OT - ARCA driver killed Thursday at LMS

I guess either you folks haven't heard, or this is becoming the norm and we are getting used to seeing race car drivers die. Last night during the ARCA race at Charlotte Blaise Alexander was killed from severe head injuries sustained when his car was turned into the outside wall by Kerry Earnhardt with 5 laps to go. Earnhardt's car was overturned when Alexander's car made contact with it after bouncing off the front-stretch wall. Earnhardt's car slid to the end of pit road in a shower of sparks and flames before coming to rest on it's roof. Earnhardt was unhurt. However, 25-year old Blaise Alexander was pronounced dead on the scene. Sad. If this keeps up, the sport we all love could be banned. I sure hope not. I almost wonder who's next? Later, Tony Long Charlotte, NC

We've been talking about it all day All week people have been commenting on the condition of the track, the erosion of it Lowes in general has had more than its share of tragedy, with IRL, the walkway collapse, a school driver killed, and now this Sure is dad Tony <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (20 lines)

> I guess either you folks haven't heard, or this is becoming the norm and > we are getting used to seeing race car drivers die. Last night during > the ARCA race at Charlotte Blaise Alexander was killed from severe head > injuries sustained when his car was turned into the outside wall by > Kerry Earnhardt with 5 laps to go. Earnhardt's car was overturned when > Alexander's car made contact with it after bouncing off the > front-stretch wall. Earnhardt's car slid to the end of pit road in a > shower of sparks and flames before coming to rest on it's roof. > Earnhardt was unhurt. However, 25-year old Blaise Alexander was > pronounced dead on the scene. > > Sad. > > If this keeps up, the sport we all love could be banned. I sure hope > not. I almost wonder who's next? > > Later, > > Tony Long > Charlotte, NC

This horrible accident points to the fact that the cars are not as safe as they potentially could be. ARCA as a minor league sancitioning body is really almost at the mercy of NASCAR, since most ARCA cars are old WC cars. NASCAR has to take a strong lead in this area. The cars must be made to reduce the impact forces on the driver, and until that is done we might see more of this type of accident. NASCAR has done this in the past, most recently with the Featherlite Modified division which suffered an almost unbearable 18 month stretch of driver fatalities and permanent injuries. The cars where made to fold up on a heavy frontal impact. It is time to bring this idea into the big leagues. Just my two cents. btgoss "Tony" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (20 lines)

> I guess either you folks haven't heard, or this is becoming the norm and > we are getting used to seeing race car drivers die. Last night during > the ARCA race at Charlotte Blaise Alexander was killed from severe head > injuries sustained when his car was turned into the outside wall by > Kerry Earnhardt with 5 laps to go. Earnhardt's car was overturned when > Alexander's car made contact with it after bouncing off the > front-stretch wall. Earnhardt's car slid to the end of pit road in a > shower of sparks and flames before coming to rest on it's roof. > Earnhardt was unhurt. However, 25-year old Blaise Alexander was > pronounced dead on the scene. > > Sad. > > If this keeps up, the sport we all love could be banned. I sure hope > not. I almost wonder who's next? > > Later, > > Tony Long > Charlotte, NC

On Fri, 05 Oct 2001 17:22:24 GMT, "btgoss" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

>This horrible accident points to the fact that the cars are not as safe as >they potentially could be. ARCA as a minor league sancitioning body is >really almost at the mercy of NASCAR, since most ARCA cars are old WC cars. >NASCAR has to take a strong lead in this area. The cars must be made to >reduce the impact forces on the driver, and until that is done we might see >more of this type of accident. NASCAR has done this in the past, most >recently with the Featherlite Modified division which suffered an almost >unbearable 18 month stretch of driver fatalities and permanent injuries. The >cars where made to fold up on a heavy frontal impact. It is time to bring >this idea into the big leagues. > >Just my two cents. > >btgoss

Agreed. One only has to compare the attitude of NASCAR with that of F1 to see that something is really wrong. There is a really dense article in September's Formula 1 Magazine (not F1 magazine) on the extensive study done on measuring and restraining head movements during accidents. A cursory reading of that by even a layman like me makes me wonder if NASCAR intends to do anything at all with the data that is already out there, much less do any study of it's own. Kind of sad, actually.

On Sat, 06 Oct 2001 02:21:03 GMT, [email hidden] (Chairborne) wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>Agreed. One only has to compare the attitude of NASCAR with that of >F1 to see that something is really wrong. There is a really dense >article in September's Formula 1 Magazine (not F1 magazine) on the >extensive study done on measuring and restraining head movements >during accidents. A cursory reading of that by even a layman like me >makes me wonder if NASCAR intends to do anything at all with the data >that is already out there, much less do any study of it's own. Kind >of sad, actually.

