Deformable NASCARs.....?

I dont think anyone has mentioned the fact that the tubular steel nascar frames dont deform much on impact, and most forces are transfered to the driver. The open wheel cars are almost all designed with crumple zones made out of the carbon fibre, absorbing energy. The fans probably wouldnt like it as it would mean cars not finishing races due to damage, but it would be alot easier on the drivers... pez

If you ask me the smartest thing to do to make NASCAR safer is put the seat in the center. That would really help. Cause once the car hits driver side you know thats trouble. Terry Lobonte hit the outside wall and broke his leg. And maybe they could make like the cars wider and longer extending the bodys and have that a crumple zone. --------------------------------------- Http://SWtwok.00game.com

No, you miss the point...he says these are driver aids that make racing safer, yet we see none of them in NASCAR....why? F1 has had all of them, theyve even tried air bags, but as you said, stopping from 155 in an instant doesnt give them long enough to deploy, so they now use the HANS system, a seat belt type system for the helmet. It works... anyway, just getting back to my original point, crumple zones make cars safer.... pez John Pavlicek wrote in message ...

Quoted text (23 lines)

>Do you realize that you agree with a guy who appears to be saying that >these cars need airbags, traction control, and anti-lock brakes? He also >goes on to say how Sprint cars are better than NASCAR in safety due to >crumple zones. I don't think that I've ever seen a sprint car crumple >except when it flips over and lands on the wing. Besides, if you look at >NASCAR, the actual NASCAR series include huge numbers of drivers so just >saying they have more means nothing. Take just one series of NASCAR, >let's take Winston Cup in this case, and compare it to the others. >There's hardly much difference in on track fatalities in the past 10 or so >years. If you want to make a more fair comparison in terms of numbers, >clump IRL and CART together and compare it. The point is, NASCAR is just >as safe as any other series out there and a crumple zone on a NASCAR would >do precisely dick. A head on collision at 155 mph will be fatal no matter >what you do to the cars, unless somehow you are going to have pillows drop >out of nowhere the instant before an accident happens, and even then, I >wouldn't hold my breath. > >-Pav > >On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, pez wrote: > >> check out >> http://www.speedvision.com/pub/articles/racing/09commentary/000710.html

as

Quoted text (12 lines)

>> it sais pretty much what im getting at (and more!) >> >> pez >> >> pez wrote in message <8kb1l2$6pa$[email hidden]>... >> >I dont think anyone has mentioned the fact that the tubular steel nascar >> >frames dont deform much on impact, and most forces are transfered to the >> >driver. The open wheel cars are almost all designed with crumple zones >> made >> >out of the carbon fibre, absorbing energy. >> > >> >The fans probably wouldnt like it as it would mean cars not finishing

races

Quoted text (12 lines)

>> >due to damage, but it would be alot easier on the drivers... >> > >> >pez >> > >> > >> >> >> >> > > >

"Tony StewartNo20" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > If you ask me the smartest thing to do to make NASCAR safer is put theseat in > the center. That would really help. Cause once the car hits driver sideyou > know thats trouble. Terry Lobonte hit the outside wall and broke his leg. > > And maybe they could make like the cars wider and longer extending thebodys > and have that a crumple zone. Why don't they just make them radio controlled and the drivers can stand up with the spotters? :o) ~daxe -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

you think thats fast???? 230mph impacts into the outside wall at michigan in cart and the car just slides along, due to the deformabe front side crumpling....like an egg.....the NASCARs seem to bounce around in similar situations....like marbles, totally rigid.... pez Target 12 wrote in message <[email hidden]>... >>I dont think anyone has mentioned the fact that the tubular steel nascar >>frames dont deform much on impact, and most forces are transfered to the >>driver. The open wheel cars are almost all designed with crumple zonesmade >>out of the carbon fibre, absorbing energy. >> >>The fans probably wouldnt like it as it would mean cars not finishingraces

Quoted text (13 lines)

