ANOTHER flipping LMP car....
06-14-2008, 10:59 PM
#61
Rennlist Member
I don't think any series has designed more than just a roll hoop or set of roll hoops (closed cars) because it has been such a rare occurance for the car to actually impact something up side down. Roll hoops have always been intended simply to support the weight of the car, if it rolls or lands upside down on the ground. Since if the car gets airborne (like an indy car) and lands upside down it is just the force of gravity pulling the car back down to earth.
To put it simply
Indy car flips across the infield- equivilent of lifting it upside down 10 ft on crane and dropping it to the ground, which is what a roll hoop is designed for
The Peugeot crash- Putting the car sideways roof first on the front of a rocket sled, accelerating to 100mph towards a concrete wall, then stopping the sled 10 ft before and having the car shoot into the wall upside down.
Do you understand what I'm saying, does that make any sense to you jupe? or am I losing it?
To put it simply
Indy car flips across the infield- equivilent of lifting it upside down 10 ft on crane and dropping it to the ground, which is what a roll hoop is designed for
The Peugeot crash- Putting the car sideways roof first on the front of a rocket sled, accelerating to 100mph towards a concrete wall, then stopping the sled 10 ft before and having the car shoot into the wall upside down.
Do you understand what I'm saying, does that make any sense to you jupe? or am I losing it?
06-14-2008, 11:05 PM
#62
Nordschleife Master
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Not close enough to VIR.
Posts: 9,429
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
asinine- Utterly stupid or silly: asinine behavior
I think idiotic works as a synonym.
Second I've read it three times and looked at the pictures twice. Roll hoop/s are NOT PROTECTION from high speed impacts. The front/rear and sides all have crumple zones (carbon fiber honeycomb) designed to dissipate the impact. There are no crumple zones above the drivers head to prevent the instant transfer of energy like a frontal or side impact. So stop pointing to the section like it proves your point because it doesn't, it simply showes the design of the ROLL HOOP(s) which IS NOT protection from a high speed impact. Protection involves more than just a bar (or two) above the head, protection would be a system of a bar and crumple zones made out of carbon fiber desgined to dissipate the impact. It would be nice if you actually explained yourself so people could understand where you are coming from.
The fact that you are trying to say that the cars are designed to protect a drive from this sort of impact is the realy asinine view point.
Michelle Alboreto (the picture) was killed in an LMP because of this design deficiency, the tire blew, the car went airborne, the car impacted the guardrail upside at well over 100, collapsing the bar and either taking his head off or breaking his neck.
I think idiotic works as a synonym.
Second I've read it three times and looked at the pictures twice. Roll hoop/s are NOT PROTECTION from high speed impacts. The front/rear and sides all have crumple zones (carbon fiber honeycomb) designed to dissipate the impact. There are no crumple zones above the drivers head to prevent the instant transfer of energy like a frontal or side impact. So stop pointing to the section like it proves your point because it doesn't, it simply showes the design of the ROLL HOOP(s) which IS NOT protection from a high speed impact. Protection involves more than just a bar (or two) above the head, protection would be a system of a bar and crumple zones made out of carbon fiber desgined to dissipate the impact. It would be nice if you actually explained yourself so people could understand where you are coming from.
The fact that you are trying to say that the cars are designed to protect a drive from this sort of impact is the realy asinine view point.
Michelle Alboreto (the picture) was killed in an LMP because of this design deficiency, the tire blew, the car went airborne, the car impacted the guardrail upside at well over 100, collapsing the bar and either taking his head off or breaking his neck.
In your video, the cockpit appears to be intact and the driver obviously still has his head (you can see it flop) so you can give up the theatrics.
Even if it had collapsed the hoop, hitting a sharp point on top of a wall is completely different than landing on a flat surface. No car will survive that so I guess you want to go back to the old days before cars existed so nobody can get hurt.
The appendix gives the forces and angles at which the rollhoop must withstand impacts. I guess you think those numbers mean nothing and that the hoop is there just for looks.
You've obviously made up your mind to keep your head in the sand ignoring logic and reality. I hope you realize that you sound like the freaks that think missiles and bombs took down the WTC. You provide similarly exaggerated descriptions of anecdotal photos and videos to support your theory. I'd recommend more tinfoil and an open mind for your future interactions with the rest of society.
PS: What was the death rate at Le Mans in the 60s and 70s vs the 90s and 2000s?
06-14-2008, 11:26 PM
#63
User
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Sterling, MA
Posts: 1,467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Until you provide a single shred of evidence to support your theory, this will be my last reply to you.
In your video, the cockpit appears to be intact and the driver obviously still has his head (you can see it flop) so you can give up the theatrics.
Even if it had collapsed the hoop, hitting a sharp point on top of a wall is completely different than landing on a flat surface. No car will survive that so I guess you want to go back to the old days before cars existed so nobody can get hurt.
The appendix gives the forces and angles at which the rollhoop must withstand impacts. I guess you think those numbers mean nothing and that the hoop is there just for looks.
You've obviously made up your mind to keep your head in the sand ignoring logic and reality. I hope you realize that you sound like the freaks that think missiles and bombs took down the WTC. You provide similarly exaggerated descriptions of anecdotal photos and videos to support your theory. I'd recommend more tinfoil and an open mind for your future interactions with the rest of society.
PS: What was the death rate at Le Mans in the 60s and 70s vs the 90s and 2000s?
In your video, the cockpit appears to be intact and the driver obviously still has his head (you can see it flop) so you can give up the theatrics.