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 (if the car doesn't hit anything, the driver never dies), but unless you design this into the track when it is built, its almost impossible to do afterward since it involves moving the grandstands. The stopgap answer is deformable barriers (motorcycle road racing has come a long way in the area), but they cut into track space on an oval where NASCAR drivers already come within inches of the current wall. Moving the racing line down 8 feet for a hydro-barrier would result in a lot of screaming people. Nothing is going to get "banned" like the original poster said, but until the fans and drivers won't tolerate it anymore, changes are going to be incremental, with band-aids like the HANS device. Tim

Quoted text (20 lines)

> >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 (if the car doesn't hit anything, the driver >never dies), but unless you design this into the track when it is >built, its almost impossible to do afterward since it involves moving >the grandstands. The stopgap answer is deformable barriers (motorcycle >road racing has come a long way in the area), but they cut into track >space on an oval where NASCAR drivers already come within inches of >the current wall. Moving the racing line down 8 feet for a >hydro-barrier would result in a lot of screaming people. > >Nothing is going to get "banned" like the original poster said, but >until the fans and drivers won't tolerate it anymore, changes are >going to be incremental, with band-aids like the HANS device. > >Tim

Again, I agree. The only problem, as you've pointed out, is that the entire US oval scene is based around the arena concept, and any changes may ruin the essence of that type of racing. So, realistically, it cannot and will not be done. Unless....unless the drivers themselves, in conjunction with the fans and sponsors, simply refuse to race unless incremental changes are introduced. Humpy sees this coming, I think, and you have to give him credit for trying. Again pointing to the F1 scene, we all witnessed what happened at Monza when Michael tried to persuade the drivers to take it easy in the first couple of chicanes. And, the more elderly among us remember the meetings that were held in 1994 between the drivers after Ratzenberger was killed, before the race. I guess the thing that really strikes me is that the FIA does two things that NASCAR does not (or does poorly): 1. Study the physics of accidents with respected scientists and doctors, and makes changes to the cars and equipment as necessary, and 2. Makes track changes immediately if they sense problems (this includes minimum safety standards for the tracks). Tracks that cannot or will not come up to snuff are dropped. They also have a huge input on designing new tracks, and designing safety features while they are under construction. Did we see that at Ky Speedway or Kansas? When you look at the F1, you see Sid Watkins in his safety car, who not only is available immediately, but also checks the track. You see no practice or race without the helo being able to fly (does NASCAR do this...?) You see tire barriers, which they have continued to improve over the years. You see runoffs (off topic to NASCAR). More importantly, you see progress....evolution....a search for something better, safer. You don't see fear to change, blaming suppliers (particularly galling to me), keeping the status quo until somebody starting complaining. The whitewash of the Earnhardt case is a perfect example. I guess the real problem I have is the refusal or reticence to change. The FIA sure doesn't have all the answers, but they try.

In article <[email hidden]>, Tony <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (10 lines)

>I guess either you folks haven't heard, or this is becoming the norm and >we are getting used to seeing race car drivers die. Last night during >the ARCA race at Charlotte Blaise Alexander was killed from severe head >injuries sustained when his car was turned into the outside wall by >Kerry Earnhardt with 5 laps to go. Earnhardt's car was overturned when >Alexander's car made contact with it after bouncing off the >front-stretch wall. Earnhardt's car slid to the end of pit road in a >shower of sparks and flames before coming to rest on it's roof. >Earnhardt was unhurt. However, 25-year old Blaise Alexander was >pronounced dead on the scene.

No...I hadn't heard. Damn, not another one... :-( 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.

In article <3bbf086f.4235169@news-server>, [email hidden] (Chairborne) writes: >When you look at the F1, you see Sid Watkins in his safety car, who >not only is available immediately, but also checks the track. You see >no practice or race without the helo being able to fly (does NASCAR do >this...?) I didn't realize the helicopter was necessary to F1 for a race. But, since NASCAR doesn't run ovals in the rain, this wouldn't be an issue... 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.

