> <snip'd lot's of excellent points>
> In at least one area of your life, be intense.
I think I know your "intensity" ;) Seriously - you make an excellent case. I
have only been an F1 fan for a year and will be very disturbed if I ever see one
of my GP hero's die. I do not want to have to go through that, I can only imagine
what you have been through seeing those two die on live TV.
Good luck with your quest.
David L. Cook
(Tonight from RE/MAX)
> Blah + blah * blah^2/(2*1.37*9.81).........
Yesterday the Indianapolis Colts third round draft pick, Brandon Burlsworth, died
Wednesday when his passenger car collided with a semi-truck while simply going
from point A to point B. He wasn't knowingly risking life and limb at the edge of
adhesion in an F1 car. Tragic? Yes. A flury of fault finding necessary? Maybe,
probably, no, who knows??? The most likely answer? In the words of Forrest Gump,
"$#it happens.
In other words, take your witch hunt elsewhere and go away. When one sits his/her
*** in a 325 Km/h race car, he/she knows the risks. If too high, one shouldn't
put said *** in the seat. End of story.
Jim
:> Blah + blah * blah^2/(2*1.37*9.81).........
: Yesterday the Indianapolis Colts third round draft pick, Brandon
: Burlsworth, died
: Wednesday when his passenger car collided with a semi-truck while
: simply going
: from point A to point B. He wasn't knowingly risking life and limb
: at the edge of
: adhesion in an F1 car. Tragic? Yes. A flury of fault finding
: necessary? Maybe,
: probably, no, who knows??? The most likely answer? In the words of
: Forrest Gump,
: "$#it happens.
I agree heartily.
... and 229 people died in a Swissair crash off the coast of Canada last
autumn, and dozens of Serbian civilians have died during the current
military actions in Kosovo, and John Denver crashed his x-plane into the
ocean, and a 32 year old French tourist (and mother) was killed last month
in an avalanche on a marked ski-piste in my town... etc. etc. etc.
All these people had families. Some were engaged in risky activities,
most were not. Putting one man (Senna) above these others is, to me,
unfair and insulting.
He drove race cars. He died. He didn't change the world. Get over it.
Stephen
Oh well....
I really didn't want to reply to this, but there are so many
half-truths, distorted facts and over-simplyfications in there
that I just can't resist...
Of course you know full well that neither Ratzenberger nor Senna crashed
into the wall at right angle. This makes this calculation pretty useless
to begin with. I do agree though that the deceleration Ratzenberger
suffered was probably well beyond any survivable limit.
In the case of Senna it should be common knowledge by now that he WASN'T
killed by the deceleration he suffered, but from a small suspension part
that intruded his helmet and practically shot him.
In fact the Senna accident was less *** than the crash Gerhard
Berger had at virtually the same spot in 1989(?). Senna was slower and
his angle of impact was more favourablethan Berger's. Not to mention,
his monocoque remained pretty much in one piece and it didn't catch fire
either...
As we all know, Berger's injuries were almost exclusively
fire-induced...
Is it the FIA Engineers' fault that Ratzenberger continued to drive
after he had damaged his front wing in a spin and that that front wing
came off as a consequence later on ?
Wow.... brilliant plan.... and I'm sure that the handling change induced
by the then ridiculously high polar moment of inertia will we welcomed
by all drivers with wide open arms.... you can't be serious...
First of all, you're making the wrong assumption here that the racing
driver's natural reaction is to hit the brakes, when a crash becomes
inevitable. I'm only a sim racing driver myself, but ,at least according
to triple World Champion Niki Lauda, this is not the case:
"The first reaction of every racing driver when something goes wrong is
to steer away from the obstacle. You have no time to hit the brakes -
because everythinghappens so very quickly..."
<-Niki Lauda Source:'GP Story 94' by Heinz Prueller>
Next, like every electronic system, ABS is liable to malfunction every
so often. So one fine day a racing driver will get on the brakes for a
corner (20m later, because he has ABS) only to find out that the thing's
not working. An accident will be the necessary consequence.
And I'm sure that then YOU are the first one to come here and complain
about the FIA Engineers who allowed such a dangerous system to be
used....
Other than the fact that according to my info the survivable limit is
much lower than 100g (40g AFAIK) your calculation is correct, but it's
pretty pointless once again, since you're assuming a car hitting an
unyielding (i.e. concrete) wall at RIGHT ANGLE.
I have never witnessed such an accident in F1 or any other form of
motorsport and I doubt that I ever will...
Well, the only comment I have about that is a Stirling Moss quote:
"I think motor racing should be a dangerous
sport because that's what makes it different
from cricket or tennis".
Of course, you forget to mention that the corner just doesn't exist
anymore, but facts don't seem to bother you.....
You hopelessly underestimate Bridgestone's '99 tyres I think...
Believe me, if the maximum retardation of this year's F1 cars were 2.5g
at top speed (and the corresponding downforce) we would see lap times
slower than what the F3000 guys do.... nope, we've just beaten last
year's pole time in Interlagos, mind you...
Rest assured that even today's cars will exceed 4g under braking...
Nonsense !
The '94 Imola circuit wasn't any more or less dangerous than any other
permanent circuit on the calendar that year or this year. Given the same
circumstances (broken front wings and steering columns respectively)
these accidents could have happened anywhere with the same tragic
consequences. Let's face it: When you drive a vehicle that has been
built as lightweight as possible and has over 700hp on the edge of the
traction circle, it's possible (and even quite likely) that you'll be
hurt when something goes wrong.
The drivers know that and it's about time that the rest of the world
recognises it too!
What you do not include in your calculations are increased parasite
drag, due to the enlarged surface and the reduced efficiency of the rear
wing, because of the huge boundary layer that will have formed by the
time the air reaches the car's rear end.
Whether there's any attached airstream left by then, is another point of
consideration.
This is no simple business.....
Get over it !
I'm surely not defending the FIA and their technical decisions (i.e. the
bonehead decision to keep reducing the mechanical grip while leaving the
aerodynamics virtually untouched) but you've gone way overboard with
your witchhunt IMHO.....
Cheers !
On Fri, 30 Apr 1999 20:56:40 +0200, Cris Eichler
>In fact the Senna accident was less *** than the crash Gerhard
>Berger had at virtually the same spot in 1989(?). Senna was slower and
>his angle of impact was more favourablethan Berger's. Not to mention,
>his monocoque remained pretty much in one piece and it didn't catch fire
>either...
It was also less than a very similar accident Piquet suffered there in
1987, and he walked away with some bruises a shock and a smart quip
for the cameras (being Piquet the latter was expected!).
Cheers!
John
A few Brazillians might disagree with you there! :)
--
Tim "Calm Down" Wheatley
________________________________________________
Tim Wheatley
"Yellow menacing helmet in the mirror"
http://start.at/igps_stats
IGPS - Ferrari Challenge - UKGPL - Summer Cup Driver
http://drive.to/grandprixlegends
http://website.lineone.net/~nascar
________________________________________________
