| eurojax | 09-19-2005 05:22 PM |
Posted this on OT
[quote=eurojax]
RIP dude, just heard about this.
I really wish that they would release more info on how he died, maybe that will come later. Since I started liking rally 8 or so years ago, I've noticed that the rally organizations never release video/pictures/media about how the person died.
NASCAR is the opposite, I've seen Earnhardt eat it about 30 times. Lovell/Freeman was the same way, no information cept "Tree" and "Hit head on" were released.
I know it sounds like something noone would want to see, but, you have to think with all the safety considerations WRC and FIA go through to make the cars safe, what in gods name did Markko do that killed him?
[/quote]
[quote=eurojax]
RIP dude, just heard about this.
I really wish that they would release more info on how he died, maybe that will come later. Since I started liking rally 8 or so years ago, I've noticed that the rally organizations never release video/pictures/media about how the person died.
NASCAR is the opposite, I've seen Earnhardt eat it about 30 times. Lovell/Freeman was the same way, no information cept "Tree" and "Hit head on" were released.
I know it sounds like something noone would want to see, but, you have to think with all the safety considerations WRC and FIA go through to make the cars safe, what in gods name did Markko do that killed him?
[/quote]
| Subie Gal | 09-19-2005 09:16 PM |
[quote]Originally Posted by eurojax
I really wish that they would release more info on how he died, maybe that will come later. Since I started liking rally 8 or so years ago, I've noticed that the rally organizations never release video/pictures/media about how the person died.
NASCAR is the opposite, I've seen Earnhardt eat it about 30 times. Lovell/Freeman was the same way, no information cept "Tree" and "Hit head on" were released.
I know it sounds like something noone would want to see, but, you have to think with all the safety considerations WRC and FIA go through to make the cars safe, what in gods name did Markko do that killed him?[/quote]
you've been a fan of rally for 8 years?
[i]and you have to ask this question?[/i]
*shakes head*
Lovell did not hit a tree head on.
(and yes, I was there - you have your "facts" wrong)
Markko did not hit a tree head on.
Park, Mark and Roger all died immediately of the same issue.
blunt. force. trauma.
when your internals are moving 100mph and the car suddenly stops
guess what?
your internals do not stop. they keep going.
I wont go into graphic details :rolleyes:,
but broken neck is just one of the major injuries immediately and fully sustained.
[b]There is nothing any rally car perparer can do to prevent death in this case[/b]
nothing.
A side impact is the worst feared accident in ralling.
There is no method of preparation that one can do to prepare for this.
If you have a massive side impact at a high rate of speed... well. :(
Markko slid sideways into a tree at a good clip.
70-80mph from the looks of the still shot posted earlier.
he wasnt crawling. ...and you just dont survive accidents like that.
This has been horrible event.
My God it has to be awful for everyone involved.
[b]The lack of coverage is out of respect.[/b]
respect for the families
respect for the team
respect for 100% rally fans
nobody wants to see that. i sure dont.
i hope this helps to clarify the 'mystery' for you
Jamie
I really wish that they would release more info on how he died, maybe that will come later. Since I started liking rally 8 or so years ago, I've noticed that the rally organizations never release video/pictures/media about how the person died.
NASCAR is the opposite, I've seen Earnhardt eat it about 30 times. Lovell/Freeman was the same way, no information cept "Tree" and "Hit head on" were released.
I know it sounds like something noone would want to see, but, you have to think with all the safety considerations WRC and FIA go through to make the cars safe, what in gods name did Markko do that killed him?[/quote]
you've been a fan of rally for 8 years?
[i]and you have to ask this question?[/i]
*shakes head*
Lovell did not hit a tree head on.
(and yes, I was there - you have your "facts" wrong)
Markko did not hit a tree head on.
Park, Mark and Roger all died immediately of the same issue.
blunt. force. trauma.
when your internals are moving 100mph and the car suddenly stops
guess what?
your internals do not stop. they keep going.
I wont go into graphic details :rolleyes:,
but broken neck is just one of the major injuries immediately and fully sustained.
[b]There is nothing any rally car perparer can do to prevent death in this case[/b]
nothing.
A side impact is the worst feared accident in ralling.
There is no method of preparation that one can do to prepare for this.
If you have a massive side impact at a high rate of speed... well. :(
Markko slid sideways into a tree at a good clip.
70-80mph from the looks of the still shot posted earlier.
he wasnt crawling. ...and you just dont survive accidents like that.
This has been horrible event.
My God it has to be awful for everyone involved.
[b]The lack of coverage is out of respect.[/b]
respect for the families
respect for the team
respect for 100% rally fans
nobody wants to see that. i sure dont.
i hope this helps to clarify the 'mystery' for you
Jamie
| eurojax | 09-20-2005 07:23 PM |
[QUOTE=Subie Gal]you've been a fan of rally for 8 years?
[i]and you have to ask this question?[/i]
i hope this helps to clarify the 'mystery' for you
Jamie[/QUOTE]
It's not so much I want to see the scene. It's that I want to have an analysis on how he died. I used Earnhardt as an example, there were shows explaining what it is that killed him, that's what I'm looking for here. I don't want to see the actual wreck in progress, that's too morbid even for me, hell, the pics of the scene are enough to make my want to bawl like a little baby.
We've seen so many close calls in the past (Solberg flipping car, roof caving in on Mills) etc. I'm curious as to why someone died in this instance as opposed to the thousands of other wrecks that noone died or got injured in. Also, about Lovell and Freeman, that shows how little the deaths were explained. I still wonder what happened, the physics involved, etc.
[i]and you have to ask this question?[/i]
i hope this helps to clarify the 'mystery' for you
Jamie[/QUOTE]
It's not so much I want to see the scene. It's that I want to have an analysis on how he died. I used Earnhardt as an example, there were shows explaining what it is that killed him, that's what I'm looking for here. I don't want to see the actual wreck in progress, that's too morbid even for me, hell, the pics of the scene are enough to make my want to bawl like a little baby.
We've seen so many close calls in the past (Solberg flipping car, roof caving in on Mills) etc. I'm curious as to why someone died in this instance as opposed to the thousands of other wrecks that noone died or got injured in. Also, about Lovell and Freeman, that shows how little the deaths were explained. I still wonder what happened, the physics involved, etc.
| Subie Gal | 09-20-2005 07:45 PM |
[QUOTE=eurojax]...I want to have an analysis on how he died.
We've seen so many close calls in the past (Solberg flipping car, roof caving in on Mills) etc. I'm curious as to why someone died in this instance as opposed to the thousands of other wrecks that noone died or got injured in. Also, about Lovell and Freeman, that shows how little the deaths were explained. I still wonder what happened, the physics involved, etc.[/QUOTE]
well i thought that i'd already explained that :confused:
it's like this.
80mph - into a tree = 160mph impact
- speed doubles when you hit something that abruptly, just like a head on collision -
this is not a rollover. flip. dip off the road.
this was like hitting a brick wall.
the worst kind of rally accident that can be had.
honestly, I am suprised Markko is alive.
I think that had the tree been larger, he'd be gone as well :(
Horrible stuff this is :(
want to learn more about physics... maybe take a class or something ???
i'm not being rude. i'm just not sure how else to explain it.
Jamie
We've seen so many close calls in the past (Solberg flipping car, roof caving in on Mills) etc. I'm curious as to why someone died in this instance as opposed to the thousands of other wrecks that noone died or got injured in. Also, about Lovell and Freeman, that shows how little the deaths were explained. I still wonder what happened, the physics involved, etc.[/QUOTE]
well i thought that i'd already explained that :confused:
it's like this.
80mph - into a tree = 160mph impact
- speed doubles when you hit something that abruptly, just like a head on collision -
this is not a rollover. flip. dip off the road.
this was like hitting a brick wall.
the worst kind of rally accident that can be had.
honestly, I am suprised Markko is alive.
I think that had the tree been larger, he'd be gone as well :(
Horrible stuff this is :(
want to learn more about physics... maybe take a class or something ???
i'm not being rude. i'm just not sure how else to explain it.
Jamie
| adhowe70 | 09-20-2005 08:10 PM |
To echo what Jaime is saying, the more spectacular the high speed crash, generally the safer the high speed crash. Energy needs to be disipated in an accident. Car parts flying around or 16 flips end over end are good ways to do this. The energy that the car can't disipate must be taken care of by other things... skidding, tire walls, fences, etc. The left over energy is disipated by the occupants of the car, which is bad.
