Newmans crash

[danny123]

LOL...it's pretty funny that every channel even local news showed and are still showing the crash. Maybe we should show them the WRC since it has bigger crashes every race weekend. The wonderful world of NASCAR.

[Kashmirbeige525]

Originally Posted by danny123

LOL...it's pretty funny that every channel even local news showed and are still showing the crash. Maybe we should show them the WRC since it has bigger crashes every race weekend. The wonderful world of NASCAR.

Newmans crash is more or less a "i thought we made it so they didnt do that" accident.
Now this is a tougher wreck than anything thats ever happened in WRC

YouTube

YouTube

[danny123]

Just funny anything big happens in NASCAR its shown everywhere.

YouTube

YouTube

[Kashmirbeige525]

Originally Posted by danny123

Just funny anything big happens in NASCAR its shown everywhere.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vV9_mZboEC0

We used to watch german news back in german class in HS and this made it for 2 days. Its all depending on were you are. I gotta say micheal got hit harder than solberg. Didn't see the race as there was no tv on the boat we were in but 'dega is my fav track and not because of the crashes.

[Jmabarone]

Originally Posted by Kashmirbeige525

Newmans crash is more or less a "i thought we made it so they didnt do that" accident.

I think the design of the COT in the rear end lends itself to be more likely to flip when it gets backwards relative to the previous cars. I think the effect of the roof flaps has greatly diminished with the COT, so there needs to be some other kind of solution.
Jake

[dmundy]

Originally Posted by Jmabarone

I think the design of the COT in the rear end lends itself to be more likely to flip when it gets backwards relative to the previous cars. I think the effect of the roof flaps has greatly diminished with the COT, so there needs to be some other kind of solution.
Jake

I have not gotten to look at a COT in person yet, but it sure does look that way.

[Hugo]

Link?

[PenguinScotty]

Originally Posted by Kashmirbeige525

Now this is a tougher wreck than anything thats ever happened in WRC

Hitting a wall at high speed like that is, in my opinion, about 20 times safer than flying off the road at close to 100mph and wrapping your car around a tree or rolling down a mountain for a couple hundred feet.

And just for a bit of fun

YouTube

YouTube

[jjvincent]

I thought this was all about the Paul Newman/Gene Felton crash back at Riverside in 1984.

[Kashmirbeige525]

Originally Posted by PenguinScotty

Hitting a wall at high speed like that is, in my opinion, about 20 times safer than flying off the road at close to 100mph and wrapping your car around a tree or rolling down a mountain for a couple hundred feet.

2 things wrong there.
1-Jumping off a building doesn't kill you, stopping so violently when you hit the ground kills you.
2- Rally cars have different methods of absorbing energy. Your tree hitting at 100 mph is more concentrated than a wall at 200 mph, thus yes the tree should penetrate more. But rally cars have purpose built roll cages for that type of thing. Stock cars have cages built to hit a wall or car, not a tree.

[Jmabarone]

Originally Posted by dmundy

I have not gotten to look at a COT in person yet, but it sure does look that way.

one of my instructors used to work at Petty when the COTs first arrived. In fact, he built their first run of them.
he told me that when they took the COTs to the wind tunnel, they turned them around backwards, and at 106mph, one of the 2" straps securing the car broke, so they stopped. I also learned that the cage collapsed 4.5" in Newman's car.
He said he is going down to NASCAR tech this week, and he is going to take a look at the car himself. I'll report back his findings.
Jake

[B.Watts]

Originally Posted by danny123

Just funny anything big happens in NASCAR its shown everywhere.

Why wouldn't it be? It's a very popular sport.

[PenguinScotty]

Originally Posted by Kashmirbeige525

2 things wrong there.
1-Jumping off a building doesn't kill you, stopping so violently when you hit the ground kills you.
2- Rally cars have different methods of absorbing energy. Your tree hitting at 100 mph is more concentrated than a wall at 200 mph, thus yes the tree should penetrate more. But rally cars have purpose built roll cages for that type of thing. Stock cars have cages built to hit a wall or car, not a tree.

I absolutely agree with you, but building a car to absorb a very concentrated impact, for example, is far more of a challenge than a cage that has to absorbe a far wider area of contact. The speds are less, no doubt about it. But in relation to the area of impact, it's far more dangerous to hit a tree at 100 than a wall at 180 with todays safety equipment.

