Just where is the limit on speed?
dave henrie

> Er, so what if they're slower? Still can be to fast.

> -John

> > I haven't looked at the ARCA speeds at C***te, but surely they are
> > already way below those of the Busch and WC series. How much slower do
> you
> > need to go?
> > dave henrie

> > > Well said IMO. The problem is the speed of the cars, nothing less.
> > Slow
> > > them down. There's many ways this is possible, and making the cars
more
> > > "stock" is a worthwhile more. This can be down and the car's safety
> > > features remain intact, contrary to what most speed enthusiasts
preach.

> > > Change(increased speed year after year) for change's sake is never
good,
> > and
> > > this is a classic example.

> > > -John

> > > "Tim O" wrote ...
> > > > The problem is its not all the fault of unsafe cars. In fact, I
think
> > > > about 95% of the problem is antiquated track design. I don't think I
> > > > can remember a NASCAR death that didn't involve a car hitting a
> > > > concrete wall.

> > > > Runoffs are the answer <snip>
> > > > The stopgap answer is deformable barriers <snip>

> > > I agree, but both of these answers involve making the track more able
to
> > > handle increased speed levels, as you have said. The Watkins Glen
stock
> > car
> > > course was changed a few years ago after the problem of cars launching
> out
> > > of Turn 5 (the Outer Loop) after cutting a tire down finally resulted
in
> a
> > > death. (Ironically, the death occurred during impact with a tire
> barrier
> > > IIRC.) Since that time, NASCAR has made some of the same kinds of
> changes
> > > at Watkins Glen that FIA has made at its circuits, including the
> presence
> > of
> > > a chicane, gravel traps, and foam walls. As you and others have
> > mentioned,
> > > its much less feasible to make those changes at ovals.

> > > What about looking at the flip side of the problem for ovals, and
> address
> > > making speed levels fit the tracks more safely. Why are we slaves to
> > > increased speed, thinking it's a given and we have to change other
> things
> > to
> > > accommodate it. My boss (who is definitely not a fan of racing of any
> > kind)
> > > has often said that he would like to see those guys driving a Monte
> Carlo
> > > right out of the show room like they had to in the old days. I know
> that
> > > sounds silly, but elements of the idea have merit. Hasn't the
> > proliferation
> > > of F1 chicanes been entirely to limit the speed with which the cars
> > approach
> > > the succeeding corner? So if you're not going to put a chicane in at
> > > Loudon, the only way to slow the cars approach to Turn 1 is to use
> slower
> > > cars. If my guy and your guy are bumper to bumper at 120mph, is the
> > racing
> > > really that much more exciting when they're bumper to bumper at
160mph?
> > > Everything's a trade-off, but I'm thinking changing the cars instead
of
> > the
> > > tracks would be the easiest way to add safety without sacrificing
> > > competition.

by **Chairbor** » Wed, 10 Oct 2001 07:32:52

On Mon, 8 Oct 2001 13:37:09 -0400, "Don Jennings"

>"Chairborne" wrote ...
>> As for Senna, you are right. But, I think that the case was much more
>> thoroughly examined (much of it, admittedly, because of the trial)
>> than the Earnhardt case. I've heard an awful lot of NASCAR fans
>> dissatisfied with the level of examination, the lack of experts, and
>> the length of time it took to come up with a "conclusion."

>Boy, I'm no expert at all, but I find it hard to believe that NASCAR fans "dissatisfied with the level of examination" ever read NASCAR's report on the incident. I admit it was a tough read, because there's a lot of physics involved. (Don't know if it still is there, but it was available at www.nascar.com.) I'm not sure what the examination could have included that it didn't. It seemed to me that they obtained the services of leading experts in the fields of crash dynamics and biometrics to reconstruct what actually occurred inside the***pit of the 3.