Further, energy increases with the square of the velocity. A car travelling 50mph has 4 times the kinetic energy of a car travelling 25mph. And 100mph has 16 times the energy as 25mph.
Lastly, the amount of time over which the energy is lost is important. A direct impact can disapate the energy in a very short time... very abruptly. A NASCAR rig sliding along the wall disipates the energy over a period of several seconds, gradually.
This was a direct impact into the passenger side door with no external energy disapation possible. The passengers take it all. This is as bad as it gets. Markko got lucky. Something about his seating position or maybe absolute luck saved his bacon.
Further, energy increases with the square of the velocity. A car travelling 50mph has 4 times the kinetic energy of a car travelling 25mph. And 100mph has 16 times the energy as 25mph.
Lastly, the amount of time over which the energy is lost is important. A direct impact can disapate the energy in a very short time... very abruptly. A NASCAR rig sliding along the wall disipates the energy over a period of several seconds, gradually.
This was a direct impact into the passenger side door with no external energy disapation possible. The passengers take it all. This is as bad as it gets. Markko got lucky. Something about his seating position or maybe absolute luck saved his bacon.
| meebs | 09-20-2005 08:31 PM |
[QUOTE=adhowe70]To echo what Jaime is saying, the more spectacular the high speed crash, generally the safer the high speed crash. Energy needs to be disipated in an accident. Car parts flying around or 16 flips end over end are good ways to do this. The energy that the car can't disipate must be taken care of by other things... skidding, tire walls, fences, etc. The left over energy is disipated by the occupants of the car, which is bad.
Further, energy increases with the square of the velocity. A car travelling 50mph has 4 times the kinetic energy of a car travelling 25mph. And 100mph has 16 times the energy as 25mph.
Lastly, the amount of time over which the energy is lost is important. A direct impact can disapate the energy in a very short time... very abruptly. A NASCAR rig sliding along the wall disipates the energy over a period of several seconds, gradually.
This was a direct impact into the passenger side door with no external energy disapation possible. The passengers take it all. This is as bad as it gets. Markko got lucky. Something about his seating position or maybe absolute luck saved his bacon.[/QUOTE]
Also, most deaths (in road cars anyway) happen at something like 35 mph, by the time you are done swerving braking etc. It takes very little speed to kill. I can't imagine hitting a tree at 80....
Further, energy increases with the square of the velocity. A car travelling 50mph has 4 times the kinetic energy of a car travelling 25mph. And 100mph has 16 times the energy as 25mph.
Lastly, the amount of time over which the energy is lost is important. A direct impact can disapate the energy in a very short time... very abruptly. A NASCAR rig sliding along the wall disipates the energy over a period of several seconds, gradually.
This was a direct impact into the passenger side door with no external energy disapation possible. The passengers take it all. This is as bad as it gets. Markko got lucky. Something about his seating position or maybe absolute luck saved his bacon.[/QUOTE]
Also, most deaths (in road cars anyway) happen at something like 35 mph, by the time you are done swerving braking etc. It takes very little speed to kill. I can't imagine hitting a tree at 80....
| Kha0S | 09-21-2005 11:06 AM |
[QUOTE=Subie Gal]
want to learn more about physics... maybe take a class or something ???
i'm not being rude. i'm just not sure how else to explain it.
[/QUOTE]
Jamie, with all due respect, your analysis fails to account for a number of issues in the incident... primarily that Markko suffered approximately the same deceleration as did Michael, but his injuries were minor. Intrusion into the passenger compartment and associated injuries were much more likely the culprit here.
I would like to see a thread started in here for frank, scientific discussion about the crash within the context of some of the others, but maintained separately such as not to have the "gawker" implication that some have made in this thread.
Earnhardt, and, to the best of my knowledge, Lovell and Freeman, all died of partial or complete basilar skull ring fractures around the foramen magnum. This incident seems to have very different dynamics, and the whip injury that caused the deaths of the other drivers should have been mostly prevented by HANS and helmet-retention seat designs that Martin and Park were using.
My condolences go out to Park's family, Markko, PSA, and all of his friends throughout the rallying community.
The Snell Memorial Foundation was founded after the unfortunate death of Pete Snell, and helmets have gone on to have rigorous design and testing standards applied to them. Similar standards must be defined for head restraint systems and cage/survival cell design, and it takes just this sort of tragedy to catalyze it.
/Andrew
want to learn more about physics... maybe take a class or something ???
i'm not being rude. i'm just not sure how else to explain it.
[/QUOTE]
Jamie, with all due respect, your analysis fails to account for a number of issues in the incident... primarily that Markko suffered approximately the same deceleration as did Michael, but his injuries were minor. Intrusion into the passenger compartment and associated injuries were much more likely the culprit here.
I would like to see a thread started in here for frank, scientific discussion about the crash within the context of some of the others, but maintained separately such as not to have the "gawker" implication that some have made in this thread.
Earnhardt, and, to the best of my knowledge, Lovell and Freeman, all died of partial or complete basilar skull ring fractures around the foramen magnum. This incident seems to have very different dynamics, and the whip injury that caused the deaths of the other drivers should have been mostly prevented by HANS and helmet-retention seat designs that Martin and Park were using.
My condolences go out to Park's family, Markko, PSA, and all of his friends throughout the rallying community.
The Snell Memorial Foundation was founded after the unfortunate death of Pete Snell, and helmets have gone on to have rigorous design and testing standards applied to them. Similar standards must be defined for head restraint systems and cage/survival cell design, and it takes just this sort of tragedy to catalyze it.
/Andrew
| artkevin | 09-21-2005 11:46 AM |
[QUOTE=Kha0S]Jamie, with all due respect, your analysis fails to account for a number of issues in the incident... primarily that Markko suffered approximately the same deceleration as did Michael, but his injuries were minor. Intrusion into the passenger compartment and associated injuries were much more likely the culprit here.
I would like to see a thread started in here for frank, scientific discussion about the crash within the context of some of the others, but maintained separately such as not to have the "gawker" implication that some have made in this thread.
Earnhardt, and, to the best of my knowledge, Lovell and Freeman, all died of partial or complete basilar skull ring fractures around the foramen magnum. This incident seems to have very different dynamics, and the whip injury that caused the deaths of the other drivers should have been mostly prevented by HANS and helmet-retention seat designs that Martin and Park were using.
My condolences go out to Park's family, Markko, PSA, and all of his friends throughout the rallying community.
The Snell Memorial Foundation was founded after the unfortunate death of Pete Snell, and helmets have gone on to have rigorous design and testing standards applied to them. Similar standards must be defined for head restraint systems and cage/survival cell design, and it takes just this sort of tragedy to catalyze it.
/Andrew[/QUOTE]
+1
As well intended as Jamie's explinations are I think they are a little too cut and dry. I can see exactly what eurojax is asking about and would like more info on the wreck with Park's familys feelings kept in mind. Not morbid, just curious.
I would like to see a thread started in here for frank, scientific discussion about the crash within the context of some of the others, but maintained separately such as not to have the "gawker" implication that some have made in this thread.
Earnhardt, and, to the best of my knowledge, Lovell and Freeman, all died of partial or complete basilar skull ring fractures around the foramen magnum. This incident seems to have very different dynamics, and the whip injury that caused the deaths of the other drivers should have been mostly prevented by HANS and helmet-retention seat designs that Martin and Park were using.
My condolences go out to Park's family, Markko, PSA, and all of his friends throughout the rallying community.
The Snell Memorial Foundation was founded after the unfortunate death of Pete Snell, and helmets have gone on to have rigorous design and testing standards applied to them. Similar standards must be defined for head restraint systems and cage/survival cell design, and it takes just this sort of tragedy to catalyze it.
/Andrew[/QUOTE]
+1
As well intended as Jamie's explinations are I think they are a little too cut and dry. I can see exactly what eurojax is asking about and would like more info on the wreck with Park's familys feelings kept in mind. Not morbid, just curious.
| CirrusWRX | 09-21-2005 11:54 AM |
[QUOTE=Subie Gal]well i thought that i'd already explained that :confused:
it's like this.
80mph - into a tree = 160mph impact
- speed doubles when you hit something that abruptly, just like a head on collision -
this is not a rollover. flip. dip off the road.
this was like hitting a brick wall.
the worst kind of rally accident that can be had.