>>due to damage, but it would be alot easier on the drivers... >> >>pez >> > >Would these still work in violent crashes at Talladega and Daytona? >Racer X >Veteran Sim Racer >#4 Corvette C5-R in the GTIC >#24 Monte Carlo in the DORL >Victory Lane- >http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Speedway/1423/ >

I remember a crash in an indycar race in Surfers Paradise where a driver had a big impact, the car crumpelling where it should have and then the exposed tub slowly hitting the wall. The driver said the last hit was the worst because all of the energy absorbing parts had gone, and the force of the small impact was transfered directly to him, as happens with rigid srtucture cars, as happens with nascars. Im not saying get rid of the tubular structures all together, a rigid section around the driver needs to be kept, but the front, sides, and back could all be designed to crumple on impact and absorb energy. The only downside to this would be alot more DNFs due to 'rubbin' and tapping the walls etc. For a better analogy, try hitting a concrete surface with a Crowbar....DOING, all the energy is passed up the bar to your arm as its a rigid structure. Now do the same, but stick an empty coke can on the end - not so bad now as the can crumples on impact, absorbing alot of the force. thoughts? pez pez wrote in message <8kb1l2$6pa$[email hidden]>... >I dont think anyone has mentioned the fact that the tubular steel nascar >frames dont deform much on impact, and most forces are transfered to the >driver. The open wheel cars are almost all designed with crumple zonesmade

Quoted text (8 lines)

>out of the carbon fibre, absorbing energy. > >The fans probably wouldnt like it as it would mean cars not finishing races >due to damage, but it would be alot easier on the drivers... > >pez > >

check out http://www.speedvision.com/pub/articles/racing/09commentary/000710.html as it sais pretty much what im getting at (and more!) pez pez wrote in message <8kb1l2$6pa$[email hidden]>... >I dont think anyone has mentioned the fact that the tubular steel nascar >frames dont deform much on impact, and most forces are transfered to the >driver. The open wheel cars are almost all designed with crumple zonesmade

Quoted text (8 lines)

>out of the carbon fibre, absorbing energy. > >The fans probably wouldnt like it as it would mean cars not finishing races >due to damage, but it would be alot easier on the drivers... > >pez > >

In article <[email hidden]>, "daxe" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (19 lines)

>"John Pavlicek" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> There's a couple problems with this. First, since the cars don't go as >> fast, they are moving at a slower speed on impact than an IRL or Champ car >> does at an oval. Second, if an IRL or Champ car dove head first into the >> walls like has happened in the case of Petty and Irwin, the driver'd be >> just as dead since the cars are designed to take more of a side blow than >> these two did. Most times when a car makes contact with the wall, it is >> heading at a rather large angle with respect to the wall (I am defining a >> head on collision as a small angle so you can better understand) so most >> of the velocity of the car at the time of collision is not into the wall >> but along the wall, which won't cause a problem in the safety of the >> drivers. > > >Wouldn't the hefty weight of a Winston Cup car also be a factor in the >effectiveness of deformable parts or crumple zones? > >~daxe

Furthermore, in multiple vehicle wrecks at Tally and Daytona, the crumple zones would lose their effect after first impact. The following impacts would transmit the same energy to the 'cocoon', anyway. In F1, CART, etc. there's usually just one impact, not 10-12 as cars pile into the smoke screen like in NASCAR... Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPL hcp. +70.45 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

hehehe, funny how type often leads to misrepresentation.... i meant surround the driver, who would sit in a rigid structure, or tub as most are called, with deformable parts to absorb energy in crash situations....rather than having the whole thing rigid, as it is now..... those nascars at the moment bounce around all over the place during crashes, like marbles, compared to most open wheel vehicles, which bounce like eggs.... pez Bruce Kennewell wrote in message <[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (28 lines)