"Chairborne" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3bbf086f.4235169@news-server... > > > > >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. There's a very good article on barrier types on the web, hopefully someone here will remember the link. Concrete is still the best barrier when the the car is more or less parallel to the wall, and belt covered tyres are the best when the impact is more towards perpendicular. I think the problem with the ovals is when the cars hit the walls at an angle due to being bumped, or lose control or whatever. The fact remains that for NASCAR at least, improvements to the safety design of the cars themselves *is* possible, and should be mandated (crumple zones etc) and is something which can be done at a significantly lower cost than basically abandoning every oval track in America, surely. cheers John

. Yes, Nascar does require helos at it's races. Not wanting to start a flame war, but for someone that seems so bent on criticizing Nascar, you may want to get the facts right before doing so. F1 has and will had it's share of "interesting" incidents/whitewash accusations too. Whether true or not, Senna comes to mind off the top. Just my .02, I like both forms of racing. -John

Quoted text (13 lines)

> When you look at the F1, you see Sid Watkins in his safety car, who > not only is available immediately, but also checks the track. You see > no practice or race without the helo being able to fly (does NASCAR do > this...?) You see tire barriers, which they have continued to improve > over the years. You see runoffs (off topic to NASCAR). More > importantly, you see progress....evolution....a search for something > better, safer. You don't see fear to change, blaming suppliers > (particularly galling to me), keeping the status quo until somebody > starting complaining. The whitewash of the Earnhardt case is a > perfect example. > > I guess the real problem I have is the refusal or reticence to change. > The FIA sure doesn't have all the answers, but they try.

I stand corrected, John. That't why I placed the disclaimer on the comment (does NASCAR do this....?). I guess you didn't read the post carefully, or maybe you missed it. Anyway, I didn't mean to criticize NASCAR on that point specifically, I was trying to make a point about the preparation F1 goes through. I do know that CART has a helo (at least they did at Mid Ohio), and they had one there for the ALMS race as well. 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." I too like both forms of racing, as well as many others. But, I'm not a NASCAR fanatic. Those folks are the ones who should be really raising a stink, not about the danger of their sport, but the lack of care their sport has towards the safety of its drivers. On Sat, 6 Oct 2001 16:36:27 -0600, "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (26 lines)

>. Yes, Nascar does require helos at it's races. Not wanting to start a >flame war, but for someone that seems so bent on criticizing Nascar, you may >want to get the facts right before doing so. > > F1 has and will had it's share of "interesting" incidents/whitewash >accusations too. Whether true or not, Senna comes to mind off the top. > > Just my .02, I like both forms of racing. > >-John > > >> When you look at the F1, you see Sid Watkins in his safety car, who >> not only is available immediately, but also checks the track. You see >> no practice or race without the helo being able to fly (does NASCAR do >> this...?) You see tire barriers, which they have continued to improve >> over the years. You see runoffs (off topic to NASCAR). More >> importantly, you see progress....evolution....a search for something >> better, safer. You don't see fear to change, blaming suppliers >> (particularly galling to me), keeping the status quo until somebody >> starting complaining. The whitewash of the Earnhardt case is a >> perfect example. >> >> I guess the real problem I have is the refusal or reticence to change. >> The FIA sure doesn't have all the answers, but they try. >

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 Chairborne <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3bbfb2ae.14727428@news-server...

Quoted text (23 lines)

> I stand corrected, John. That't why I placed the disclaimer on the > comment (does NASCAR do this....?). I guess you didn't read the post > carefully, or maybe you missed it. Anyway, I didn't mean to criticize > NASCAR on that point specifically, I was trying to make a point about > the preparation F1 goes through. I do know that CART has a helo (at > least they did at Mid Ohio), and they had one there for the ALMS race > as well. > > 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." > > I too like both forms of racing, as well as many others. But, I'm not > a NASCAR fanatic. Those folks are the ones who should be really > raising a stink, not about the danger of their sport, but the lack of > care their sport has towards the safety of its drivers. > > On Sat, 6 Oct 2001 16:36:27 -0600, "John Pancoast" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >. Yes, Nascar does require helos at it's races. Not wanting to start

a > >flame war, but for someone that seems so bent on criticizing Nascar, youmay

Quoted text (25 lines)

> >want to get the facts right before doing so. > > > > F1 has and will had it's share of "interesting" incidents/whitewash > >accusations too. Whether true or not, Senna comes to mind off the top. > > > > Just my .02, I like both forms of racing. > > > >-John > > > > > >> When you look at the F1, you see Sid Watkins in his safety car, who > >> not only is available immediately, but also checks the track. You see > >> no practice or race without the helo being able to fly (does NASCAR do > >> this...?) You see tire barriers, which they have continued to improve > >> over the years. You see runoffs (off topic to NASCAR). More > >> importantly, you see progress....evolution....a search for something > >> better, safer. You don't see fear to change, blaming suppliers > >> (particularly galling to me), keeping the status quo until somebody > >> starting complaining. The whitewash of the Earnhardt case is a > >> perfect example. > >> > >> I guess the real problem I have is the refusal or reticence to change. > >> The FIA sure doesn't have all the answers, but they try. > > >