[/QUOTE]
I think eurojax brings up an excellent point and while I don't think you're being rude, I think you're incorrect in your assessement of the crash and letting emotion get in the way of a potentially valid conversation. I can understand your sorrow as this is your life (rally) and maybe this isn't the right thread for it, but the crash itself warrants discussion if it can help save lives in the future.
First, I think you're example isn't quite right. I don't mean to be a dick, but 80mph into a tree is not a 160mph "impact." It's 80mph into a tree. If you're traveling at 80mph and hit an identical CAR traveling 80mph in a head on collision, granted it's not the same as hitting a "brick wall" (or giant immovable oak tree) at 80mph in terms of "impact" because cars tend to deform, but it isn't all that DISimilar either. However is it NOTHING like hitting a brick wall or tree or another car at 160mph- speed doesn't "double" when you hit immovable objects compared to hitting things like parked cars or sapplings, nor does it if you were to hit somebody head on traveling the same speed with the same mass. An 80mph impact is an 80mph impact with the understanding that the object you impact has mass that can be less than, equal to, or greater than your mass.
I am in total agreement that the crash was the worst kind of crash there can be, just like the Earnhardt crash- it was the impulse that caused the death, or the integral of the the force over the time elapsed in addition to the change in momentum. I only have a a high-school understanding of physics but my understanding is that the less time it takes for you go from x to 0, the more likely you are to die, especially as X increases. So maybe I'm wrong here, but Eurojax brings up a valid argument that many people in this thread have glossed over: WHY IS MARKKO ALIVE? To me, that is a very important question that needs to be answered and investigated. It wasn't magic or luck, IMO, it must have had something to do with physics. Nobody has any detailed pictures of the accident (interior of the car) so we are only able to speculate, but IMO (uneducated, of course) I think Park got crushed or hit by the tree or cage; it wasn't simply the impact (impulse) of the whole car hitting the tree that killed him- the human body can withstand an amazing amount of g-forces before having your insides become liquified. If one is arguing that Park broke his neck instantly (the basal skull fracture thing) then why didn't Markko since the two of them basically experience the same g-forces for the duration of the crash. Why am I convinced that it wasn't just a typical Earnhardt type crash?
Because Markko was unhurt after the accident. I can understand how the impulse and force of the collision gets transferred AROUND the occupants in the car, through the cage, through the body panels, seats, seatbelts, dissapated in sound and heat, etc. but the car was relatively intact after the crash (not split in half or anything), which means that if it was a blunt force trauma as some have speculated, that means Markko would have also experienced nearly the exact same blunt force trauma as Park, and yet somehow, miraculously survived COMPLETELY unhurt? That's like saying Earnhardt would've died on impact, yet if he had a codriver, he/she would have been unhurt? Impossible.
As I posted above and in another thread, I feel nothing but sincere sorrow for the WRC community, Park's family and fans. But that doesn't mean we just sweep the crash under the carpet, call it a tragedy and reality of racing, and just move on. And wanting to know more about it doesn't make us morbid or souless- again, back to the Earnhardt example, after the crash was investigated HANS was routinely cited as a possible safety solution that MIGHT have kept him alive. It was hardly mentioned prior to his death. In fact, I would argue that HIS crash was THE #1 reason HANS et al are as popular as they are today.
My point? We can possibly learn something from this tragic event and somebody like Eurojax asking "what went wrong" deserves more of an answer than "they hit a tree." I disagree it was simply blunt force trauma that killed Park and my reasoning is because Markko wasn't injured. Perhaps there was a weakness in the design of the car or the cage? I don't know, but I would strongly argue that whatever forces that acted upon Park also acted upon Markko. I think the tree intruded into the passenger compartment either wholly or caused the cage to deform into the passenger compartment causing fatal injuries to the codriver. IF that's true (and it's only my wild speculation) then perhaps there could be improvements in cage design better to protect against side impact? Perhaps there should be a minimum separation of inches on all sides between occupant and cage? I don't know, but I bet we could learn something from it. Who knows, maybe if he was wearing a HANS or similar he would have lived. The bottom line is we really DON'T know. Maybe it's too soon for some to talk about this and for that I apologize, perhaps this could be moved to a new thread?
it's like this.
80mph - into a tree = 160mph impact
- speed doubles when you hit something that abruptly, just like a head on collision -
this is not a rollover. flip. dip off the road.
this was like hitting a brick wall.
the worst kind of rally accident that can be had.
[/QUOTE]
I think eurojax brings up an excellent point and while I don't think you're being rude, I think you're incorrect in your assessement of the crash and letting emotion get in the way of a potentially valid conversation. I can understand your sorrow as this is your life (rally) and maybe this isn't the right thread for it, but the crash itself warrants discussion if it can help save lives in the future.
First, I think you're example isn't quite right. I don't mean to be a dick, but 80mph into a tree is not a 160mph "impact." It's 80mph into a tree. If you're traveling at 80mph and hit an identical CAR traveling 80mph in a head on collision, granted it's not the same as hitting a "brick wall" (or giant immovable oak tree) at 80mph in terms of "impact" because cars tend to deform, but it isn't all that DISimilar either. However is it NOTHING like hitting a brick wall or tree or another car at 160mph- speed doesn't "double" when you hit immovable objects compared to hitting things like parked cars or sapplings, nor does it if you were to hit somebody head on traveling the same speed with the same mass. An 80mph impact is an 80mph impact with the understanding that the object you impact has mass that can be less than, equal to, or greater than your mass.
I am in total agreement that the crash was the worst kind of crash there can be, just like the Earnhardt crash- it was the impulse that caused the death, or the integral of the the force over the time elapsed in addition to the change in momentum. I only have a a high-school understanding of physics but my understanding is that the less time it takes for you go from x to 0, the more likely you are to die, especially as X increases. So maybe I'm wrong here, but Eurojax brings up a valid argument that many people in this thread have glossed over: WHY IS MARKKO ALIVE? To me, that is a very important question that needs to be answered and investigated. It wasn't magic or luck, IMO, it must have had something to do with physics. Nobody has any detailed pictures of the accident (interior of the car) so we are only able to speculate, but IMO (uneducated, of course) I think Park got crushed or hit by the tree or cage; it wasn't simply the impact (impulse) of the whole car hitting the tree that killed him- the human body can withstand an amazing amount of g-forces before having your insides become liquified. If one is arguing that Park broke his neck instantly (the basal skull fracture thing) then why didn't Markko since the two of them basically experience the same g-forces for the duration of the crash. Why am I convinced that it wasn't just a typical Earnhardt type crash?
Because Markko was unhurt after the accident. I can understand how the impulse and force of the collision gets transferred AROUND the occupants in the car, through the cage, through the body panels, seats, seatbelts, dissapated in sound and heat, etc. but the car was relatively intact after the crash (not split in half or anything), which means that if it was a blunt force trauma as some have speculated, that means Markko would have also experienced nearly the exact same blunt force trauma as Park, and yet somehow, miraculously survived COMPLETELY unhurt? That's like saying Earnhardt would've died on impact, yet if he had a codriver, he/she would have been unhurt? Impossible.
As I posted above and in another thread, I feel nothing but sincere sorrow for the WRC community, Park's family and fans. But that doesn't mean we just sweep the crash under the carpet, call it a tragedy and reality of racing, and just move on. And wanting to know more about it doesn't make us morbid or souless- again, back to the Earnhardt example, after the crash was investigated HANS was routinely cited as a possible safety solution that MIGHT have kept him alive. It was hardly mentioned prior to his death. In fact, I would argue that HIS crash was THE #1 reason HANS et al are as popular as they are today.
My point? We can possibly learn something from this tragic event and somebody like Eurojax asking "what went wrong" deserves more of an answer than "they hit a tree." I disagree it was simply blunt force trauma that killed Park and my reasoning is because Markko wasn't injured. Perhaps there was a weakness in the design of the car or the cage? I don't know, but I would strongly argue that whatever forces that acted upon Park also acted upon Markko. I think the tree intruded into the passenger compartment either wholly or caused the cage to deform into the passenger compartment causing fatal injuries to the codriver. IF that's true (and it's only my wild speculation) then perhaps there could be improvements in cage design better to protect against side impact? Perhaps there should be a minimum separation of inches on all sides between occupant and cage? I don't know, but I bet we could learn something from it. Who knows, maybe if he was wearing a HANS or similar he would have lived. The bottom line is we really DON'T know. Maybe it's too soon for some to talk about this and for that I apologize, perhaps this could be moved to a new thread?
| CirrusWRX | 09-21-2005 11:56 AM |
My apologies to the previous posters above - I took a long time to post (walked away from my desk) so I basically said what you already said.
| VpointVick | 09-21-2005 12:40 PM |
IIRC HANS were required by the FIA for 2005.
| artkevin | 09-21-2005 01:01 PM |
Well said CirrusWRX. I am all for an investigation into WHY it happened. We have to learn from or mistakes/misjudgeings/tradegies.
| WagonMonster | 09-21-2005 01:50 PM |
Ok ladies.