>As for the length of time the examination took, I'm not sure how that would compare to the length of time taken in the Senna case. But it amuses me when a couple of friends of mine talk (as you have suggested) about NASCAR's "conclusion" as if it was pre-determined and bogus. I'm not sure about your friends' access to information, but I am quite positive about the sum of my friends' access. They came to their "conclusion" late in February with only the aid of their televisions and a couple sixers of Coors. If they happen to be included among the "awful lot of NASCAR fans" that you mention, it would be good to discount their testimony ;-)

I looked for the transcript on the web site, but didn't find it. The
information I got was not, as you insinuate, from some beer-swilling
guy watching TV, but from a former racer and chassis-builder who is a
huge, long-time NASCAR fan. His comments were far less charitable
than mine. However, he did not read the report. So, you may very
well be right. They do the best they can, I suppose, without
telmetry.

by **Chairbor** » Wed, 10 Oct 2001 07:36:21

On Sat, 6 Oct 2001 20:23:43 -0600, "John Pancoast"

> Np, believe me, didn't want to come off the wrong way, apologies if so;
>agreed about Nascar's heavy hand at times. But that's just the way they
>work. It's nothing compared to what it used to be :)
> Whether one way or the other is "right"? No real winner there IMO.
>Nascar fans/drivers aren't making a stink because we don't expect, nor want,
>Nascar to take care of the safety issues....at least not soley.
> Sounds to much like , "I'm with the Government, and I'm here to help" to a
>lot of folks, myself included :)

> -John

This is my last post on this, I swear. I was pointed over to
NASCAR.com by someone, and while looking for something, I found this.
Draw your own conclusions (and read the whole article if interested).
The guy is Derek Jones from Evernham Motorsports, their engineer.
Take a gander at these quotes:

As far as deformable structures, there's no guidelines specifically
named "crushable structures." If a team wanted to, they could probably
add material outside of what NASCAR requires, but then you add weight
to your car and nobody wants to do that because the people who didn't
do it would have a performance advantage.

I think some of it is, if you make some of the pieces on the exterior
of the car more crushable, you'd end up with different foams and
honeycombs and things like that, and they're scared of that because
people could potentially hide electronics in it without them being
able to detect it.

In Formula One, each chassis that a particular team builds has to go
to a destructive test where they crash test it. I think the CART
chassis-builders might kind of go through the same thing, but none of
that happens in Winston Cup racing.

NASCAR.com: Formula One runs the crushable chassis. Explain their
cars, please.

Jones: To the right and left of the driver***pit is where the
radiator and the oil cooler are kept, and as you hit the wall, as you
crumple that whole region you're dissipating energy, and the driver
doesn't see the final huge acceleration where the tub comes to a stop.
What's killing the drivers is the amount of deceleration that they
see. The wall is not going to move, that means the car has to stop.
The faster the car stops, the more impact the driver sees.

NASCAR.com: And these crushable regions would limit that?

Jones: The crushable regions are slowing down how fast the car stops.
If you put a cushion off your couch and fall face first into the
cushion, it wouldn't hurt very much because it slowed how quickly your
body stopped before it hit the floor.

Without that there and you went face first into your hardwood floor it
would hurt pretty bad, just because your body had to stop so quickly.
That's what is killing drivers. That sudden deceleration. If you could
slow that deceleration down, the loading on his neck, head and upper
torso would be a lot less.

by **John Pancoas** » Wed, 10 Oct 2001 07:54:36

Don't know if a # is what's needed; each car class is different. Steps to
make them more representative of what their name is would slow them down
irregardless; the actual amount doesn't matter.

If you look at how the cars were made in the late 80's/early 90's, there's
much slower speeds, and the consensus is they were much safer structurally
too(various reasons).

If they're slowed down, it'd be proportional at every track, whether it's
considered a "fast" track or not.

Many argue the whole point of racing is to go as fast as you can, which is
true, but any mechanical/physical safety measure that can be thought of/has
been mentioned will just be obsolete in time as the speeds keep increasing
and the cycle, including deaths, will just start over again.

-John

> But if ARCA is too fast how slow do you go? Do you put 150mph speed
> limiters on the cars? C***te isn't even one of the fastest tracks.
> Altanta is even quicker... And certainly the flat Loudon track where
Petty
> and Irwin lost their lives last year isn't nearly in the same speed rating
> as a track like C***te.
> Just where is the limit on speed?
> dave henrie

> > Er, so what if they're slower? Still can be to fast.

> > -John

> > > I haven't looked at the ARCA speeds at C***te, but surely they
are
> > > already way below those of the Busch and WC series. How much slower
do
> > you
> > > need to go?
> > > dave henrie

> > > > Well said IMO. The problem is the speed of the cars, nothing
less.
> > > Slow
> > > > them down. There's many ways this is possible, and making the cars
> more
> > > > "stock" is a worthwhile more. This can be down and the car's safety
> > > > features remain intact, contrary to what most speed enthusiasts
> preach.