"Nascar fans/drivers aren't making a stink because we don't expect, nor want....." er, that should read "I", not "we"........a bit presumptuous :) -John > >

So what your saying is the ovals should be kinda dug into the ground so that the track edge could have several yards of gravel or somesuch speedgrabbing material and THEN the stands? or revers the flow of the track and place the stands on the inside? That brings a whole new problem as folks can then only see part of the track. dave henrie "Chairborne" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3bbf086f.4235169@news-server...

Quoted text (29 lines)

> > > > >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 (if the car doesn't hit anything, the driver > >never dies), but unless you design this into the track when it is > >built, its almost impossible to do afterward since it involves moving > >the grandstands. The stopgap answer is deformable barriers (motorcycle > >road racing has come a long way in the area), but they cut into track > >space on an oval where NASCAR drivers already come within inches of > >the current wall. Moving the racing line down 8 feet for a > >hydro-barrier would result in a lot of screaming people. > > > >Nothing is going to get "banned" like the original poster said, but > >until the fans and drivers won't tolerate it anymore, changes are > >going to be incremental, with band-aids like the HANS device. > > > >Tim > > Again, I agree. The only problem, as you've pointed out, is that the > entire US oval scene is based around the arena concept, and any > changes may ruin the essence of that type of racing. So, > realistically, it cannot and will not be done. Unless....unless the > drivers themselves, in conjunction with the fans and sponsors, simply > refuse to race unless incremental changes are introduced. Humpy sees > this coming, I think, and you have to give him credit for trying.

Quoted text (19 lines)

>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 (if the car doesn't hit anything, the driver >never dies), but unless you design this into the track when it is >built, its almost impossible to do afterward since it involves moving >the grandstands. The stopgap answer is deformable barriers (motorcycle >road racing has come a long way in the area), but they cut into track >space on an oval where NASCAR drivers already come within inches of >the current wall. Moving the racing line down 8 feet for a >hydro-barrier would result in a lot of screaming people. > >Nothing is going to get "banned" like the original poster said, but >until the fans and drivers won't tolerate it anymore, changes are >going to be incremental, with band-aids like the HANS device. > >Tim

Agreed, ovals need to have a major rethink of the concrete barrier. We all know tyres are great for cushioning the blow, but will "grab" the car if it is a glancing blow. Concrete allows the car to slide when it is a glancing blow, but have no impact cushioning. What is needed is a combination of the two. A tyre barrier with a surface that would allow the car to slide along it. Maybe sheet metal or something similar. What would prevent this is the cost. Concrete is cheap, and circuit owners aren't interested in spending money when they aren't required to. Rafe Mc

On Sun, 07 Oct 2001 04:09:43 GMT, "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote: > So what your saying is the ovals should be kinda dug into the ground so >that the track edge could have several yards of gravel or somesuch >speedgrabbing material and THEN the stands? or revers the flow of the track >and place the stands on the inside? That brings a whole new problem as >folks can then only see part of the track. >dave henrie 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

>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. 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

"Tim O" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> 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.

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

"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 cockpit 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 ;-)

"Tim O" wrote ...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> 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.

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 Don Jennings <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9psr8b$kemr1$[email hidden]... "Tim O" wrote ...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> 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.

I haven't looked at the ARCA speeds at Charlotte, but surely they are already way below those of the Busch and WC series. How much slower do you need to go? dave henrie "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > 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

Quoted text (18 lines)

> this is a classic example. > > -John > > > Don Jennings <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:9psr8b$kemr1$[email hidden]... > "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 presenceof > a chicane, gravel traps, and foam walls. As you and others havementioned, > 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 thingsto > accommodate it. My boss (who is definitely not a fan of racing of anykind) > 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 theproliferation > of F1 chicanes been entirely to limit the speed with which the carsapproach > 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 theracing > 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 ofthe > tracks would be the easiest way to add safety without sacrificing > competition. > > >

Er, so what if they're slower? Still can be to fast. -John Dave Henrie <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Taow7.93876$[email hidden]... > I haven't looked at the ARCA speeds at Charlotte, but surely they are > already way below those of the Busch and WC series. How much slower doyou

Quoted text (32 lines)