Please talk/argue about the technical details of the crash here and leave the other thread as a memorial to Beef.
Thx
Please talk/argue about the technical details of the crash here and leave the other thread as a memorial to Beef.
Thx
| TimStevens | 09-21-2005 01:54 PM |
[QUOTE=artkevin]+1
As well intended as Jamie's explinations are I think they are a little too cut and dry. I can see exactly what eurojax is asking about and would like more info on the wreck with Park's familys feelings kept in mind. Not morbid, just curious.[/QUOTE]
Make that +2. i also would like to learn more about what happened. I think pictures can be left out, but IMHO something more than "slid into a tree" is warranted.
As well intended as Jamie's explinations are I think they are a little too cut and dry. I can see exactly what eurojax is asking about and would like more info on the wreck with Park's familys feelings kept in mind. Not morbid, just curious.[/QUOTE]
Make that +2. i also would like to learn more about what happened. I think pictures can be left out, but IMHO something more than "slid into a tree" is warranted.
| Kha0S | 09-21-2005 01:54 PM |
Good deal, thanks WagonMonster.
As far as I can tell from the photos that have been making the rounds and the (lack of) injuries to Martin, this appears to be a structural collapse, rather than a rapid deceleration injury.
I'm going to try and find some photos of the 307 cage design... the way that the roof and B-pillar crumpled looks like the upper halo, main hoop, and door bars all gave in from the energy.
As far as I can tell from the photos that have been making the rounds and the (lack of) injuries to Martin, this appears to be a structural collapse, rather than a rapid deceleration injury.
I'm going to try and find some photos of the 307 cage design... the way that the roof and B-pillar crumpled looks like the upper halo, main hoop, and door bars all gave in from the energy.
| rallykeith | 09-21-2005 02:24 PM |
[QUOTE=Kha0S]Jamie, with all due respect, your analysis fails to account for a number of issues in the incident... primarily that Markko suffered approximately the same deceleration as did Michael, but his injuries were minor. Intrusion into the passenger compartment and associated injuries were much more likely the culprit here.
[/QUOTE]
I don't want this to turn into a flame war or anything so lets all please be repectful when talking about this.
Kha0S, I think you are wrong in your assesment that Markko saw even approximately the same deceleration. Micheal had about 8" or less of what I'll call deceleration crumple before he was pressed up against the metal of the car that was touching the tree. I know that in my car my arm is pretty much pressed right against the roll cage, and the roll cage is only 1" away from the door panel. Markko on the other hand had the benefit of all the deceleration associated with the impact and car deformation. In a sence, with how little space there was between the tree and Micheal at impact, and at the speed they hit, it was as if Micheal hit the tree directly and instantly stopped, while Markko decelerated with the car.
Jamie was being very sincere in what she said. As Rallyist WE understand exactly what happened. We know it every time we get into our cars. I can understand how people that aren't directly involved with the sport wouldn't understand it the way we do. There really isn't much to examine in the cause of death, the only thing we can do is try to make the cars stronger for a side impact of this nature. Steps have been taken in the past after other incidents, but you can never account for everything.
Keith
[/QUOTE]
I don't want this to turn into a flame war or anything so lets all please be repectful when talking about this.
Kha0S, I think you are wrong in your assesment that Markko saw even approximately the same deceleration. Micheal had about 8" or less of what I'll call deceleration crumple before he was pressed up against the metal of the car that was touching the tree. I know that in my car my arm is pretty much pressed right against the roll cage, and the roll cage is only 1" away from the door panel. Markko on the other hand had the benefit of all the deceleration associated with the impact and car deformation. In a sence, with how little space there was between the tree and Micheal at impact, and at the speed they hit, it was as if Micheal hit the tree directly and instantly stopped, while Markko decelerated with the car.
Jamie was being very sincere in what she said. As Rallyist WE understand exactly what happened. We know it every time we get into our cars. I can understand how people that aren't directly involved with the sport wouldn't understand it the way we do. There really isn't much to examine in the cause of death, the only thing we can do is try to make the cars stronger for a side impact of this nature. Steps have been taken in the past after other incidents, but you can never account for everything.
Keith
| TimStevens | 09-21-2005 02:35 PM |
I think, kieth, if anything you're backing up Andrew's point, that it was the tree's intrusion into the cage that is responsible for the fatality, not the decelleration. If purely the decelleration of the car hitting the tree were responsible, Markko and Michael would have received excatly the same force.
| bemani | 09-21-2005 02:59 PM |
[QUOTE=TimStevens]If purely the decelleration of the car hitting the tree were responsible, Markko and Michael would have received excatly the same force.[/QUOTE]
Not really. As someone mentioned, the space where Michael Park sat became additional crumple zone for Markko.
Not really. As someone mentioned, the space where Michael Park sat became additional crumple zone for Markko.
| Kha0S | 09-21-2005 02:59 PM |
[QUOTE=rallykeith]
Jamie was being very sincere in what she said. As Rallyist WE understand exactly what happened. We know it every time we get into our cars. I can understand how people that aren't directly involved with the sport wouldn't understand it the way we do.
[/QUOTE]
I'd also just like to point out that I am a rallyist as well.
Knowledge of physics isn't connected to what motorsports you may or may not participate in.
Indeed, I think that Markko might have received a slightly slower deceleration than did Michael, but their injuries are at absolute opposite ends of the spectrum. My hunch (and it's only a hunch) is simply that the cage failed in the violence of the impact.
I know that stock car chassis use very serious door bar systems (which certainly inhibit ingress/egress) to protect against side impacts. I wonder if such a system would help maintain the integrity of the passenger compartment in an incident like this one (or like Petter's panzerplatte impact last year).
Jamie was being very sincere in what she said. As Rallyist WE understand exactly what happened. We know it every time we get into our cars. I can understand how people that aren't directly involved with the sport wouldn't understand it the way we do.
[/QUOTE]
I'd also just like to point out that I am a rallyist as well.
Knowledge of physics isn't connected to what motorsports you may or may not participate in.
Indeed, I think that Markko might have received a slightly slower deceleration than did Michael, but their injuries are at absolute opposite ends of the spectrum. My hunch (and it's only a hunch) is simply that the cage failed in the violence of the impact.
I know that stock car chassis use very serious door bar systems (which certainly inhibit ingress/egress) to protect against side impacts. I wonder if such a system would help maintain the integrity of the passenger compartment in an incident like this one (or like Petter's panzerplatte impact last year).
| TimStevens | 09-21-2005 03:01 PM |
[QUOTE=bemani]Not really. As someone mentioned, the space where Michael Park sat became additional crumple zone for Markko.[/QUOTE]
It's a moot point, but the reason he was in the "crumple zone" was because the tree intruded into the cage.
It's a moot point, but the reason he was in the "crumple zone" was because the tree intruded into the cage.
| rallykeith | 09-21-2005 03:44 PM |
[QUOTE=Kha0S]I'd also just like to point out that I am a rallyist as well.
[/QUOTE]
Sorry, the point about that wasn't directed at you. It was meant for the inquiring general public.
There is a lot that goes into it and there are many points to cover, but physics is still at the base. Right now your point/counter point is that the cage "failed." It could be said that the cage failed allowing the tree to intrude upon the pasanger compartment and caused Maicheals death. Now, the other end of the spectrum is what happens in the exact same crash if the cage were in fact strong enough to not allow intrusion. Because of the speed in volved in this situation BOTH occupants would have been instantly decelerated and most likely both would have died from blunt force trama. The key to survival is slowing the rate of deceleration. I feel strongly that this incident was an extreme case, and what some might look at as a failure of the cage causing one fatality is in fact what in turn prevented two fatalities.