>Isn't that what I said.....that the TUB wasn't designed to crush, Ed?! > >He gave the impression that he thought if NASCARS were made out of >carbon-fibre then they'd CRUSH, thus absorbing the impact. > >-- >Regards, >Bruce Kennewell, >Canberra, Australia. >--------------------------- > >Ed Solheim <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:PAga5.10375$[email hidden]... >> The tub itself is not made to be de-formable.. however, all singleseater >> cars today got some sort of energy-absorbing areas or parts in them. >> Areas such as side-pods, nose-boxes aswess as certain areas of the sides >of >> the tubs are *designed* to be deformed - and thus absorbe some of the >> impact-energy incase of a colission with something solid. >> >> Ed_ >> >> "Bruce Kennewell" wrote: >> > A small observation, if I may, Pez. >> > >> > The tubs that are used in F1 are designed NOT to crush. Repeat...NOT >> crush. >> > It is this very fact that makes the F1 tub (and, I assume, the CART

tub)

Quoted text (9 lines)

>> > such a relatively safe place to be when compared to, for example, an F1 >> car >> > of the 1970's or 1960's. >> > >> >> >> > >

It would also cost a lot more for Nascar owners and thus, it would never be considered...they really should look into these sorts of things. -- -Brett http://www.geocities.com/cartstop Goodbye Greg Moore 1975-1999 "I will see you at the front, and wish me luck..." - Greg Moore Goodbye Adam Petty 1980-2000 "It's all about racing on the track." - Adam Petty Congratulations to Juan Montoya, 2000 Indy 500 Champ! "While the Indianapolis 500 victory is an impressive achievement one must remember that this is not the race it once was. The opposition was really not up to much in the overall, global scheme of things. The Indy racing League field, whether Tony George and his people like it or not, are not good enough to make it in CART-level competition..." -The Mole (F1 Racing Magazine) pez <[email hidden]> wrote in article <8kb1l2$6pa$[email hidden]>... > I dont think anyone has mentioned the fact that the tubular steel nascar > frames dont deform much on impact, and most forces are transfered to the > driver. The open wheel cars are almost all designed with crumple zones made > out of the carbon fibre, absorbing energy. > > The fans probably wouldnt like it as it would mean cars not finishing races > due to damage, but it would be alot easier on the drivers... > > pez > > >

"John Pavlicek" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> There's a couple problems with this. First, since the cars don't go as > fast, they are moving at a slower speed on impact than an IRL or Champ car > does at an oval. Second, if an IRL or Champ car dove head first into the > walls like has happened in the case of Petty and Irwin, the driver'd be > just as dead since the cars are designed to take more of a side blow than > these two did. Most times when a car makes contact with the wall, it is > heading at a rather large angle with respect to the wall (I am defining a > head on collision as a small angle so you can better understand) so most > of the velocity of the car at the time of collision is not into the wall > but along the wall, which won't cause a problem in the safety of the > drivers.

Wouldn't the hefty weight of a Winston Cup car also be a factor in the effectiveness of deformable parts or crumple zones? ~daxe -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Quoted text (10 lines)

>I dont think anyone has mentioned the fact that the tubular steel nascar >frames dont deform much on impact, and most forces are transfered to the >driver. The open wheel cars are almost all designed with crumple zones made >out of the carbon fibre, absorbing energy. > >The fans probably wouldnt like it as it would mean cars not finishing races >due to damage, but it would be alot easier on the drivers... > >pez >

Would these still work in violent crashes at Talladega and Daytona? Racer X Veteran Sim Racer #4 Corvette C5-R in the GTIC #24 Monte Carlo in the DORL Victory Lane- http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Speedway/1423/

The tub itself is not made to be de-formable.. however, all singleseater cars today got some sort of energy-absorbing areas or parts in them. Areas such as side-pods, nose-boxes aswess as certain areas of the sides of the tubs are *designed* to be deformed - and thus absorbe some of the impact-energy incase of a colission with something solid. Ed_ "Bruce Kennewell" wrote: > A small observation, if I may, Pez. > > The tubs that are used in F1 are designed NOT to crush. Repeat...NOTcrush. > It is this very fact that makes the F1 tub (and, I assume, the CART tub) > such a relatively safe place to be when compared to, for example, an F1car > of the 1970's or 1960's. >

check out http://www.speedvision.com/pub/articles/racing/09commentary/000710.html as it sais pretty much what im getting at (and more!) pez >I dont think anyone has mentioned the fact that the tubular steel nascar >frames dont deform much on impact, and most forces are transfered to the >driver. The open wheel cars are almost all designed with crumple zones made >out of the carbon fibre, absorbing energy. >The fans probably wouldnt like it as it would mean cars not finishing races >due to damage, but it would be alot easier on the drivers... >pez