> need to go? > dave henrie > "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > 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 > > > > > > Don Jennings <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:9psr8b$kemr1$[email hidden]... > > "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 ina > > death. (Ironically, the death occurred during impact with a tirebarrier > > IIRC.) Since that time, NASCAR has made some of the same kinds ofchanges > > at Watkins Glen that FIA has made at its circuits, including thepresence > 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, andaddress > > 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 otherthings > 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 MonteCarlo > > right out of the show room like they had to in the old days. I knowthat > > 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 useslower

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > 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. > > > > > > > >

But if ARCA is too fast how slow do you go? Do you put 150mph speed limiters on the cars? Charlotte 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 Charlotte. Just where is the limit on speed? dave henrie "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (17 lines)

> Er, so what if they're slower? Still can be to fast. > > -John > > > Dave Henrie <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:Taow7.93876$[email hidden]... > > I haven't looked at the ARCA speeds at Charlotte, but surely they are > > already way below those of the Busch and WC series. How much slower do > you > > need to go? > > dave henrie > > "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > 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 enthusiastspreach. > > > > > > Change(increased speed year after year) for change's sake is nevergood,

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > and > > > this is a classic example. > > > > > > -John > > > > > > > > > Don Jennings <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:9psr8b$kemr1$[email hidden]... > > > "Tim O" wrote ... > > > > The problem is its not all the fault of unsafe cars. In fact, I

think

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > > > 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 Glenstock > > 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 resultedin

Quoted text (34 lines)

> 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 insteadof

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > the > > > tracks would be the easiest way to add safety without sacrificing > > > competition. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

On Mon, 8 Oct 2001 13:37:09 -0400, "Don Jennings" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

>"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 cockpit 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.

On Sat, 6 Oct 2001 20:23:43 -0600, "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> 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 cockpit 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.

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 Dave Henrie <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Fzpw7.94149$[email hidden]... > But if ARCA is too fast how slow do you go? Do you put 150mph speed > limiters on the cars? Charlotte isn't even one of the fastest tracks. > Altanta is even quicker... And certainly the flat Loudon track wherePetty

Quoted text (14 lines)

> and Irwin lost their lives last year isn't nearly in the same speed rating > as a track like Charlotte. > Just where is the limit on speed? > dave henrie > "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Er, so what if they're slower? Still can be to fast. > > > > -John > > > > > > Dave Henrie <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:Taow7.93876$[email hidden]... > > > I haven't looked at the ARCA speeds at Charlotte, but surely they

are > > > already way below those of the Busch and WC series. How much slowerdo > > you > > > need to go? > > > dave henrie > > > "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > Well said IMO. The problem is the speed of the cars, nothingless.

Quoted text (21 lines)

> > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > Don Jennings <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > news:9psr8b$kemr1$[email hidden]... > > > > "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

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > > > > 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 carslaunching > > out > > > > of Turn 5 (the Outer Loop) after cutting a tire down finallyresulted

Quoted text (16 lines)

> 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 ofany

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > > 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

Quoted text (20 lines)

> > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

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 Chairborne <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3bc52912.6128304@news-server... > On Sat, 6 Oct 2001 20:23:43 -0600, "John Pancoast" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > Np, believe me, didn't want to come off the wrong way, apologies ifso; > >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, norwant, > >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

Quoted text (51 lines)

> >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 cockpit 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.

In article <9psr8b$kemr1$[email hidden]>, "Don Jennings" <[email hidden]> writes: >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...

Quoted text (16 lines)

>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. >

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.

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 crap in the 80's and is sick of seeing it happen all over again. btgoss

"btgoss" wrote ...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> 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.

You're absolutely right, and I agree with you that improving car construction in the area of crush zones would be the simplest, least expensive, and most rewarding place to start improving safety. When you say Martinsville is not a high speed track, everything's relative. From what I understand, the severity of a barrier impact can be expressed with a physics formula: IS = .5m(V sin J) where IS = impact severity, m = mass, V = velocity, and J = trajectory angle (the angle between the line of the car's motion and the barrier face). The heavier the car, the worse the impact. The faster the car's going, the worse the impact. And the more "head-on" the car hits the barrier, the worse the impact. While Martinsville doesn't see anywhere near the top speed of some other tracks, it shares something with Loudon in that the turns are sharp and the wall at the end of the straight is at a very high angle to the straight. So even though the speed might be lower, the trajectory angle is probably higher and that can still make for some nasty impacts.

"EldredP" wrote ...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> "Don Jennings" writes: > > >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...