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to argue but offer more input and other views. I was running Ski Sawmill when Sean Kovacs was killed. I know the organizers and many people involved and was involved offline in many discussions about the incident and how the cage failed. A lot of the same things have come up before as are coming up now. That doesn't mean anyone is right or wrong, but mearly that we still have things we can do better, and I think talking about it like this is a good start.
Keith
[/QUOTE]
Sorry, the point about that wasn't directed at you. It was meant for the inquiring general public.
There is a lot that goes into it and there are many points to cover, but physics is still at the base. Right now your point/counter point is that the cage "failed." It could be said that the cage failed allowing the tree to intrude upon the pasanger compartment and caused Maicheals death. Now, the other end of the spectrum is what happens in the exact same crash if the cage were in fact strong enough to not allow intrusion. Because of the speed in volved in this situation BOTH occupants would have been instantly decelerated and most likely both would have died from blunt force trama. The key to survival is slowing the rate of deceleration. I feel strongly that this incident was an extreme case, and what some might look at as a failure of the cage causing one fatality is in fact what in turn prevented two fatalities.
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to argue but offer more input and other views. I was running Ski Sawmill when Sean Kovacs was killed. I know the organizers and many people involved and was involved offline in many discussions about the incident and how the cage failed. A lot of the same things have come up before as are coming up now. That doesn't mean anyone is right or wrong, but mearly that we still have things we can do better, and I think talking about it like this is a good start.
Keith
| WRXMaster | 09-21-2005 03:48 PM |
The lack of padded side impact seats ... I think that was a factory "subaru has it " but the peugot didnt
| bjorn240 | 09-21-2005 04:18 PM |
There is some vast conjecture being thrown about in this thread...
First off, blunt force trauma is a catch-all term for any trauma caused by a blunt object (as opposed to a sharp object, like a knife). While blunt force trauma may be listed on a death certificate, the typical characteristics of blunt force trauma are lacerated or severed arteries, lacerated organs, crush injuries, and hematomas, any or all of which can be the cause of death.
As to the accident discussed, I think it is clear from the pictures that the cage was severely compromised and the tree intruded on the passenger compartment and that external trauma from the tree and door/cage was the likely cause of the fatal injuries.
There is little that can be done, given current rally car design, to protect against this type of intrusion. A roll cage derives most of its strength from its triangulated structure, and it is nearly impossible to triangulate from the center of the door to the middle of the car, as that space is taken up by the occupants. The only way to make a rally car safer in this direction is to make it wider and move the occupants closer to the center line.
As to whether Markko's injuries were minimized by a "crumple zone," this seems quite immaterial. Negative decelerations of 100G have been recorded in surviveable accidents, and a rally car accident rarely exceeds 30G. If you're tightly harnessed into your seat, control your head/neck movement, and do not suffer an external trauma, you can often handle a massive deceleration.
The 2005 Peugeot 307 had seats with head side-bolsters.
My thoughts are with Michael's family and with Markko and the entire Peugeot team.
- Christian
First off, blunt force trauma is a catch-all term for any trauma caused by a blunt object (as opposed to a sharp object, like a knife). While blunt force trauma may be listed on a death certificate, the typical characteristics of blunt force trauma are lacerated or severed arteries, lacerated organs, crush injuries, and hematomas, any or all of which can be the cause of death.
As to the accident discussed, I think it is clear from the pictures that the cage was severely compromised and the tree intruded on the passenger compartment and that external trauma from the tree and door/cage was the likely cause of the fatal injuries.
There is little that can be done, given current rally car design, to protect against this type of intrusion. A roll cage derives most of its strength from its triangulated structure, and it is nearly impossible to triangulate from the center of the door to the middle of the car, as that space is taken up by the occupants. The only way to make a rally car safer in this direction is to make it wider and move the occupants closer to the center line.
As to whether Markko's injuries were minimized by a "crumple zone," this seems quite immaterial. Negative decelerations of 100G have been recorded in surviveable accidents, and a rally car accident rarely exceeds 30G. If you're tightly harnessed into your seat, control your head/neck movement, and do not suffer an external trauma, you can often handle a massive deceleration.
The 2005 Peugeot 307 had seats with head side-bolsters.
My thoughts are with Michael's family and with Markko and the entire Peugeot team.
- Christian
| rallykeith | 09-21-2005 04:18 PM |
[QUOTE=WRXMaster]The lack of padded side impact seats ... I think that was a factory "subaru has it " but the peugot didnt[/QUOTE]
That would help. In the states we mandadted FIA approved cage padding for anywhere a helmet could hit, but that was all. Maybe adding it between the seat and the cage would be good.
That would help. In the states we mandadted FIA approved cage padding for anywhere a helmet could hit, but that was all. Maybe adding it between the seat and the cage would be good.
| Ver.III | 09-21-2005 04:33 PM |
Its very difficult to determine/design a rally car/cage that can withstand impacts such this case. As to Petter's crash in Germany, WRC cages were never meant to impact a tank barrier. You can compare this to NASCAR cages , but that is I think more a "controlled" enviroment. In any case, I don't think even wearing a HANS or seat head side restraints would have done anything in such a direct side impact.
| Racer5 | 09-21-2005 04:41 PM |
This event has hit very close to home for me. The Mark Lovell / Roger Freeman tragedy happened 25 mins from our house. Teresa and I were actually entered into that event. I think we started like 50th on the road that day. We crashed out that day by glancing off of a stump at about 30 MPH. We learned what happend to Mark and Roger later that night. We were lucky that day.
Now let me tell you folks, the tree in the Michael Park incident looks exactly like the one here in Oregon. I shed tears when I saw the images of it online yesterday. It really hit me hard.
My thoughts are also with Beefs family.
I like the idea of technical discusion and I think we have a good start. In looking at my current rally car, a '95 Impreza Coupe...I'm worried. My car has a helluva cage too that I had custom built to exceed current standards in rally cage design. However the door bars are very similar to the ones in the 307 and most any other modern rally car. I currently have X style door bars and a sill tube. Just like rallykeith my cage sits right next me, my arm rides on it when transiting.
What do I think could improve rally car safety? As an auto safety guru and auto safety product retailer I have watched this very close and given it alot of thought. I think the first thing we all need to do is to think seriously about the nascar style doorbars that extends into the doors as far as is reasonable / possible.
Seats are very important in this type of accident as well.
Charles
Now let me tell you folks, the tree in the Michael Park incident looks exactly like the one here in Oregon. I shed tears when I saw the images of it online yesterday. It really hit me hard.
My thoughts are also with Beefs family.
I like the idea of technical discusion and I think we have a good start. In looking at my current rally car, a '95 Impreza Coupe...I'm worried. My car has a helluva cage too that I had custom built to exceed current standards in rally cage design. However the door bars are very similar to the ones in the 307 and most any other modern rally car. I currently have X style door bars and a sill tube. Just like rallykeith my cage sits right next me, my arm rides on it when transiting.
What do I think could improve rally car safety? As an auto safety guru and auto safety product retailer I have watched this very close and given it alot of thought. I think the first thing we all need to do is to think seriously about the nascar style doorbars that extends into the doors as far as is reasonable / possible.
Seats are very important in this type of accident as well.
Charles
| Ver.III | 09-21-2005 04:57 PM |
Depending on where you sit, NASCAR style door bars won't help. Most sit right beside the B-pillar, especially the co-drivers which is futher back from the door opening. Again, you can compare both disiplines of cages , but you think it would really help in this type of accident ?
| Kha0S | 09-21-2005 05:35 PM |
Well, if seating position (which is tuned for performance) has made the cage design ineffective (which is for safety), I'd think that seating positions need to be modified to sit more safely within the compartment.
Recall that up until recently (with the introduction of the SAFER barrier at Indy, and subsequently, other tracks) stock car and open-wheel impacts with barriers were often against hard, cement walls with no energy absorption mechanism. Modern stock car chassis were designed with those sorts of impacts in mind, including such hits to the side of the vehicle.
Now, a cement wall is going to spread the force out, rather than a tree/post (which effectively behaves as a mandrel).
Interesting bit of news that came out, though... since Peugeot is pulling out for next season, they had already planned to work with some labs on new standards for side-impact protection, using the NCAP post test as a starting point, and would be contributing 307 shells for the testing... I think this will redouble their efforts on that front.