> > > > Change(increased speed year after year) for change's sake is never
> good,
> > > and
> > > > this is a classic example.

> > > > -John

> > > > "Tim O" wrote ...
> > > > > The problem is its not all the fault of unsafe cars. In fact, I
> think
> > > > > about 95% of the problem is antiquated track design. I don't think
I
> > > > > can remember a NASCAR death that didn't involve a car hitting a
> > > > > concrete wall.

> > > > > Runoffs are the answer <snip>
> > > > > The stopgap answer is deformable barriers <snip>

> > > > I agree, but both of these answers involve making the track more
able
> to
> > > > handle increased speed levels, as you have said. The Watkins Glen
> stock
> > > car
> > > > course was changed a few years ago after the problem of cars
launching
> > out
> > > > of Turn 5 (the Outer Loop) after cutting a tire down finally
resulted
> in
> > a
> > > > death. (Ironically, the death occurred during impact with a tire
> > barrier
> > > > IIRC.) Since that time, NASCAR has made some of the same kinds of
> > changes
> > > > at Watkins Glen that FIA has made at its circuits, including the
> > presence
> > > of
> > > > a chicane, gravel traps, and foam walls. As you and others have
> > > mentioned,
> > > > its much less feasible to make those changes at ovals.

> > > > What about looking at the flip side of the problem for ovals, and
> > address
> > > > making speed levels fit the tracks more safely. Why are we slaves
to
> > > > increased speed, thinking it's a given and we have to change other
> > things
> > > to
> > > > accommodate it. My boss (who is definitely not a fan of racing of
any
> > > kind)
> > > > has often said that he would like to see those guys driving a Monte
> > Carlo
> > > > right out of the show room like they had to in the old days. I know
> > that
> > > > sounds silly, but elements of the idea have merit. Hasn't the
> > > proliferation
> > > > of F1 chicanes been entirely to limit the speed with which the cars
> > > approach
> > > > the succeeding corner? So if you're not going to put a chicane in
at
> > > > Loudon, the only way to slow the cars approach to Turn 1 is to use
> > slower
> > > > cars. If my guy and your guy are bumper to bumper at 120mph, is the
> > > racing
> > > > really that much more exciting when they're bumper to bumper at
> 160mph?
> > > > Everything's a trade-off, but I'm thinking changing the cars instead
> of
> > > the
> > > > tracks would be the easiest way to add safety without sacrificing
> > > > competition.

by **John Pancoas** » Wed, 10 Oct 2001 08:00:22

That's true, and one that actually, not a new improvement is needed, but
an "old" one. Until the last few years, the cars front ends were not
nearly as rigid.

Now, there's much more cross bracing, tubing, etc. These greatly aid the
car's setup as it won't change as much over the course of the race, but at
the expense of much more rigidity; i.e., no "natural" crush/absorption zones
as in the past before all the bracing was added(early-mid 90's is when
changed).

It is the sudden stopping that's the problem IMO.

Also, fwiw, best to take most of what's read on Nascar.com tongue in
cheek; until this year, Nascar itself ran the site, and it was common
knowledge then that it was more of a pr/propaganda site actual facts/news.

Good article here though, no doubt.

-John

> On Sat, 6 Oct 2001 20:23:43 -0600, "John Pancoast"

> > Np, believe me, didn't want to come off the wrong way, apologies if
so;
> >agreed about Nascar's heavy hand at times. But that's just the way they
> >work. It's nothing compared to what it used to be :)
> > Whether one way or the other is "right"? No real winner there IMO.
> >Nascar fans/drivers aren't making a stink because we don't expect, nor
want,
> >Nascar to take care of the safety issues....at least not soley.
> > Sounds to much like , "I'm with the Government, and I'm here to help"
to a
> >lot of folks, myself included :)

> > -John

> This is my last post on this, I swear. I was pointed over to
> NASCAR.com by someone, and while looking for something, I found this.
> Draw your own conclusions (and read the whole article if interested).
> The guy is Derek Jones from Evernham Motorsports, their engineer.
> Take a gander at these quotes:

> As far as deformable structures, there's no guidelines specifically
> named "crushable structures." If a team wanted to, they could probably
> add material outside of what NASCAR requires, but then you add weight
> to your car and nobody wants to do that because the people who didn't
> do it would have a performance advantage.