I think it was the year before they put in the chicane (Inner Loop) on the back stretch, I'm guessing late 80's, early 90's. I believe the man's name was J.D. McDuffie, a Dave Marcis type owner-driver. I remember my favorite driver at the time (Geoff Bodine) had a similar incident a year or so before that where at the end of that long back stretch he hit the brakes for Turn 5, cut a front right tire down, and went straight off into the grass ending up in the catch fence. > > >What about looking at the flip side of the problem for ovals, and = > >address making speed levels fit the tracks more safely. > > 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. I find myself attracted to every kind of racing except sprint cars (that crab-walking around corners just doesn't seem right) and drag racing, and enjoy good races at all levels from Winston Cup at Michigan to hobby stocks on a third-mile dirt. I just don't think it's speed per se that builds a fan base, it's competition. So to treat increased speed as inevitable and work around it seems unnecessary.

Quoted text (9 lines)

> >"Chairborne" wrote ... > >> 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." > > > "Don Jennings" wrote: > >...my friends ... came to their "conclusion" late in February with only the aid of their televisions and a couple sixers of Coors. > >

"Chairborne" wrote again ...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> 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.

I was calling MY friends beer-swilling idiots, not yours <g>. But it does appear that when you initially wrote "an awful lot of NASCAR fans", what you really meant was "a former racer ... and long-time NASCAR fan". No big difference, just a matter of perceived multitude I guess. At any rate, the Earnhardt report can be viewed or downloaded from http://www.nascar.com/SPECIAL/er/download/. The first part is just a summary of the conclusion, all the details of the who and how and why of the investigation are in the appendix. As a complete layman with just enough knowledge of physics to be dangerous, it seemed pretty complete and thorough to me. (FWIW, I'm not an automatic defender of NASCAR, I think some of their moves have been as idiotic as some of the CART and FIA decisions. I just think they have probably been unfairly criticized concerning their handling of the Earnhardt case.)

On Tue, 9 Oct 2001 15:09:16 -0400, "Don Jennings" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (21 lines)

>> >"Chairborne" wrote ... >> >> 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." >> > >> "Don Jennings" wrote: >> >...my friends ... came to their "conclusion" late in February with only the aid of their televisions and a couple sixers of Coors. >> >> >"Chairborne" wrote again ... >> 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. > >I was calling MY friends beer-swilling idiots, not yours <g>. But it does appear that when you initially wrote "an awful lot of NASCAR fans", what you really meant was "a former racer ... and long-time NASCAR fan". No big difference, just a matter of perceived multitude I guess. > >At any rate, the Earnhardt report can be viewed or downloaded from http://www.nascar.com/SPECIAL/er/download/. The first part is just a summary of the conclusion, all the details of the who and how and why of the investigation are in the appendix. As a complete layman with just enough knowledge of physics to be dangerous, it seemed pretty complete and thorough to me. (FWIW, I'm not an automatic defender of NASCAR, I think some of their moves have been as idiotic as some of the CART and FIA decisions. I just think they have probably been unfairly criticized concerning their handling of the Earnhardt case.)

Thanks for the url, Don. I'm downloading it right now. I want to give NASCAR a fair shake, actually, but they're making it pretty tough. Above, in one of my other posts, I cited an article on deformable structures in an interview with an engineer with Evernham Motorsports, a team I greatly admire. I've done an awful lot of reading on F1, so I know that sport quite a bit better. I read where NASCAR is going to use black boxes in 2002, I think that's a great step. I can understand their reluctance to introduce electronics of any type to the mix, since they want to stay away from the cheating that goes on in F1, but I believe that telemetry is the very first step to understanding the forces involved in some of these accidents. One interesting note. I read in F1 Magazine that Schumacher's shunt in 1999 maxed out at 220 gees. But, they persisted in their assertion that the car was travelling at under 100 mph at impact, a number derided by everyone (including MY beer-swilling friends, and me). So, I guess we can say that all forms of motorsports try to put a happy face on any accident, large or small.

