Engineering

[Ziggy]

Lets cut to the chase.

Having read countless "takes" the past few days, I want to ask a few questions.

Have you ever seen a fighterplane land on it's canopy? Have you ever heard of one keeping it's structural integrity after slamming into a fence standard anchored in concrete?

There is much discussion on this subject, and I shake my head is disbelief. Top Fuel dragsters and Unlimited Hydroplanes, uh OK.

We used to laugh at Franklin Ratcliffs crazy ideas, but I have even seen the head gomer asking about parachutes! Why not ejector seats?

The problem in containment is the proximity of the seats. The cables tying each standard together are what really do the work. The fence is just for the larger bits. A plexiglass hockey surround is a bit over the top. It wont work, as you would still need cables to back it up and we know what sort of damage those things can do.........

It goes back to speed and car design.

the rest is mental masturbation

[Andrew Longman]

The last 10-15 years have made open wheelers far safer -- yes, let's be real.

The monocoque is far stronger and less likely to allow punctures through. Torso and legs are far better protected. The new car DOES however seem to leave legs more exposed which I just don't get. On the face of it the DP01 looks much more safe in this area.

Head and neck are much more protected. We have wheel tethers that mostly work. After the tragedies at Charlotte and MIS, catch fences are way higher and beefier at every major track. HANS devices are the norm in almost all forms of racing.

Indy car safety teams DO seem to have some issues putting out fires. The cars, or rather maybe the seats do seem to not provide enough back protection -- especially after falling 20' out of the sky.

And they fly too much -- mostly from wheel to wheel contact as a direct result of cars being unable to complete passes and being forced to run side-by-side.

I am also suspicious that the long snout -- on the new car too -- with a front wing way out front of the center of gravity may act as a lever that more easily gives lift offs. The flat bottom is a problem too. And there is too much weight in the back that causes cars to back into walls far more often than years ago.

To me though, the real challenge is not engineering. If more people aren't going to actually show up to watch these cars race on ovals, places like LVMS may not even allow a track rental -- the risks may not seem worth the hassle of bad press and the promise of a few bucks.

[Chief]

The problem in containment is the proximity of the seats. The cables tying each standard together are what really do the work. The fence is just for the larger bits. A plexiglass hockey surround is a bit over the top. It wont work, as you would still need cables to back it up and we know what sort of damage those things can do.........
Two problems here Ziggy, one is the fence/cable that chews up carbon fiber. Not much to be done there unless hard flat surface is incorporated, perhaps even extending the SAFER up another 4 feet.

The second is the fence posts. This is the blunt force trauma deliverer. It's what got Dan, Kenny Brack and Ryan, and several others depending on how they enter the fence. I suggest the invention of a SAFER Fence Support system, where there is considerable foam/energy absorbing materials between the fence/cable and the actual fence posts. I think this has the most promise. It sounds stupid but, similar to the padding you place around goalposts a football games, only better.

This hasn't been mentioned, but even Paul Dana's car rocketed skyward after his life ending collision. The cars need to have somewhat predictable behavior, to change the air pressure in and under the vehicle and allow it to stay down when out of shape. I suggest flaps underneath/or in body panels/wings. Worked for NASCAR, and must work fore, aft and sideways. Maybe it's hidden air tunnels within the vehicle that allow the pressure to be released, therefore keeping the car down.

That my $0.02.

[Ziggy]

:rofl:Shoot dude, Im not asking for answers, those are better left for those who actually know and understand materials and physics

I find it ironic that all these sheethouse scientest are coming out of the woodwork with their sterling ideas

But the IRL has this going for it, as far as spectator safety goes, they have almost run off ALL the fans. They are down to a couple of thousand toadies and the spinless journalist who refuse to find other work.

[miatanut]

Two problems here Ziggy, one is the fence/cable that chews up carbon fiber. Not much to be done there unless hard flat surface is incorporated, perhaps even extending the SAFER up another 4 feet.

The purpose of the fence is to protect the fans, not the drivers.

[Chief]

Well...., then they're screwed. :laugh:

[mclark2112]

Since you guys are talking engineering, take a look at what I posted here (http://www.crapwagon.com/forums/showthread.php?58742-Is-the-quot-Safer-Wall-quot-to-blame-Edit-No-but-it-could-be-in-the-future/page2) .

I agree with you miatanut, the fencing was never for the safety of the drivers. But since it is a danger to them, maybe it should be rethought.

I did some crude drawings of my idea, it need a lot of refinement, and ultimately may prove to be impractical. But, really, something needs to change for the safety of all series' drivers.

Anyone who knows me, knows where I stand on the IRL (and knows I don't blame the track). But this accident and some of the drivers reactions really got my mind spinning.

[miatanut]

Since you guys are talking engineering, take a look at what I posted here (http://www.crapwagon.com/forums/showthread.php?58742-Is-the-quot-Safer-Wall-quot-to-blame-Edit-No-but-it-could-be-in-the-future/page2) .

