Veloce Raptor

But he will spend 10+ pages defending it to the death.









Professional Racing and Driving Coach

himself

For me, at my level of competence (which is complete hack), the question really is should I try to save it and risk a side impact, or give up and take the head on. In most every instance, I think I would try to do something to save it, which would probably send me into something at an angle if something really was broken. doh!

Although significantly different than the video shown, my personal experience with this happened at ECR coming into turn 11. You are coming off a decent length straight into a left hand U-turn, and there is a tire wall [edit: hay bale wall] about 100 feet or so off the track. I was going over 100 MPH and the pedal went all the way to the floor. At the time, I didn't know what the cause was, but I made the split second decision to stay in gear and continue to pump the brakes hoping that something would bite - and then I tossed the car sideways hoping to scrub speed on the way in. Luckily, something did bite, and the car was slow enough to "hold" the corner, but just barely. I ended up going 1/2 way into the pit-in, mostly sideways, but that was OK by me! Had there been a catastophic brake failure and I coudn't slow the car, I probably would have hit the wall at an angle. On the other side of the coin, if I would have given up and decided to go in face first, I wouldn't have saved the car. I would guess that I am programmed now to always try to save it.

For those that don't know, ECR is notorious for eating brakes. I had a few other hairy moments at ECR, but nothing like the one above! I even caught a less interesting moment on video.



-td

mark kibort

Thank you . Exactly! Larry, are you listening???

That is not a proper comparison. his impact was at 40mph, and it was fairly frontal for the most part. Now, are you talking about car trajectory or car orientation? thats a key point of this discussion. again, the turn 14 driver did not go straight in, and lowered his impact speed DRAMATICALLY for several reasons, all good. the more deformation and movement the car can make on impact, the better. that all slows down the deceleration. Now, 40mph vs 40mph head on vs angle is not what we are talking about. if you are going 40mph head on to a wall and you turn the wheel slightly, you can hit the wall at 30mph at a 45degree angle and still have a lot of energy absortion, and chassis deformation as well as more wall movement slowing all the forces down increasing your chance of survival

Thats not a data point. the physics are quite straight forward. we know the max capability of the human body for exposure to g forces. if you can turn and reduce the g forces, this can , in most cases outweigh the crumple zone advantages. Dale E. SR, did impact the wall at near head on , but the impact was only 40mph. it wouldnt have mattered if he was perfectly aligned head on with the wall. the distance of his body and the wall before it hit, is a fact. there is only so much the structure can do to lessen the instantaneous gs.
dont advise drivers to now go head on into walls if they can create an impact that is at angle. did you see how far Dale's car traveled before it stopped? almost 400ft later, it came to rest. same thing with the turn 14 driver. had he gone straight and stuffed it in to the tires head on, (with the backing wall) he might not have lived, unless he jumped over them. taking an angle MEANS, lowering your impact speed (as long as you are not just rotating the orientation of the car) Does that make sense. we are talking trajectory, NOT orientation here.

To your point. sure, i would rather go straight into a wall than back into the same wall if I had a choice. Also, I would rather go straight into the wall, then have the car hit the wall broadside. (same trajectory) BUT, if i have the choice to turn the car and angle the impact, that will most always be better. Hey, its your life. you can choose any way to crash you want, but be clear of what you are really talking about and dont dangerously mislead others.

J richard

We've been there, retorically speaking of course, but here's an option:

http://theforumwars.tv/

Larry Herman

To you? About as well as you listen to everyone else.

This is so typical of you. You change the premise and then hypothesis as to what you think will happen and make it impossible to have any kind of meaningful discussion. How do you know that you can scrub off any speed? How do you know if your "throw 'er into a slide" might just have you side-impact something really hard? Who here is being reckless and dangerously misleading others?

I have tried to have discussions with you but they always seem to deteriorate into nonsense. It doesn't happen with anyone else here that I may have differing views with. Why is that?

Greg Smith

It is possible to start threads but not allow certain people to post in it?

Brian A.

Unsubscribe

mark kibort

Look Larry,

I made it very clear that there were two factors in that decision. Direction of travel, and orientation of the car. I already conceded that there was the situation of a guy that walked away from a 130mph, end of straight stuff. more than likely, he couldnt have had time to alter his path at that speed. I dont know, I wasnt there.

You tell me, if you were in the Turn 14 situation, would you go straight into the tires and wall, or bleed off 30% of your speed, with a 45 degree turn in, giving 40% further distance, which would give more time to further bleed off speed due to that extra distance?


The reason "that" this doesnt happen with anyone else, is because I seem to be the only one to call BS when I see it in some of your gross generalizations.

And, by the way, I only posted something because VR had accused the driver of making a mistake, or "running out of talent" which I consider rude and insulting in this case. (besides being incorrect) The guy lost his brakes, simple as that, and in my opinion, did the right thing. Anyone here would have done the same if they were smart.

Again, I didnt change the "Premise", all I did was actually add to the discussion with the possiblities of why stuffing your car straight in in ALL situations might not be the best, and safest way to handle this situation.

Circuit Motorsports

It was actually as much for you as anyone Mark.

Your logic in how you want to crash, at least the way you are expressing here on the forum, is flawed.

Backwards is the way I really would like to go into a wall, forwards being second, and perfectly sideways the third. The way he went in is just about the worst way you can possibly go in. Offset impacts are where none of your safety devices are working in their optimal zone.

Using Earnhardts crash as an example nowadays is getting more and more pointless. He wasn't wearing a head restraint, he wasn't using a containment seat, etc. etc.. And using it in comparison to this crash is not the best as they were very different impacts.