There's a couple problems with this. First, since the cars don't go as fast, they are moving at a slower speed on impact than an IRL or Champ car does at an oval. Second, if an IRL or Champ car dove head first into the walls like has happened in the case of Petty and Irwin, the driver'd be just as dead since the cars are designed to take more of a side blow than these two did. Most times when a car makes contact with the wall, it is heading at a rather large angle with respect to the wall (I am defining a head on collision as a small angle so you can better understand) so most of the velocity of the car at the time of collision is not into the wall but along the wall, which won't cause a problem in the safety of the drivers. -Pav On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, pez wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

> I dont think anyone has mentioned the fact that the tubular steel nascar > frames dont deform much on impact, and most forces are transfered to the > driver. The open wheel cars are almost all designed with crumple zones made > out of the carbon fibre, absorbing energy. > > The fans probably wouldnt like it as it would mean cars not finishing races > due to damage, but it would be alot easier on the drivers... > > pez > > > >

Good point, I didn't even think about overall momentum. -Pav On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, daxe wrote:

Quoted text (29 lines)

> > "John Pavlicek" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > There's a couple problems with this. First, since the cars don't go as > > fast, they are moving at a slower speed on impact than an IRL or Champ car > > does at an oval. Second, if an IRL or Champ car dove head first into the > > walls like has happened in the case of Petty and Irwin, the driver'd be > > just as dead since the cars are designed to take more of a side blow than > > these two did. Most times when a car makes contact with the wall, it is > > heading at a rather large angle with respect to the wall (I am defining a > > head on collision as a small angle so you can better understand) so most > > of the velocity of the car at the time of collision is not into the wall > > but along the wall, which won't cause a problem in the safety of the > > drivers. > > > Wouldn't the hefty weight of a Winston Cup car also be a factor in the > effectiveness of deformable parts or crumple zones? > > ~daxe > > > > > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- > >

Do you realize that you agree with a guy who appears to be saying that these cars need airbags, traction control, and anti-lock brakes? He also goes on to say how Sprint cars are better than NASCAR in safety due to crumple zones. I don't think that I've ever seen a sprint car crumple except when it flips over and lands on the wing. Besides, if you look at NASCAR, the actual NASCAR series include huge numbers of drivers so just saying they have more means nothing. Take just one series of NASCAR, let's take Winston Cup in this case, and compare it to the others. There's hardly much difference in on track fatalities in the past 10 or so years. If you want to make a more fair comparison in terms of numbers, clump IRL and CART together and compare it. The point is, NASCAR is just as safe as any other series out there and a crumple zone on a NASCAR would do precisely dick. A head on collision at 155 mph will be fatal no matter what you do to the cars, unless somehow you are going to have pillows drop out of nowhere the instant before an accident happens, and even then, I wouldn't hold my breath. -Pav On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, pez wrote:

Quoted text (23 lines)

> check out > http://www.speedvision.com/pub/articles/racing/09commentary/000710.html as > it sais pretty much what im getting at (and more!) > > pez > > pez wrote in message <8kb1l2$6pa$[email hidden]>... > >I dont think anyone has mentioned the fact that the tubular steel nascar > >frames dont deform much on impact, and most forces are transfered to the > >driver. The open wheel cars are almost all designed with crumple zones > made > >out of the carbon fibre, absorbing energy. > > > >The fans probably wouldnt like it as it would mean cars not finishing races > >due to damage, but it would be alot easier on the drivers... > > > >pez > > > > > > > >

ok so the 1st impact of all the cars involved would be lessened.... pez crumple zones....heheheh, i think about this yesterday, and then a writer at Speedvision goes and sais the exact same thing....could i sue for plagerism? check out http://www.speedvision.com/pub/articles/racing/09commentary/00071 0.html for the article... pez ----------------------------------------------------------- Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com. Up to 100 minutes free! http://www.keen.com