> I think some of it is, if you make some of the pieces on the exterior
> of the car more crushable, you'd end up with different foams and
> honeycombs and things like that, and they're scared of that because
> people could potentially hide electronics in it without them being
> able to detect it.

> In Formula One, each chassis that a particular team builds has to go
> to a destructive test where they crash test it. I think the CART
> chassis-builders might kind of go through the same thing, but none of
> that happens in Winston Cup racing.

> NASCAR.com: Formula One runs the crushable chassis. Explain their
> cars, please.

> Jones: To the right and left of the driver***pit is where the
> radiator and the oil cooler are kept, and as you hit the wall, as you
> crumple that whole region you're dissipating energy, and the driver
> doesn't see the final huge acceleration where the tub comes to a stop.
> What's killing the drivers is the amount of deceleration that they
> see. The wall is not going to move, that means the car has to stop.
> The faster the car stops, the more impact the driver sees.

> NASCAR.com: And these crushable regions would limit that?

> Jones: The crushable regions are slowing down how fast the car stops.
> If you put a cushion off your couch and fall face first into the
> cushion, it wouldn't hurt very much because it slowed how quickly your
> body stopped before it hit the floor.

> Without that there and you went face first into your hardwood floor it
> would hurt pretty bad, just because your body had to stop so quickly.
> That's what is killing drivers. That sudden deceleration. If you could
> slow that deceleration down, the loading on his neck, head and upper
> torso would be a lot less.

by **Eldre** » Wed, 10 Oct 2001 11:29:54

>I agree, but both of these answers involve making the track more able to =
>handle increased speed levels, as you have said. The Watkins Glen stock =
>car course was changed a few years ago after the problem of cars =
>launching out of Turn 5 (the Outer Loop) after cutting a tire down =
>finally resulted in a death. (Ironically, the death occurred during =
>impact with a tire barrier IIRC.)

A few years ago? Who was that? I don't even *remember* that one...

You sound like the people who like the Barber Pro cars, or the Indy lights.
The speeds are WAY lower, but the racing is still pretty exciting.

Eldred
--
Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001
Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett
F1 hcp. +16.36...Monster +360.54...

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

by **btgos** » Wed, 10 Oct 2001 22:51:56

As someone else has said, it's not the overall speed, but the dramatic and
sudden stop that is killing drivers. Modified driver Charlie Jarzombek was
killed at Martinsville in a very similar type of accident (virtually head on
contact with the corner wall). Martinsville, even in what at the time was a
virtually unlimited Modified, is not a high speed track. The car was so
stiff, that the amount of damage the car suffered was minimal, although it
took the life of the driver. Today a Modified is lower due to horsepower
limits, but has had changes made to the chassis, making it more forgiving in
this type of head-on collision (angles have been changed on the front of the
chassis, and thinner walled tubing has been added to make something of a
crush-zone).
Making these changes is the only reasonable answer to the problem, as
changes to the tracks will not happen, and slowing the cars is not really
the best solution, as it doesn't change the cause of the problem. A too
stiff chassis which allows the impact force to be transmitted through the
car, and by association, the driver.
I really think NASCAR has to be the one to take the lead in effecting this
change.

Just the thoughts of an old Modified fan who lost all his heroes to this
***in the 80's and is sick of seeing it happen all over again.

btgoss

rec.autos.simulators

OT - ARCA driver killed Thursday at LMS

OT - ARCA driver killed Thursday at LMS

OT - ARCA driver killed Thursday at LMS

OT - ARCA driver killed Thursday at LMS

OT - ARCA driver killed Thursday at LMS

OT - ARCA driver killed Thursday at LMS

OT - ARCA driver killed Thursday at LMS

OT - ARCA driver killed Thursday at LMS

OT - ARCA driver killed Thursday at LMS

OT - ARCA driver killed Thursday at LMS

OT - ARCA driver killed Thursday at LMS

OT - ARCA driver killed Thursday at LMS

OT - ARCA driver killed Thursday at LMS

OT - ARCA driver killed Thursday at LMS

OT - ARCA driver killed Thursday at LMS

OT - ARCA driver killed Thursday at LMS