There are glancing impacts and direct impacts with the car at an angle. The Thunderhill incident was the latter and the Earnhardt was the former.

brendo

um, was dale in the car with his belts tightened? probably not. was he wearing a hans? no.

iirc, he died with his head hitting the steering wheel driving his lower face back thru his neck.

he hit the wall about 15 degrees at 157mph - 160mph.
apples and oranges in this discussion.

mark kibort

If you watch the video, direct or indirect, its all relative to the car's orientation to the wall. drive a car at 30mph up that embankement at a 45 degree angle and hit that wall and you will do the same damage and have the same forces.

you can see that his car traveled about 50ft to the wall from being off the wall. He traveled that distance in about 1 second, and impacted the wall at about a 45 degree angle. that equates to an impact speed of about 30-40mph as Joe had mentioned.
The car traveling down the track direction, barely slowed down after the impact, traveling about 1/4mile before coming to a rest.

no one knows the exact reason for death, but there are suspicions of the belts being lose, breaking, or just not having the Hans-like support for the neck. hitting a solid wall in a nascar at 30-40mph is tough to survive without many things being pefect in your favor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVKLpNK6SqE

mark kibort

Joe,

Repectfully, I disagree. backwards provides less "crumple " zones, but gives more head and neck support, as long as the head and neck are resting on the rear of the seat. the belts provide relief too, as they often stretch in frontal impacts. You seem to be discounting the fact that if you are able to hit the wall as our friend did in turn14, he bled off 30% in speed, just in the angle, and increased his distance by near 40 feet.

I hit a wall at a 45 degree angle. I certainly would have not survived if it was a wall, straight in for the reasons above. yes, the only thing that didnt work as well as going straight in for protection was seat. the angled impact, broke one of my ribs, but the sideways impact also took the chassis, crumpled the front and twisted and bent the entire chassis along its length. I engaged more of an area of the tires as well, due to the angle, spreading the forces as well. the more metal you can twist on the car, the better. And, even if I had hit on the opposite side, I still would have survived , as there was little encroachment to the passenger compartment.

I agree that the crashes of Earnhardt and mr turn 14 were different, but the point still remains. Earnhardt wouldnt have wanted to hit a wall like that head on. our turn 14 friend, also had a much better chance of survival doing what he did. To use your terminology, a direct impact like Mr turn 14, at an angle does several things that help with survival. had he gone straight in, not as much energy would have been released in the car boucing, twisting, and flying up in the air, as well as the huge degredation of speed due to the angle achieved by the turn-in , and increased distance before contact.

would you have rather gone straight in??

Direct or indirect, its all relative to the car's orientation to the wall. drive a car at 30mph up that embankement at a 45 degree angle and hit that wall and you will do the same damage and have the same forces.

Circuit Motorsports

In most racecars the crumple zones have been so heavily compromised by the removal of parts, addition of support, or just being old, lots of 70's and 80's technology being raced right now. Also cars have front and rear crumple zones so your crumple zone hypothesis appears to be flawed.

As for the bolded part. I'm not really sure what you're getting at as it is more of the type of comments which make your posts difficult to respond to (your changing or adding stuff which doesn't really pertain to the discussion). While the way he got to the wall may have bled off a significant amount more energy, it still has nothing do with what I was saying regarding the angle with which he hit the wall. It was a good thing the wall wasn't reinforced as the angle of impact was just about as bad as can be.

Was the overall direction of travel perpindicular of travel? 45 degree angle doesn't help much wihtout that part of the info.

How do you know you wouldn't have survived a straight in impact? That's just poor science to make that statement.

Yes I would rather go straight in at the same speed than at a 45 degree angle. Everythign to protect me works best at that angle. My commments had nothing to with what happened before he hit the wall and not part of the discussion I want to get into. One could argue that if he hadn't slid, turned in earlier to cut that corner even more he would have missed the wall completely. Could have been an even better outcome.

mark kibort

thats not entirely true. my race car is as stock as it can be up front, and so are most of the SCCA production based race cars. usually, they have added stuff up front as far as bars, but thats another topic.

sure the cars have rear crumple zones, but how does that flaw my hypothesis?


as far as the bolded comment, I see what you are getting at. not sure I still agree. So you do agree that taking the turn, best he could bled off a significant amount of speed, as what happens when you elect to angle your impact. but, given hitting a wall at a "given" speed, straight in or at an angle, I would still op'ed for the angle. the reason being is that you will engage more surface area of the wall , and give it a "glancing " impact, component, to use your vernacular. This also allows some of the energy to be released in the car's extra movement via the impact angle.

as far as the "angle" , mine was at a 45 degree angle to the directional layout of the wall. I wouldnt have survived straight into the reinforced wall head on at that speed (near 80mph). the angle alowed me to engage many more tires before I stopped, but it still felt like a sudden impact. (it just stuffed into the tires and wall and stopped) Your right though, no one would know for sure, so that was an educated guess on my part, and certanly I wouldnt have broken that rib (at the cost of my neck more than likely )

I also agree that he could have probably clipped that corner a little tighter and missed the wall all together and not reached the otherside of the track traffic. But, as I mentioned, grabbing the next lower gear would be my instinct, regardless of speed, and that would have saved him for sure. coasting in 4th does nothing, in 3rd, which was an easy shift at that speed, its amazing, the compression decel forces. (ask me how I know this. )

Circuit Motorsports

You're still mixing up terms whcih is why people get frustrated in debating you.

There is the the direction the car is traveling relatvie to the wall and the direction in which the car is facing when it impacts the wall. They are two different things. You mix and match this at will.

You still haven't answered the questions about your impact? Your car was travelling at a 45 degree angle to the wall, but what was the cars orientation relative to your direction of travel.