On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:05:41 +0100, "pez" <[email hidden]> wrote: >check out >http://www.speedvision.com/pub/articles/racing/09commentary/000710.html as >it sais pretty much what im getting at (and more!) I understand where you both are coming from, but the bottom line is that until the drivers get together and demand more safety it ain't gonna happen. There's also the "be careful what you wish for" aspect. Things were brutally dangerous in F1 until Jackie Stewart got the boys together and they put their foot down over safety. Now we have safe little sand-boxes for them to play in. Sure do wish I could watch 'em run the real Nurburgring or Monza without the chicanes, but, gosh, that's too dangerous! This is a dangerous sport. You can die if things go wrong or you screw up. Alway been that way. That's part of the attraction if you're a racer. Regards, Brett C. Cammack That's Racing! Motorsports Pompano Beach, FL

Maybe this has been tried but I haven't heard of it. Have the driver suspended inside the cage, so that the seat/harness unit had it's own shock absorbing system to isolate the driver from the loads going into the cage. You could use regular springs and shocks that were stiff enough that they would only come into play on large loads, and would be good for multiply hits, with travel limited so that the driver couldn't contact anything at max travel. There would be plenty of room for this in a Nascar chassis. Don Scurlock Vancouver,B.C. GPLRank -3.51 Come see how you rank, at the GPLRank site http://gplrank.schuerkamp.de/

A small observation, if I may, Pez. The tubs that are used in F1 are designed NOT to crush. Repeat...NOT crush. It is this very fact that makes the F1 tub (and, I assume, the CART tub) such a relatively safe place to be when compared to, for example, an F1 car of the 1970's or 1960's. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- pez <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8kb1l2$6pa$[email hidden]... > I dont think anyone has mentioned the fact that the tubular steel nascar > frames dont deform much on impact, and most forces are transfered to the > driver. The open wheel cars are almost all designed with crumple zones made > out of the carbon fibre, absorbing energy. > > The fans probably wouldnt like it as it would mean cars not finishing races > due to damage, but it would be alot easier on the drivers... > > pez > >

In article <[email hidden]>, "daxe" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (15 lines)

>"Tony StewartNo20" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> If you ask me the smartest thing to do to make NASCAR safer is put the >seat in >> the center. That would really help. Cause once the car hits driver side >you >> know thats trouble. Terry Lobonte hit the outside wall and broke his leg. >> >> And maybe they could make like the cars wider and longer extending the >bodys >> and have that a crumple zone. > > >Why don't they just make them radio controlled and the drivers can stand up >with the spotters?

Hey, if you can fly a 747 by remote control, you certainly could drive a stock car...<g> Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPL hcp. +70.45 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

> On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 21:15:10 GMT, [email hidden] (Don > Scurlock) wrote: > >Maybe this has been tried but I haven't heard of it. Have the driversuspended > >inside the cage, so that the seat/harness unit had it's own shockabsorbing > >system to isolate the driver from the loads going into the cage. Youcould use > >regular springs and shocks that were stiff enough that they would onlycome > >into play on large loads, and would be good for multiply hits, withtravel > >limited so that the driver couldn't contact anything at max travel. Therewould > >be plenty of room for this in a Nascar chassis. I'm sure that would do wonders for the drivers' ability to feel what the car was doing. ~daxe -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

daxe <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:396b23b6$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > > > On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 21:15:10 GMT, [email hidden] (Don > > Scurlock) wrote: > > >Maybe this has been tried but I haven't heard of it. Have the driver > suspended > > >inside the cage, so that the seat/harness unit had it's own shock > absorbing > > >system to isolate the driver from the loads going into the cage. You > could use > > >regular springs and shocks that were stiff enough that they would only > come > > >into play on large loads, and would be good for multiply hits, with > travel > > >limited so that the driver couldn't contact anything at max travel.