Not sure what that equation is or where you got it, but the mass of the vehicle has nothing to do with the deceleration the driver feels. The wall cares about the mass of vehicle as this is a factor on the amount of energy applied to the wall. The deceleration depends on the flexibility of the two objects which are colliding. For simplicity sake consider the concrete wall as immovable. This comes down to the flexibility of the vehicle. If you collide head on at 60mph with an object and the deceleration to zero takes .1 second you are at about 27 G. At .2 second you cut that in half. At .05 second you double it and get 55G. The crumpling of metal increases the time of deceleration. Less crumple = less deceleration time = more G force. A collision with a wall at an angle does not bring the velocity to zero. Also 100% of the velocity does not apply. The amount depends on the angle. The amount of G forces the body can take depends on how they are applied to the body. Also the surface area of the body accepting the forces matters. This is why racing belts are so wide. Smaller belts could easily restrain the body identically, but the pressure applied to the body would be greater at an equivalent G force. Norman "Don Jennings" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9pvd9f$ku17b$[email hidden]... "btgoss" wrote ... > 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 headon > contact with the corner wall). Martinsville, even in what at the time wasa > 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. You're absolutely right, and I agree with you that improving car construction in the area of crush zones would be the simplest, least expensive, and most rewarding place to start improving safety. When you say Martinsville is not a high speed track, everything's relative. From what I understand, the severity of a barrier impact can be expressed with a physics formula: IS = .5m(V sin J) where IS = impact severity, m = mass, V = velocity, and J = trajectory angle (the angle between the line of the car's motion and the barrier face). The heavier the car, the worse the impact. The faster the car's going, the worse the impact. And the more "head-on" the car hits the barrier, the worse the impact. While Martinsville doesn't see anywhere near the top speed of some other tracks, it shares something with Loudon in that the turns are sharp and the wall at the end of the straight is at a very high angle to the straight. So even though the speed might be lower, the trajectory angle is probably higher and that can still make for some nasty impacts.

"EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Couldn't the 'driver compartment' be isolated from the chassis withsprings, or > something? Meaning, no matter how much the chassis deforms or doesn'tdeform, > the compartment is dampened enough so that the driver isn't injured? I'mno > engineer, so I find it hard to describe what I'm seeing in my mind... :( > > Eldred Indeed, the most straightforward way being to install/design appropriate "crumple zones" in the chassis construction. This acts as a one time only, non returning spring, but does the job. NASCAR won't mandate it though. cheers John

> When you say Martinsville is not a high speed track, everything'srelative. > From what I understand, the severity of a barrier impact can be expressed > with a physics formula: I was just trying to make the point, and not very well, that speed has little to do with this type of impact. The stiffness of the car, and the dramatic stopping of the car is what causes the huge forces to be generated. I used the Martinsville accident to try and show that it has happened at much slower speeds than acheived at Charlotte or Louden. btgoss

"John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3bc5b511$[email hidden]... > Er, won't mandate it? It's never been discussed to be mandated as faras > I know. Could be mistaken. As I said earlier, the cars used to be made > this way, but it changed in the 90's for setup ease via the teams, nothing > Nascar did or didn't do. > > -John > man�date (mndt) n. An authoritative command or instruction. As long as a governing body does not MANDATE safety requirements, teams will do whatever they feel is appropriate, within (or demonstrably within) the technical regulations of the racing formula. The fact that no discussion has taken place is a clear indication that NASCAR does not care to assess the situation further than on a case by case basis. In order to enforce an uncompetetive construction method onto the teams, such a requirement must be MANDATED by the governing body. I'm not talking about what NASCAR did or did not do, I'm talking about what they will not do now. If the teams have compromised the safety of their cars too greatly for a competetive advantage, then NASCAR should step in, so that all teams can build safer cars without losing any advantage, or equality with other teams. cheers John

"Norman Black" wrote ... > Not sure what that equation is or where you got it, It actually came from the Earnhardt accident investigation report, and is purportedly something that's used in highway barrier design studies. > but the mass of the > vehicle has nothing to do with the deceleration the driver feels. The wall > cares about the mass of vehicle as this is a factor on the amount of energy > applied to the wall. Since we're considering the wall as immovable, the wall is applying exactly as much energy back through the car as the car is applying to the wall. If the mass of the car is greater, that translates into more energy transmitted back through the car. > If you collide head on at 60mph with an object and the deceleration to zero > takes .1 second you are at about 27 G. At .2 second you cut that in half. At > .05 second you double it and get 55G. The crumpling of metal increases the > time of deceleration. Less crumple = less deceleration time = more G force. agreed. As I remember it, Earnhardt's car was travelling about 35mph perpendicular to the wall and decellerated to -10mph. The crash impulse was 80 ms. I think that translated into a peak decel of about 60G. > A collision with a wall at an angle does not bring the velocity to zero. > Also 100% of the velocity does not apply. The amount depends on the angle. That's why the formula adjusts the velocity by the sine of the trajectory angle, the smaller the angle the less severe the impact.

In article <0iDw7.184045$[email hidden]>, "btgoss" <[email hidden]> writes: > 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. Couldn't the 'driver compartment' be isolated from the chassis with springs, or something? Meaning, no matter how much the chassis deforms or doesn't deform, the compartment is dampened enough so that the driver isn't injured? I'm no engineer, so I find it hard to describe what I'm seeing in my mind... :( 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.