NASCAR vehicles are made to absorb hits very well nowadays. They remind me of F1 cars the way they disintegrate, to be honest.

Compare that to a stock bodied WRC car. The main changes done are reinforcements/stiffening of the body itself. A modification to a body, not a cage where there is an engine and some wheels attached to.

And Jumping off buildings, check my sig .

[lskywalker]

Originally Posted by PenguinScotty

The speds are less, no doubt about it. But in relation to the area of impact, it's far more dangerous to hit a tree at 100 than a wall at 180 with todays safety equipment.

Slow down there. What's your reasoning for this?

180 is a lot faster than 100. I'd like to see some physics before we say that it's more dangerous to hit a tree at 100 than a wall at 180.

[justaddwada]

i'm not sure about physics of the impact for the driver but in rally crashes
there is MUCH more cabin intrusion during an impact. I think I remember
something in physics class about a wall having a greater surface area than
a tree trunk too.

[Kashmirbeige525]

Originally Posted by justaddwada

i'm not sure about physics of the impact for the driver but in rally crashes
there is MUCH more cabin intrusion during an impact. I think I remember
something in physics class about a wall having a greater surface area than
a tree trunk too.

Yes tree has less force but on less area. thus it will ddeform more. We get that part. Now on the human body the deceleration from 180 to 0 and from 100 to 0 in under .5 seconds, whci one sounds like it'll hurt more? Rally drivers also have normally been relatively unrestrained, they used to race in a T-shirt and jeans, now they have hans device and etter seats which makes it safer than the loose buckles they used before.

[peterman]

Originally Posted by Jmabarone

I think the design of the COT in the rear end lends itself to be more likely to flip when it gets backwards relative to the previous cars. I think the effect of the roof flaps has greatly diminished with the COT, so there needs to be some other kind of solution.
Jake

I'm not certain but I believe that a cavity has been implemented to the bottom of the COT to provide extra down force in the event of a spin.

[Jmabarone]

Originally Posted by peterman

I'm not certain but I believe that a cavity has been implemented to the bottom of the COT to provide extra down force in the event of a spin.

either way, it has not been very effective...

[PenguinScotty]

Originally Posted by Kashmirbeige525

Yes tree has less force but on less area. thus it will ddeform more. We get that part. Now on the human body the deceleration from 180 to 0 and from 100 to 0 in under .5 seconds, whci one sounds like it'll hurt more? Rally drivers also have normally been relatively unrestrained, they used to race in a T-shirt and jeans, now they have hans device and etter seats which makes it safer than the loose buckles they used before.

Exactly. Force has to be dissipated in a smaller area.

It really depends on many many factors. I'm not an engineer, so i'll be the first to admit that my knowledge base is limited.
The two cars are designed for different purposes, so it really is a bit of an unfair comparison.

You have a NASCAR vehicle on the one side with a specifically made tube frame and safety equipment and an adapted road car on the WRC side, also designed to withstand the impacts and forces of their respective hits.

The great advantage that NASCAR vehicles have is the quite large crumple zone. A lot of energy is absorbed in there. The other advantage is that, as said before, NASCAR has generally a large area of impact, which makes it easier to let the car absorb more damage.
Are the speeds higher? Undoubtedly by a lot. Luckily now NASCAR also uses HANS, which has made the series a lot safer to say the least. Aside from hands and feet dangling free, there isn't much left to break off . Mind you, we'll once get to a point where the internal organs will smack against our bones hard enough to kill us...

Kashmir also said that safety for WRC or Rallying in general was lackluster at best back in the day. They're also using a HANS device nowadays and a myriad of safety equipment.
The primary difference here, however, is that the cars have to absorb hits from all over the place, with less crumple zone (in most cases) and in a very very concentrated area sometimes (Tree).

You have a standard roadcar that has been modified, which simply will not offer the same safety as a tube framed vehicle.

I mean, it's primarily a personal view, simply because i'm no safety expert

[dmundy]

Originally Posted by jjvincent

I thought this was all about the Paul Newman/Gene Felton crash back at Riverside in 1984.

Gene is still not pleased about that. He is a super guy btw.