Recall that up until recently (with the introduction of the SAFER barrier at Indy, and subsequently, other tracks) stock car and open-wheel impacts with barriers were often against hard, cement walls with no energy absorption mechanism. Modern stock car chassis were designed with those sorts of impacts in mind, including such hits to the side of the vehicle.
Now, a cement wall is going to spread the force out, rather than a tree/post (which effectively behaves as a mandrel).
Interesting bit of news that came out, though... since Peugeot is pulling out for next season, they had already planned to work with some labs on new standards for side-impact protection, using the NCAP post test as a starting point, and would be contributing 307 shells for the testing... I think this will redouble their efforts on that front.
| Ver.III | 09-21-2005 05:42 PM |
I should add since most co-drivers sit futher back, they are also closer to the main hoop.
| WRXedUSA | 09-21-2005 05:52 PM |
Good Job Wagon. Thanks for cleaning up the ther thread.
| davis10 | 09-21-2005 07:04 PM |
[QUOTE=CirrusWRX]
My point? We can possibly learn something from this tragic event and somebody like Eurojax asking "what went wrong" deserves more of an answer than "they hit a tree." I disagree it was simply blunt force trauma that killed Park and my reasoning is because Markko wasn't injured. Perhaps there was a weakness in the design of the car or the cage? I don't know, but I would strongly argue that whatever forces that acted upon Park also acted upon Markko. I think the tree intruded into the passenger compartment either wholly or caused the cage to deform into the passenger compartment causing fatal injuries to the codriver. IF that's true (and it's only my wild speculation) then perhaps there could be improvements in cage design better to protect against side impact? Perhaps there should be a minimum separation of inches on all sides between occupant and cage? I don't know, but I bet we could learn something from it. Who knows, maybe if he was wearing a HANS or similar he would have lived. The bottom line is we really DON'T know. Maybe it's too soon for some to talk about this and for that I apologize, perhaps this could be moved to a new thread?[/QUOTE]
markko traveled a greater distance as he slowed down which is why he survived. Because it was a side impact Michael was much closer the the immovable object and there for he decelerated in and shorter amount of time then Markko did.
(It feels wrong to talk about this right now, but if you must.)
My point? We can possibly learn something from this tragic event and somebody like Eurojax asking "what went wrong" deserves more of an answer than "they hit a tree." I disagree it was simply blunt force trauma that killed Park and my reasoning is because Markko wasn't injured. Perhaps there was a weakness in the design of the car or the cage? I don't know, but I would strongly argue that whatever forces that acted upon Park also acted upon Markko. I think the tree intruded into the passenger compartment either wholly or caused the cage to deform into the passenger compartment causing fatal injuries to the codriver. IF that's true (and it's only my wild speculation) then perhaps there could be improvements in cage design better to protect against side impact? Perhaps there should be a minimum separation of inches on all sides between occupant and cage? I don't know, but I bet we could learn something from it. Who knows, maybe if he was wearing a HANS or similar he would have lived. The bottom line is we really DON'T know. Maybe it's too soon for some to talk about this and for that I apologize, perhaps this could be moved to a new thread?[/QUOTE]
markko traveled a greater distance as he slowed down which is why he survived. Because it was a side impact Michael was much closer the the immovable object and there for he decelerated in and shorter amount of time then Markko did.
(It feels wrong to talk about this right now, but if you must.)
| ilnmcom | 09-21-2005 07:41 PM |
Not sure if this helps the tech discussion here, but...
[img]http://www.peugeot.de/sport/img/img_der307wrc.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.peugeot.de/sport/img/img_der307wrc.jpg[/img]
| Jon Bogert | 09-21-2005 09:55 PM |
From this screencap, it appears that the X brace failure was only part of the issue. NASCAR style door bars would definitely be an improvement, but the way the roof collapsed would likely have been fatal in any case.
[img]http://www.ppcjunkie.com/audiworld/Michael_Park-2005_WRC_Wales_SS15_02.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.ppcjunkie.com/audiworld/Michael_Park-2005_WRC_Wales_SS15_02.jpg[/img]
| Jon Bogert | 09-21-2005 10:03 PM |
Prodrive's David Lapworth had some interesting comments (edited):
Lapworth says major modifications to the car are the only answer.
But this would dilute the traditional link between production cars and their rally equivalents - a key tenet of the sport's popularity.
Speaking to BBC Sport, Lapworth said: "The biggest steps we could do might take time because they involve quite big changes to the technical regulations.
"The whole philosophy of rallying is that the cars should be as close as possible to production cars - it's part of the appeal for most people that the cars they see are similar to those you can buy and drive on the road.
If you travel at such high speeds there's a limit to what we can do
"To make huge steps forward we have to challenge that whole philosophy and say for safety reasons we are prepared to see the cars less close to the production cars on which they are based.
"Because the safety structures need to be built into the doors and the actual structure of the car, we need to create more space for the occupants.
"Maybe the driver and co-driver should be staggered rather than alongside each other. There are lots of things that could be done but that would need a wholesale review."
Lapworth also believes changes must be made to the courses.
"If you hit a tree at 160kph it is very difficult, if not impossible, to design a car which can protect you properly," he said.
"We have to look at the environment and the nature of rallies."
"The survivability of big accidents can only be improved by a small percentage by technical solutions. We have to look at how we can change the stages.
"With less severe accidents, the more common accidents at lower speeds, then there are things we can do technically.
"We can improve the protection for side impact crashes. That's where people get hurt because there's so little distance between the occupants and the scenery.
"We can improve the seats, maybe move them nearer to the centre of the car, we can put more strength into the roll cages."
Lapworth says major modifications to the car are the only answer.
But this would dilute the traditional link between production cars and their rally equivalents - a key tenet of the sport's popularity.
Speaking to BBC Sport, Lapworth said: "The biggest steps we could do might take time because they involve quite big changes to the technical regulations.
"The whole philosophy of rallying is that the cars should be as close as possible to production cars - it's part of the appeal for most people that the cars they see are similar to those you can buy and drive on the road.
If you travel at such high speeds there's a limit to what we can do
"To make huge steps forward we have to challenge that whole philosophy and say for safety reasons we are prepared to see the cars less close to the production cars on which they are based.
"Because the safety structures need to be built into the doors and the actual structure of the car, we need to create more space for the occupants.
"Maybe the driver and co-driver should be staggered rather than alongside each other. There are lots of things that could be done but that would need a wholesale review."
Lapworth also believes changes must be made to the courses.
"If you hit a tree at 160kph it is very difficult, if not impossible, to design a car which can protect you properly," he said.
"We have to look at the environment and the nature of rallies."
"The survivability of big accidents can only be improved by a small percentage by technical solutions. We have to look at how we can change the stages.
"With less severe accidents, the more common accidents at lower speeds, then there are things we can do technically.
"We can improve the protection for side impact crashes. That's where people get hurt because there's so little distance between the occupants and the scenery.
"We can improve the seats, maybe move them nearer to the centre of the car, we can put more strength into the roll cages."
| ChrisW | 09-21-2005 10:05 PM |
[QUOTE=Subie Gal]well i thought that i'd already explained that :confused:
it's like this.
80mph - into a tree = 160mph impact
- speed doubles when you hit something that abruptly, just like a head on collision -
this is not a rollover. flip. dip off the road.
this was like hitting a brick wall.
the worst kind of rally accident that can be had.
honestly, I am suprised Markko is alive.
I think that had the tree been larger, he'd be gone as well :(
Horrible stuff this is :(
want to learn more about physics... maybe take a class or something ???
i'm not being rude. i'm just not sure how else to explain it.
Jamie[/QUOTE]
I am very surprized that Marko was not even injured...
it's like this.
80mph - into a tree = 160mph impact
- speed doubles when you hit something that abruptly, just like a head on collision -
this is not a rollover. flip. dip off the road.
this was like hitting a brick wall.
the worst kind of rally accident that can be had.
honestly, I am suprised Markko is alive.
I think that had the tree been larger, he'd be gone as well :(
Horrible stuff this is :(
want to learn more about physics... maybe take a class or something ???
i'm not being rude. i'm just not sure how else to explain it.
Jamie[/QUOTE]
I am very surprized that Marko was not even injured...
| Storm | 09-22-2005 01:01 AM |
The discussion of the sidebar protection and seating position is of relevance but I don't think we should assume that the car contacted the tree with the side bars first.... It is very possible that the car was angled toward the roof at a fateful angle that may have put his upper body in the least protective position for the impact.
