rec.autos.simulators

by **Mark Smi** » Tue, 16 Sep 1997 04:00:00

Just curious as to how airborne a stock car can actually get. I just watched
the Fast Track marathon on Showtime Saturday (very good show btw) and in the
series opener this car spins 180 and goes backwards for a bit then goes totally
airborne - does a complete 360 flip and several 360 twists and proceeds to land
on a fence post impaling the car and the driver before bursting into flames.

Since the car nearly cleared the fence I was wondering if its possible for a
stock car to get enough altitude to actually land in the crowd or was all this
just embellishment to make a really cool car crash on TV.

by **myke** » Tue, 16 Sep 1997 04:00:00

> Just curious as to how airborne a stock car can actually get. I just watched
> the Fast Track marathon on Showtime Saturday (very good show btw) and in the
> series opener this car spins 180 and goes backwards for a bit then goes totally
> airborne - does a complete 360 flip and several 360 twists and proceeds to land
> on a fence post impaling the car and the driver before bursting into flames.

> Since the car nearly cleared the fence I was wondering if its possible for a
> stock car to get enough altitude to actually land in the crowd or was all this
> just embellishment to make a really cool car crash on TV.

It the show that car achieved the altitude completely due to
aerodynamics.
Even with "Stuck" flaps, I doubt the car could stay in the proper
aerodynamic position long enough to achieve the altitude shown. Did you
notice when it landed on the fence post, it had no forward momentum.

On the other hand, I have no doubt that a car at 180+ mph that is
bouncing, rolling, tumbling could bounce in a way to launch itself up
over a fence.

BTW there are no "really cool" car crashes. Especially those that cause
a leak of "brake fluid".

mykey

by **Mark Smi** » Tue, 16 Sep 1997 04:00:00

>> Just curious as to how airborne a stock car can actually get. I just watched
>> the Fast Track marathon on Showtime Saturday (very good show btw) and in the
>> series opener this car spins 180 and goes backwards for a bit then goes totally
>> airborne - does a complete 360 flip and several 360 twists and proceeds to land
>> on a fence post impaling the car and the driver before bursting into flames.

>> Since the car nearly cleared the fence I was wondering if its possible for a
>> stock car to get enough altitude to actually land in the crowd or was all this
>> just embellishment to make a really cool car crash on TV.

>It the show that car achieved the altitude completely due to
>aerodynamics.
>Even with "Stuck" flaps, I doubt the car could stay in the proper
>aerodynamic position long enough to achieve the altitude shown. Did you
>notice when it landed on the fence post, it had no forward momentum.

>On the other hand, I have no doubt that a car at 180+ mph that is
>bouncing, rolling, tumbling could bounce in a way to launch itself up
>over a fence.

>BTW there are no "really cool" car crashes. Especially those that cause
>a leak of "brake fluid".

>mykey

Crashes are cool - it's the resulting injuries that suck. One of the best lines
in Fast Track was in a later episode when they are all watching the race on TV
waiting for a liver donor and Becket says 'I'm almost hoping for a wreck" and
the bartender says - "yeah you and 5 million other spectators. They want a
wreck for death's sake - you want a wreck for life's sake".

Makes you wonder if racers are really that tight that they would discuss
donating organs before a race on the chance they might wreck.

by **John Loga** » Tue, 16 Sep 1997 04:00:00

> > Just curious as to how airborne a stock car can actually get. I just watched
> > the Fast Track marathon on Showtime Saturday (very good show btw) and in the
> > series opener this car spins 180 and goes backwards for a bit then goes totally
> > airborne - does a complete 360 flip and several 360 twists and proceeds to land
> > on a fence post impaling the car and the driver before bursting into flames.

> > Since the car nearly cleared the fence I was wondering if its possible for a
> > stock car to get enough altitude to actually land in the crowd or was all this
> > just embellishment to make a really cool car crash on TV.

> It the show that car achieved the altitude completely due to
> aerodynamics.
> Even with "Stuck" flaps, I doubt the car could stay in the proper
> aerodynamic position long enough to achieve the altitude shown. Did you
> notice when it landed on the fence post, it had no forward momentum.

> On the other hand, I have no doubt that a car at 180+ mph that is
> bouncing, rolling, tumbling could bounce in a way to launch itself up
> over a fence.

> BTW there are no "really cool" car crashes. Especially those that cause
> a leak of "brake fluid".

> mykey

Craven almost cleared the fence at Talladega in '96.

I remember a race when a car did make it up and over
--
PolePosition#3- IVGA #4882

Visit my pages:
http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/4578/index.html

"If you don't believe, you don't belong." -- Alan Kulwicki's Credo

by **Handy^Ma** » Tue, 16 Sep 1997 04:00:00

> Just curious as to how airborne a stock car can actually get. I just watched
> the Fast Track marathon on Showtime Saturday (very good show btw) and in the
> series opener this car spins 180 and goes backwards for a bit then goes totally
> airborne - does a complete 360 flip and several 360 twists and proceeds to land
> on a fence post impaling the car and the driver before bursting into flames.

> Since the car nearly cleared the fence I was wondering if its possible for a
> stock car to get enough altitude to actually land in the crowd or was all this
> just embellishment to make a really cool car crash on TV.