Even if it had collapsed the hoop, hitting a sharp point on top of a wall is completely different than landing on a flat surface. No car will survive that so I guess you want to go back to the old days before cars existed so nobody can get hurt.
The appendix gives the forces and angles at which the rollhoop must withstand impacts. I guess you think those numbers mean nothing and that the hoop is there just for looks.
You've obviously made up your mind to keep your head in the sand ignoring logic and reality. I hope you realize that you sound like the freaks that think missiles and bombs took down the WTC. You provide similarly exaggerated descriptions of anecdotal photos and videos to support your theory. I'd recommend more tinfoil and an open mind for your future interactions with the rest of society.
PS: What was the death rate at Le Mans in the 60s and 70s vs the 90s and 2000s?
Dude WTF are you talking about, have you even read what I'm saying?????? I'm suggesting they figure out a way keep the cars on the ground or give the drivers real protection over their heads. I though it was a miracle the guy walked away from that crash, and think only reason he did is due to angle of impact, which isn't completely visible from the camera angle, had it been slightly different he'd probably be dead, like what happened with Alboreto.
Did you read my relatively basic description of the forces involved, and why a roll hoop isn't intended to stand up (or tested) to the forces of impact I'm referring to? What shred of evidence have I not provided, what are you looking for? all you have done is given a section of the rules, insulted me and nothing more. To me you have come off like a class A jacka**, I've been civil and not lowered myself to insulting you because I am confident in my view. It seems to me you just have something personal against me because I am suggesting you are incorrect. It would be nice if you would show some respect and not act like you are 12. Instead of just spewing out insults and accusing me of not providing evidence (for my "theory" which isn't a theory, its just common sense and suggesting that the drivers are not protected enough from a roof first impact), why don't you explain your view, I'm still waiting...
edit: would a third party please come in here, because if I don't see where my logic is off, and flying dog is to busy insulting me to point out any facts or argue his point...
06-14-2008, 11:41 PM
#64
Rennlist Member
If you guys can put your personal issues aside and recall that you're supposed to be sharing something you have in common, I think the type of impact you're talking about, namely a heavy impact to the top of the car, was observed in the horrendous wreck that took Greg Moore's life. Have a look:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tl-6oqN0i4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tl-6oqN0i4
06-15-2008, 03:40 AM
#65
Nordschleife Master
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Not close enough to VIR.
Posts: 9,429
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Just to clear up one thing. I misread the photo description under the video as a description of the video.
You've still provided nothing to support your opinion while I provided the technical requirements (including force and angle requirements). Please, cry victim some more. That will help you win the argument. Bye.
You've still provided nothing to support your opinion while I provided the technical requirements (including force and angle requirements). Please, cry victim some more. That will help you win the argument.
Bye.
06-15-2008, 07:18 AM
#66
Owns the Streets
Needs Camber
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Needs Camber
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
^
Dude WTF are you talking about, have you even read what I'm saying?????? I'm suggesting they figure out a way keep the cars on the ground or give the drivers real protection over their heads. I though it was a miracle the guy walked away from that crash, and think only reason he did is due to angle of impact, which isn't completely visible from the camera angle, had it been slightly different he'd probably be dead, like what happened with Alboreto.
Did you read my relatively basic description of the forces involved, and why a roll hoop isn't intended to stand up (or tested) to the forces of impact I'm referring to? What shred of evidence have I not provided, what are you looking for? all you have done is given a section of the rules, insulted me and nothing more. To me you have come off like a class A jacka**, I've been civil and not lowered myself to insulting you because I am confident in my view. It seems to me you just have something personal against me because I am suggesting you are incorrect. It would be nice if you would show some respect and not act like you are 12. Instead of just spewing out insults and accusing me of not providing evidence (for my "theory" which isn't a theory, its just common sense and suggesting that the drivers are not protected enough from a roof first impact), why don't you explain your view, I'm still waiting...
edit: would a third party please come in here, because if I don't see where my logic is off, and flying dog is to busy insulting me to point out any facts or argue his point...
Dude WTF are you talking about, have you even read what I'm saying?????? I'm suggesting they figure out a way keep the cars on the ground or give the drivers real protection over their heads. I though it was a miracle the guy walked away from that crash, and think only reason he did is due to angle of impact, which isn't completely visible from the camera angle, had it been slightly different he'd probably be dead, like what happened with Alboreto.
Did you read my relatively basic description of the forces involved, and why a roll hoop isn't intended to stand up (or tested) to the forces of impact I'm referring to? What shred of evidence have I not provided, what are you looking for? all you have done is given a section of the rules, insulted me and nothing more. To me you have come off like a class A jacka**, I've been civil and not lowered myself to insulting you because I am confident in my view. It seems to me you just have something personal against me because I am suggesting you are incorrect. It would be nice if you would show some respect and not act like you are 12. Instead of just spewing out insults and accusing me of not providing evidence (for my "theory" which isn't a theory, its just common sense and suggesting that the drivers are not protected enough from a roof first impact), why don't you explain your view, I'm still waiting...
edit: would a third party please come in here, because if I don't see where my logic is off, and flying dog is to busy insulting me to point out any facts or argue his point...
Be interesting to see incorporation of struts or some other form of collapsible roll hoop structure if these cars can't stop somersaulting with such glee. Was watching military helicopter tech on Military channel and a pilot described how the Blackhawk? had about 2 foot of strut travel in the landing gear to diffuse crash G forces in addition to the pilot/co-pilot seats that have another foot of room to move down in crash situations.
Not sure how tall the roll hoops will need to be to be effective helmet bumpers and not look like someone bolted a pair of giraffe necks to the cars.