I wonder if anyone has quotes from the safety issues regarding the older GpB cars prior to their bannage. Methinks the underlying message would be quite similar.....
Jay Storm
I wonder if anyone has quotes from the safety issues regarding the older GpB cars prior to their bannage. Methinks the underlying message would be quite similar.....
Jay Storm
| RaceComp Engineering | 09-22-2005 07:04 AM |
edited.
| Kha0S | 09-22-2005 07:21 AM |
Myles, you have a choice to not read this thread.
This thread has nothing to do with not having a heart or not respecting what happened.
It's about seeking knowledge and information about how to make our own race cars safer.
Many of us participate in various grassroots motorsports that involve manufacturing your own safety devices (primarily, cages).
To stick your head in the sand and ignore the technical details of an incident, and fail to learn from the failures of these systems, and forego the knowledge that can be attained and applied to your own race cars, is to do a disservice to the memories of the very people who we miss so sorely.
This thread has nothing to do with not having a heart or not respecting what happened.
It's about seeking knowledge and information about how to make our own race cars safer.
Many of us participate in various grassroots motorsports that involve manufacturing your own safety devices (primarily, cages).
To stick your head in the sand and ignore the technical details of an incident, and fail to learn from the failures of these systems, and forego the knowledge that can be attained and applied to your own race cars, is to do a disservice to the memories of the very people who we miss so sorely.
| RaceComp Engineering | 09-22-2005 08:34 AM |
[QUOTE=Kha0S]Myles, you have a choice to not read this thread.
This thread has nothing to do with not having a heart or not respecting what happened.
It's about seeking knowledge and information about how to make our own race cars safer.
Many of us participate in various grassroots motorsports that involve manufacturing your own safety devices (primarily, cages).
To stick your head in the sand and ignore the technical details of an incident, and fail to learn from the failures of these systems, and forego the knowledge that can be attained and applied to your own race cars, is to do a disservice to the memories of the very people who we miss so sorely.[/QUOTE]
Yep , I know I kow I didnt have to say anything, but again, until you are airlifted away and or have a period of your life , even if as short as 1 daya that you dont remember. To not remember the morning before you even got into the car, until then most dont get it. Iam not sticking my head in the sand about technical. AGAIN the issue here is really more about the [I]TIMING[/I] of the thread. ITs not like anyone is going to FORGET ABOUT it. I know a very well know Grand-Am/Speed cage builder on the east coast. We only deal with him because he was in a very bad accident, and his cages helped save his life. So its not that we dont care about , or that we stick our heads in the sand.
Myles
This thread has nothing to do with not having a heart or not respecting what happened.
It's about seeking knowledge and information about how to make our own race cars safer.
Many of us participate in various grassroots motorsports that involve manufacturing your own safety devices (primarily, cages).
To stick your head in the sand and ignore the technical details of an incident, and fail to learn from the failures of these systems, and forego the knowledge that can be attained and applied to your own race cars, is to do a disservice to the memories of the very people who we miss so sorely.[/QUOTE]
Yep , I know I kow I didnt have to say anything, but again, until you are airlifted away and or have a period of your life , even if as short as 1 daya that you dont remember. To not remember the morning before you even got into the car, until then most dont get it. Iam not sticking my head in the sand about technical. AGAIN the issue here is really more about the [I]TIMING[/I] of the thread. ITs not like anyone is going to FORGET ABOUT it. I know a very well know Grand-Am/Speed cage builder on the east coast. We only deal with him because he was in a very bad accident, and his cages helped save his life. So its not that we dont care about , or that we stick our heads in the sand.
Myles
| Howl | 09-22-2005 09:16 AM |
Here's a quick sketch of three possible side impact locations (read bottom to top):
[IMG]http://server2.uploadit.org/files/nhibbert-Drawing1.jpg[/IMG]
If the object that is being hit (tree) is right in the middle of the car the car will come to a sudden stop. All the energy will be dissipated immediately. If the tree is a fore or aft of center the car will spin around the object and more of the energy will be dissipated with the spin. It looks like the Peugeot hit just slightly off centre but not enough to save Beef.
[IMG]http://server2.uploadit.org/files/nhibbert-Drawing1.jpg[/IMG]
If the object that is being hit (tree) is right in the middle of the car the car will come to a sudden stop. All the energy will be dissipated immediately. If the tree is a fore or aft of center the car will spin around the object and more of the energy will be dissipated with the spin. It looks like the Peugeot hit just slightly off centre but not enough to save Beef.
| rallykeith | 09-22-2005 09:27 AM |
[QUOTE=RaceComp Engineering] AGAIN the issue here is really more about the [I]TIMING[/I] of the thread.
Myles[/QUOTE]
While I understand fully the point you are trying to make, I just want it to be known that I have personally gotten involved in this conversation because 8 days from now I will be in this position. International Rally NY is sept. 30th, and I would rather have some understanding of things before I get in the passangers seat. As a co-driver it takes a lot to put your life in someone else's hands, and at a time like this I worry. Being able to talk out these things is helping me. It doesn't mean I respect the situation any less, in many respects I feel I respect it more.
Myles[/QUOTE]
While I understand fully the point you are trying to make, I just want it to be known that I have personally gotten involved in this conversation because 8 days from now I will be in this position. International Rally NY is sept. 30th, and I would rather have some understanding of things before I get in the passangers seat. As a co-driver it takes a lot to put your life in someone else's hands, and at a time like this I worry. Being able to talk out these things is helping me. It doesn't mean I respect the situation any less, in many respects I feel I respect it more.
| bjorn240 | 09-22-2005 09:29 AM |
With all due respect to Miles, and while I tend to agree about the timing of this thread, I deeply disagree with the premise that ignorance is bliss and that if one races, one doesn't want to know about the possible effects of crashes.
I think that's absolutely wrong. Before you decide to get in a race car, you should have the insight to know what really might happen, the fortitude to accept it, and the foresight to ensure that all reasonable precautions are taken.
My insights into what might happen were certainly sharpened by the incidents of the past weekend, but I'll still be back in a rally car at the next event. And I'll do it with a fuller knowledge of the risks posed. If I can also do it with a better insight into safety equipment, that's a plus.
- Christian
I think that's absolutely wrong. Before you decide to get in a race car, you should have the insight to know what really might happen, the fortitude to accept it, and the foresight to ensure that all reasonable precautions are taken.
My insights into what might happen were certainly sharpened by the incidents of the past weekend, but I'll still be back in a rally car at the next event. And I'll do it with a fuller knowledge of the risks posed. If I can also do it with a better insight into safety equipment, that's a plus.
- Christian
| Howl | 09-22-2005 09:36 AM |
As an example, and many of you probably all ready know this, but if you�re sliding sideway and are inevitably going to hit an object, do what ever you can to hit the object in your front or rear wheel area, not smack in the middle of the door. Lock up the brakes or hit the gas to guide the car into the object, if at all possible.
I was T-boned by a drunk driver once and my last memory before waking up in hospital was seeing him out of the corner of my eye and thinking stomp on the gas so he doesn't hit you broadside full force.
I was T-boned by a drunk driver once and my last memory before waking up in hospital was seeing him out of the corner of my eye and thinking stomp on the gas so he doesn't hit you broadside full force.
| akuhner | 09-22-2005 09:48 AM |
Myles,
Your attiude sucks. If you don't like the thread don't "follow it for a while." It is a REQUIREMENT that rally drivers think about these things before they go out, any competitior who does not want to think about the possibility of death (or the previous death of others in the sport) is selling him/herself short. That includes having an intelegent discussion on the cause of the death of someone else in the rally family. There is no disrespect in that.
[QUOTE=RaceComp Engineering]
With rally drivers dropping like flys, I think there has to be a line drawn, YES even in a "FORUM" for useless talk about how someone DIED in a rallycar. [/QUOTE]
Excuse me? Exactly how do you define "dropping like flies?" I don't have the statistics on me, but I'm very sure that you are still more likely to die on the highway in your street car than in a rally car. I'm sure that if you take the total number of people who compete in a rally car every year versus the number who are killed in them and compare it to the number of people on the road in street cars versus the number who are killed in them the percentage of deaths will be higher in street cars. But we talk about safety in street cars all the time, manufacturers even show crash tests on commercials. Do you find that offensive too?