> Not sure what that equation is or where you got it, >It actually came from the Earnhardt accident investigation report, and ispurportedly something that's used in highway barrier design studies. My point is that if you have a 1000lb car and a 10000lb car and both have the same initial speed and both decelerate to zero(or whatever) in the same amount of time, then the *driver* feels an identical "crash" force. Now the total energy of the collision is higher in the heavier vehicle. KE = .5 x mass x velocity x velocity So a heavier vehicle will put a bigger wallop on whatever it hits since it has higher energy. Yes they need to take into account impact energy with highway barriers since they want to absorb the impact of a car without allowing the car to pass through the barrier. The same is true of race track walls. They do not want them to fracture and shrapnel the crowd. The impact the driver feels are acceleration forces. The impact energy of a collision says nothing about the acceleration forces. Norman "Don Jennings" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9q2984$ljl9g$[email hidden]... "Norman Black" wrote ... > Not sure what that equation is or where you got it, It actually came from the Earnhardt accident investigation report, and is purportedly something that's used in highway barrier design studies. > but the mass of the > vehicle has nothing to do with the deceleration the driver feels. The wall > cares about the mass of vehicle as this is a factor on the amount ofenergy > applied to the wall. Since we're considering the wall as immovable, the wall is applying exactly as much energy back through the car as the car is applying to the wall. If the mass of the car is greater, that translates into more energy transmitted back through the car. > If you collide head on at 60mph with an object and the deceleration tozero > takes .1 second you are at about 27 G. At .2 second you cut that in half.At > .05 second you double it and get 55G. The crumpling of metal increases the > time of deceleration. Less crumple = less deceleration time = more Gforce. agreed. As I remember it, Earnhardt's car was travelling about 35mph perpendicular to the wall and decellerated to -10mph. The crash impulse was 80 ms. I think that translated into a peak decel of about 60G. > A collision with a wall at an angle does not bring the velocity to zero. > Also 100% of the velocity does not apply. The amount depends on the angle. That's why the formula adjusts the velocity by the sine of the trajectory angle, the smaller the angle the less severe the impact.

Er, won't mandate it? It's never been discussed to be mandated as far as I know. Could be mistaken. As I said earlier, the cars used to be made this way, but it changed in the 90's for setup ease via the teams, nothing Nascar did or didn't do. -John > > Indeed, the most straightforward way being to install/design appropriate > "crumple zones" in the chassis construction. This acts as a one timeonly,

Quoted text (8 lines)

> non returning spring, but does the job. > NASCAR won't mandate it though. > > cheers > John > > >

Thank you for the dictionary description, I had never heard of the word until now :) -John JM <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:YDkx7.6999$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:3bc5b511$[email hidden]... > > Er, won't mandate it? It's never been discussed to be mandated as far > as > > I know. Could be mistaken. As I said earlier, the cars used to be made > > this way, but it changed in the 90's for setup ease via the teams,

nothing

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > Nascar did or didn't do. > > > > -John > > > > man�date (mndt) > n. > An authoritative command or instruction. > > As long as a governing body does not MANDATE safety requirements, teams

will > do whatever they feel is appropriate, within (or demonstrably within) the > technical regulations of the racing formula. > > The fact that no discussion has taken place is a clear indication that > NASCAR does not care to assess the situation further than on a case bycase > basis. > > In order to enforce an uncompetetive construction method onto the teams, > such a requirement must be MANDATED by the governing body. > > I'm not talking about what NASCAR did or did not do, I'm talking aboutwhat > they will not do now. If the teams have compromised the safety of their > cars too greatly for a competetive advantage, then NASCAR should step in,so

Quoted text (9 lines)

> that all teams can build safer cars without losing any advantage, or > equality with other teams. > > cheers > John > > > >

In article <3bc5b511$[email hidden]>, "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> writes: > Er, won't mandate it? It's never been discussed to be mandated as far as >I know. Could be mistaken. As I said earlier, the cars used to be made >this way, but it changed in the 90's for setup ease via the teams, nothing >Nascar did or didn't do. > >-John I wasn't aware that the basic construction of the cars had changed - I just remember hearing about the stiffness of the chassis. I thought that sounded strange, because I remembered seeing cars that crumpled a LOT more than they do now. I don't care if NASCAR mandates it or not. As a crew chief, I'd rather have a car that's a bit harder to set up than a dead driver... And I can't believe NASCAR doesn't mandate it. :-( 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.