There > would > > >be plenty of room for this in a Nascar chassis. > > I'm sure that would do wonders for the drivers' ability to feel what thecar > was doing. > > ~daxe Then they could finally fire all those overpaid professionals and hire a bunch of us sim-racing monkeys! We have learned to do without seat-of-the-pants feel. Stephen

Another good example of big improvements to come from a little reworking comes from the IRL. They had a lot of injuries from drivers backing into the wall. They put a little cube of aluminum honeycomb on the back of the gearbox, not bigger than 10cm x 10cm x 10cm. The severity of the impacts (as measured by on-board telemetry) went down by a lot. Stephen pez <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8kd57n$h5m$[email hidden]... > I remember a crash in an indycar race in Surfers Paradise where a driverhad > a big impact, the car crumpelling where it should have and then theexposed > tub slowly hitting the wall. The driver said the last hit was the worst > because all of the energy absorbing parts had gone, and the force of the > small impact was transfered directly to him, as happens with rigidsrtucture > cars, as happens with nascars. Im not saying get rid of the tubular > structures all together, a rigid section around the driver needs to bekept, > but the front, sides, and back could all be designed to crumple on impact > and absorb energy. The only downside to this would be alot more DNFs dueto > 'rubbin' and tapping the walls etc. > > For a better analogy, try hitting a concrete surface with a > Crowbar....DOING, all the energy is passed up the bar to your arm as its a > rigid structure. Now do the same, but stick an empty coke can on theend -

Quoted text (14 lines)

> not so bad now as the can crumples on impact, absorbing alot of the force. > > thoughts? > > pez > > pez wrote in message <8kb1l2$6pa$[email hidden]>... > >I dont think anyone has mentioned the fact that the tubular steel nascar > >frames dont deform much on impact, and most forces are transfered to the > >driver. The open wheel cars are almost all designed with crumple zones > made > >out of the carbon fibre, absorbing energy. > > > >The fans probably wouldnt like it as it would mean cars not finishing

races

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >due to damage, but it would be alot easier on the drivers... > > > >pez > > > > > >

On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 21:15:10 GMT, [email hidden] (Don Scurlock) wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>Maybe this has been tried but I haven't heard of it. Have the driver suspended >inside the cage, so that the seat/harness unit had it's own shock absorbing >system to isolate the driver from the loads going into the cage. You could use >regular springs and shocks that were stiff enough that they would only come >into play on large loads, and would be good for multiply hits, with travel >limited so that the driver couldn't contact anything at max travel. There would >be plenty of room for this in a Nascar chassis.

Or use a sensor system something like airbags use to trigger a charge to shoot him out through the roof like a cannonball upon impact. Man, wouldn't that increase the TV appeal of the sport!! LOL Regards, Brett C. Cammack That's Racing! Motorsports Pompano Beach, FL

Isn't that what I said.....that the TUB wasn't designed to crush, Ed?! He gave the impression that he thought if NASCARS were made out of carbon-fibre then they'd CRUSH, thus absorbing the impact. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Ed Solheim <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:PAga5.10375$[email hidden]... > The tub itself is not made to be de-formable.. however, all singleseater > cars today got some sort of energy-absorbing areas or parts in them. > Areas such as side-pods, nose-boxes aswess as certain areas of the sides of > the tubs are *designed* to be deformed - and thus absorbe some of the > impact-energy incase of a colission with something solid. > > Ed_ > > "Bruce Kennewell" wrote: > > A small observation, if I may, Pez. > > > > The tubs that are used in F1 are designed NOT to crush. Repeat...NOT > crush. > > It is this very fact that makes the F1 tub (and, I assume, the CART tub) > > such a relatively safe place to be when compared to, for example, an F1 > car > > of the 1970's or 1960's. > > > > >