Well, I happened to be sitting in the Moss-Thornton section at Talladega
when Neil Bonnett took out a good portion of the fence in front of me.
I was about 5 rows off the fence, and it scared the living hell out of
me. thank goodness for the three huge (about two inch diameter) cables
running the length of the stands. if not for them, I'm not quite sure I
would be here today. race was red flagged for quite some time while the
fence was repaired. I am trying to remember....either this was right
before the restrictor plates, or right after.
Also, I was at Tally when A driver went over another car and out of the
track in turn one, landing on the access road.
and don't forget ricky craven's hang time on the newly heightened fence
in turn one the next year, three cars went up under him while he was up,
snd he came down on EI's deck lid.
as a Talladega native, I have seen LOTS of airborne cars,,, Bobby
Allison, Rusty Wallace (over and over).... and yes, I would say some of
these cars were around 8 feet in the air. (Before the plates)
Restrictors seem to have imposed an altitude limitation of around 3 to 5
feet :)
--
Sit down,,Strap in,,Shut up,,Hang on,,Go fast,,Turn left,,Kiss Trophy
Girl
GGGGGGgoooo #3,,,31,,,28,,,94,,,6,,,5,,,18,,,8,,,
Handy^man

by **myke** » Tue, 16 Sep 1997 04:00:00

> >> Just curious as to how airborne a stock car can actually get. I just watched
> >> the Fast Track marathon on Showtime Saturday (very good show btw) and in the
> >> series opener this car spins 180 and goes backwards for a bit then goes totally
> >> airborne - does a complete 360 flip and several 360 twists and proceeds to land
> >> on a fence post impaling the car and the driver before bursting into flames.

> >> Since the car nearly cleared the fence I was wondering if its possible for a
> >> stock car to get enough altitude to actually land in the crowd or was all this
> >> just embellishment to make a really cool car crash on TV.

> >It the show that car achieved the altitude completely due to
> >aerodynamics.
> >Even with "Stuck" flaps, I doubt the car could stay in the proper
> >aerodynamic position long enough to achieve the altitude shown. Did you
> >notice when it landed on the fence post, it had no forward momentum.

> >On the other hand, I have no doubt that a car at 180+ mph that is
> >bouncing, rolling, tumbling could bounce in a way to launch itself up
> >over a fence.

> >BTW there are no "really cool" car crashes. Especially those that cause
> >a leak of "brake fluid".

> >mykey

> Crashes are cool - it's the resulting injuries that suck. One of the best lines
> in Fast Track was in a later episode when they are all watching the race on TV
> waiting for a liver donor and Becket says 'I'm almost hoping for a wreck" and
> the bartender says - "yeah you and 5 million other spectators. They want a
> wreck for death's sake - you want a wreck for life's sake".

> Makes you wonder if racers are really that tight that they would discuss
> donating organs before a race on the chance they might wreck.

I heard that also, but wasn't following the story close enough to know
what was going on at that moment.

I couldn't figure out how a wreck would keep some frogs alive. That was
in the frog story wasn't it?

mykey

by Jo » Wed, 17 Sep 1997 04:00:00

>Crashes are cool - it's the resulting injuries that suck.

Good line - that's why I like car crashes sometimes in computer games.
NFS 1 had the best ones yet, IMO. I had a few replays of cop chases
that looked more movie scenes than a video game, with some very
spectacular and realistic crashes.

Most arcade games that have crashes - like Carmageddon - make the cars
way to artificially light, which takes away from the crashing.

Joe

by **Mark Smi** » Wed, 17 Sep 1997 04:00:00

>> >> Just curious as to how airborne a stock car can actually get. I just watched
>> >> the Fast Track marathon on Showtime Saturday (very good show btw) and in the
>> >> series opener this car spins 180 and goes backwards for a bit then goes totally
>> >> airborne - does a complete 360 flip and several 360 twists and proceeds to land
>> >> on a fence post impaling the car and the driver before bursting into flames.

>> >> Since the car nearly cleared the fence I was wondering if its possible for a
>> >> stock car to get enough altitude to actually land in the crowd or was all this
>> >> just embellishment to make a really cool car crash on TV.

>> >It the show that car achieved the altitude completely due to
>> >aerodynamics.
>> >Even with "Stuck" flaps, I doubt the car could stay in the proper
>> >aerodynamic position long enough to achieve the altitude shown. Did you
>> >notice when it landed on the fence post, it had no forward momentum.

>> >On the other hand, I have no doubt that a car at 180+ mph that is
>> >bouncing, rolling, tumbling could bounce in a way to launch itself up
>> >over a fence.

>> >BTW there are no "really cool" car crashes. Especially those that cause
>> >a leak of "brake fluid".

>> >mykey

>> Crashes are cool - it's the resulting injuries that suck. One of the best lines
>> in Fast Track was in a later episode when they are all watching the race on TV
>> waiting for a liver donor and Becket says 'I'm almost hoping for a wreck" and
>> the bartender says - "yeah you and 5 million other spectators. They want a
>> wreck for death's sake - you want a wreck for life's sake".

>> Makes you wonder if racers are really that tight that they would discuss
>> donating organs before a race on the chance they might wreck.

>I heard that also, but wasn't following the story close enough to know
>what was going on at that moment.

>I couldn't figure out how a wreck would keep some frogs alive. That was
>in the frog story wasn't it?

>mykey

Yes but they were talking about Stevie's dad who needed the liver. All the
racers had earlier stated that if they "bought it" in the next race the would
donate their liver to him. So everyone was huddled around the tube to see who
would die. Fortunately a miner died in some freak accident so no racers were
harmed in this episode.

On a happier note: the frogs were saved by the music of the multi-talented Dr.
Beckette and his father.

rec.autos.simulators

Cars catching air

Cars catching air

Cars catching air

Cars catching air

Cars catching air

Cars catching air

Cars catching air

Cars catching air

Cars catching air