I agree with you miatanut, the fencing was never for the safety of the drivers. But since it is a danger to them, maybe it should be rethought.

I did some crude drawings of my idea, it need a lot of refinement, and ultimately may prove to be impractical. But, really, something needs to change for the safety of all series' drivers.

Anyone who knows me, knows where I stand on the IRL (and knows I don't blame the track). But this accident and some of the drivers reactions really got my mind spinning.

It can be done, it's just down to cost and transparency. If the fans are looking through slits at the cars, it's like being in jail.

It's been a couple years since I've gone, but one of the things I liked about attending vintage races at Seattle International Raceway is that the track doesn't meet modern standards and you can go in places where there's no fencing of any kind blocking your view. It's a calculated risk.

I think the priority needs to be on keeping the cars out of the fence in the first place.

If the drivers are afraid of being gratered, maybe it will encourage them to be a bit more careful, like it was in the old days when any wreck could get you killed, so drivers passed cleaner.

[racer2c]

The thickness of a transparent material that will keep a 200+mph, 1800lb missile from going through it would be extraordinary.

Solution: make the cars and track wall out of steel. Using reverse magnetism, when a car comes within a few feet it encounters a cushy, invisible barrier. Problem solved. Where's my prize money?:gomer:

[Napoleon]

Solution: make the cars and track wall out of steel. Using reverse magnetism, when a car comes within a few feet it encounters a cushy, invisible barrier. Problem solved. Where's my prize money?:gomer:

I think you are referring to this post of mine from yesterday:



http://www.offcamber.net/forums/showpost.php?p=298830&postcount=1017

[mclark2112]

It can be done, it's just down to cost and transparency. If the fans are looking through slits at the cars, it's like being in jail.

It's been a couple years since I've gone, but one of the things I liked about attending vintage races at Seattle International Raceway is that the track doesn't meet modern standards and you can go in places where there's no fencing of any kind blocking your view. It's a calculated risk.

I think the priority needs to be on keeping the cars out of the fence in the first place.

If the drivers are afraid of being gratered, maybe it will encourage them to be a bit more careful, like it was in the old days when any wreck could get you killed, so drivers passed cleaner.

Agree on all your points. I'm not sure how bad the visibility would be, but I don't know what size and spacing of the materials would be necessary either. The key would be to have a non-deformable structure that could absorb the energy as a whole, but not grab the car. I figured on 2 inch tubing(painted black) with a 10 inch gap (or whatever gap cannot be penetrated by any human encapsulating part of the car) . I think this would be almost invisible.

And as a fan, I've taken many calculated risks as well, but my point for the circuits is that no permanent racing facility should have anything that needlessly endangers the drivers. And that's what I think the catch fence does.

Do crapwagons fly, yes. Have they proven they fly far to often and easily, yes. Can any car from any series end up in the catch fence at 150+ MPH, probably yes for that too. I'm just thinking that in 2011, we can hold the tracks to a higher standard, and probably should.

[miatanut]

Agree on all your points. I'm not sure how bad the visibility would be, but I don't know what size and spacing of the materials would be necessary either. The key would be to have a non-deformable structure that could absorb the energy as a whole, but not grab the car. I figured on 2 inch tubing(painted black) with a 10 inch gap (or whatever gap cannot be penetrated by any human encapsulating part of the car) . I think this would be almost invisible.

And as a fan, I've taken many calculated risks as well, but my point for the circuits is that no permanent racing facility should have anything that needlessly endangers the drivers. And that's what I think the catch fence does.

Do crapwagons fly, yes. Have they proven they fly far to often and easily, yes. Can any car from any series end up in the catch fence at 150+ MPH, probably yes for that too. I'm just thinking that in 2011, we can hold the tracks to a higher standard, and probably should.
With a beam (and this would be a sideways beam), you normally want to keep the depth below span/20, so if the posts are 20 feet apart, it needs to be a foot deep. Since nobody's going to stand on it or deliberately drive on it, you could accept greater deflection, but even at L/30, it's 8" deep (X2" high). For the folks in the higher seats it would be a bit like looking through a set of window blinds that are a bit cockeyed.

I was ripping on IMS before the Safer because back in the late '80's, there were articles (complete with the calcs to back them up) in On Track and Autoweak about how to do a soft barrier over those concrete walls and IMS was foot-dragging on it.

At this point, I think the obvious hazards have been properly addressed and what's left are the freaky ones and ones caused by a car design that has problems.

On the canopies, I think it could be done, but what happens when you have a driver in an upside down burning car and they can't get out because the canopy is wedged against the ground? The unlimited hydroplanes have a lot more room in those cockpits so the driver can get re-oriented and get out the hatch in the bottom (which becomes the top when it's upside down). I have a hard time seeing how to implement that on a single seater racing car.