Could mount a camera in the cockpit and use a monitor with a decent sim wheel setup to control it. That way they could even mount the camera about16 feet behind and 10 feet above the car for those who prefer the arcade feel ;) -- Ian Parker "Ambition is a poor excuse for not having sense enough to be lazy." <email invalid due to spam> daxe wrote > > Why don't they just make them radio controlled and the drivers can stand up > with the spotters? > > :o) > > ~daxe

[email hidden] (Stephen Ferguson) wrote in <396b3013$[email hidden]>:

Quoted text (40 lines)

> >daxe <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:396b23b6$[email hidden]... >> >> >> > On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 21:15:10 GMT, [email hidden] (Don >> > Scurlock) wrote: >> > >Maybe this has been tried but I haven't heard of it. Have the >> > >driver >> suspended >> > >inside the cage, so that the seat/harness unit had it's own >> > >shock >> absorbing >> > >system to isolate the driver from the loads going into the >> > >cage. You >> could use >> > >regular springs and shocks that were stiff enough that they >> > >would only >> come >> > >into play on large loads, and would be good for multiply hits, >> > >with >> travel >> > >limited so that the driver couldn't contact anything at max >> > >travel. >There >> would >> > >be plenty of room for this in a Nascar chassis. >> >> I'm sure that would do wonders for the drivers' ability to feel >> what the >car >> was doing. >> >> ~daxe > >Then they could finally fire all those overpaid professionals and >hire a bunch of us sim-racing monkeys! We have learned to do >without seat-of-the-pants feel. > >Stephen

Maybe you'd both like to read it again. I said "would only come into play on large loads". A properly disigned system would only begin to move under super high loads from impacts, and would be rock solid under normal driving forces. -- Don Scurlock Vancouver,B.C. GPLRank -3.51 Come see how you rank, at the GPLRank site http://gplrank.schuerkamp.de/

One thing you guys forgot.....try adding about 2500# of lead to the CART /IRL /F1 cars and see what happens when they hit the wall nearly head on at anywhere near 100 mph (let alone 240+). I doubt if ANY driver would be able to walk away from it, even if they survive it. If you don't think the tubular chassis give much, find a local racer who has tagged the wall good enough to break stuff....you will probably find a bent chassis (maybe not much....but we have totaled cars from just touching the walls. It all depends how you hit...not how hard). NASCAR has done everthing they can to prevent deaths from crashes. Where do you think the "Petty Bar" (the bar running diagonally inside the greenhouse (cockpit, drivers compartment...whatever) from the upper right corner to the center of the rear middle cross bar) and the "Earnhardt Bar" (the bar running from the top of the windsheild to the bottom) came from??? OK...they weren't killed, but NASCAR learned those lessons from crashes. Most of the time it's what you never saw coming that kills you....not what you planned on happening. Ritchie Evans is the perfect example of this. Ritchie Evans drove NASCAR Eastern modifieds, and was killed in a race practice crash, running at about 75 mph. The design of the car killed him, not the crash. NASCAR made the car owners/builders change the design of the car to allow for a certain amount of give. If anyone, today, were to have the exact same crash as Evans, in a NASCAR Modified built today, they would walk away, and probably not even have a scratch on them. Like I said....it's not how hard you hit...it's how you hit. I ought to know...I race off road. I had taken the same jump 100 times. Number 101 hurt. I landed wrong and hurt my back (not bad enough to keep me out of the car...but it hurt nontheless.) Maybe some good will come from all of this....we can only hope!!!! In article <8kb1l2$6pa$[email hidden]>, "pez" <[email hidden]> wrote: > I dont think anyone has mentioned the fact that the tubular steelnascar > frames dont deform much on impact, and most forces are transfered tothe > driver. The open wheel cars are almost all designed with crumplezones made > out of the carbon fibre, absorbing energy. > > The fans probably wouldnt like it as it would mean cars not finishingraces > due to damage, but it would be alot easier on the drivers... > > pez > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.