I may sound jaded or insensitive about Park's death, but 5 minutes after I found out I was directing our rally car out of the service area at COG, watching two of my good friends drive off in a Group N monster of a car. I cried then, and I still get worked up thinking about it. Go deal with it in your own way, and stop reading this thread if it bothers you... :(
Your attiude sucks. If you don't like the thread don't "follow it for a while." It is a REQUIREMENT that rally drivers think about these things before they go out, any competitior who does not want to think about the possibility of death (or the previous death of others in the sport) is selling him/herself short. That includes having an intelegent discussion on the cause of the death of someone else in the rally family. There is no disrespect in that.
[QUOTE=RaceComp Engineering]
With rally drivers dropping like flys, I think there has to be a line drawn, YES even in a "FORUM" for useless talk about how someone DIED in a rallycar. [/QUOTE]
Excuse me? Exactly how do you define "dropping like flies?" I don't have the statistics on me, but I'm very sure that you are still more likely to die on the highway in your street car than in a rally car. I'm sure that if you take the total number of people who compete in a rally car every year versus the number who are killed in them and compare it to the number of people on the road in street cars versus the number who are killed in them the percentage of deaths will be higher in street cars. But we talk about safety in street cars all the time, manufacturers even show crash tests on commercials. Do you find that offensive too?
I may sound jaded or insensitive about Park's death, but 5 minutes after I found out I was directing our rally car out of the service area at COG, watching two of my good friends drive off in a Group N monster of a car. I cried then, and I still get worked up thinking about it. Go deal with it in your own way, and stop reading this thread if it bothers you... :(
| akuhner | 09-22-2005 09:52 AM |
[QUOTE=Howl]As an example, and many of you probably all ready know this, but if you�re sliding sideway and are inevitably going to hit an object, do what ever you can to hit the object in your front or rear wheel area, not smack in the middle of the door. Lock up the brakes or hit the gas to guide the car into the object, if at all possible.[/QUOTE]
And Martin pulled that off really well when he went backwards off the road last year by yanking the handbrake before the car left the road. Unfortunately it's not going to work every time.
And Martin pulled that off really well when he went backwards off the road last year by yanking the handbrake before the car left the road. Unfortunately it's not going to work every time.
| Jon Bogert | 09-22-2005 09:55 AM |
[quote]I don't have the statistics on me, but I'm very sure that you are still more likely to die on the highway in your street car than in a rally car.[/quote]We ran the numbers on this after the Lovell/Freeman accident. In terms of fatalities per mile, SCCA ProRally is approximately as dangerous as driving in New Jersey.
| VpointVick | 09-22-2005 10:00 AM |
Discussion like this improves the sport
�
�
Look at how much safer a sport NASCAR is now, after the uproar following the Earnhardt accident.
I'm certain that those were VERY trying times for the family, friends , and team, but the payoff has been huge!
Even if no other changes had come about following that tragedy, the fact that HANS device use went from just a couple of drivers, to nearly ALL of them choosing to use them (on their own, before they were made mandatory), is a GIANT step forward.
I'm certain that those were VERY trying times for the family, friends , and team, but the payoff has been huge!
Even if no other changes had come about following that tragedy, the fact that HANS device use went from just a couple of drivers, to nearly ALL of them choosing to use them (on their own, before they were made mandatory), is a GIANT step forward.
| mike270 | 09-22-2005 10:13 AM |
[QUOTE=Car #187]I may sound jaded or insensitive about Park's death, but 5 minutes after I found out I was directing our rally car out of the service area at COG, watching two of my good friends drive off in a Group N monster of a car. I cried then, and I still get worked up thinking about it. Go deal with it in your own way, and stop reading this thread if it bothers you... :([/QUOTE]
I agree totally. 5 minutes after hearing about the accident I was climbing into the co-drivers seat at Cog to head out for another day of rallying. It definitely made me think a little but I'm not going to let that stop me from doing the sport I love. I've been thinking a lot about him the last couple days though and trying to think of any thing I can to better prepare a car and its occupants for an impact like that.
I agree totally. 5 minutes after hearing about the accident I was climbing into the co-drivers seat at Cog to head out for another day of rallying. It definitely made me think a little but I'm not going to let that stop me from doing the sport I love. I've been thinking a lot about him the last couple days though and trying to think of any thing I can to better prepare a car and its occupants for an impact like that.
| RaceComp Engineering | 09-22-2005 10:23 AM |
[QUOTE=bjorn240]With all due respect to Miles, and while I tend to agree about the timing of this thread, I deeply disagree with the premise that ignorance is bliss and that if one races, one doesn't want to know about the possible effects of crashes.
I think that's absolutely wrong. Before you decide to get in a race car, you should have the insight to know what really might happen, the fortitude to accept it, and the foresight to ensure that all reasonable precautions are taken.
My insights into what might happen were certainly sharpened by the incidents of the past weekend, but I'll still be back in a rally car at the next event. And I'll do it with a fuller knowledge of the risks posed. If I can also do it with a better insight into safety equipment, that's a plus.
- Christian[/QUOTE]
Thanks Christian, I do(EDITED) want to know about the effects,...I KNOW about the effects, and make the necc upgrades and take the precautions.
I see most of the people flaming me are involved in the sport, so then why are you guys flaming me, my anger was towards the guy who after Jamie explained things, still kept asking the same question.
I DO want to know, I guess it just seems bad, or un-timely as its so sooon afterwards. Call me a wus , but it always gets me worked up when someone looses their life in racing.
CAR 187.....
dropping like flys would be Lovell/Freeman and now Park. I am sure there are alot others who are not famous who dont get the press, but in Sportscar racing it doesnt seem to happen ( seem) as much as of late.
I knew in responding I would get flamed, and thats kool. Dont think I dont want to know about the details, I DO. I guess I have had my fill of seeing some bad things and felt like.."WOW"..it hasnt been that long.
mw
I think that's absolutely wrong. Before you decide to get in a race car, you should have the insight to know what really might happen, the fortitude to accept it, and the foresight to ensure that all reasonable precautions are taken.
My insights into what might happen were certainly sharpened by the incidents of the past weekend, but I'll still be back in a rally car at the next event. And I'll do it with a fuller knowledge of the risks posed. If I can also do it with a better insight into safety equipment, that's a plus.
- Christian[/QUOTE]
Thanks Christian, I do(EDITED) want to know about the effects,...I KNOW about the effects, and make the necc upgrades and take the precautions.
I see most of the people flaming me are involved in the sport, so then why are you guys flaming me, my anger was towards the guy who after Jamie explained things, still kept asking the same question.
I DO want to know, I guess it just seems bad, or un-timely as its so sooon afterwards. Call me a wus , but it always gets me worked up when someone looses their life in racing.
CAR 187.....
dropping like flys would be Lovell/Freeman and now Park. I am sure there are alot others who are not famous who dont get the press, but in Sportscar racing it doesnt seem to happen ( seem) as much as of late.
I knew in responding I would get flamed, and thats kool. Dont think I dont want to know about the details, I DO. I guess I have had my fill of seeing some bad things and felt like.."WOW"..it hasnt been that long.
mw
| Howl | 09-22-2005 10:30 AM |
Besides, a lot of people deal with tragedy by taking their minds off the emotional aspects and concentrating on the technical aspects. When there's a major plane crash one of the first things people do is look at why it happened. It's not out of disrespect for those who died, but to gain some useful insight so that their death is not in vain. People remember Earnhardt, not because he just becasue he was a great driver but because his death inspired changes.
| RB5 Clone | 09-22-2005 10:31 AM |
basic layout/engineering issues
�
�
As a rally driver, codriver, car owner and builder, this issue hits doubly hard.
As it stands, rally cars are converted out of street cars. In order to install NASCAR style door bars, you encounter several large issues (among numerous others)
1--the additional door bars don't help much if you can't move the occupants closer together to gain crumple zone; given a compact car like and Impreza, this isn't real feasible.
2--NASCAR door bars would make ingress/egress do difficult that they'd add a degree of danger in the typical "climb out the window when you're upside down in the ditch" kind of normal rally shunt.
3--The NASCAR door bars would make window design problematic, especially as regards weather protection. Stock car races get canceled if it rains--rallies don't. Ditto for snow, sleet, dust, or hail.
These issues are just a start. Technical discussion is good, it's just hard to handle emotionally when memories are raw like right now.
Dave G
lastditchracing.net
As it stands, rally cars are converted out of street cars. In order to install NASCAR style door bars, you encounter several large issues (among numerous others)
1--the additional door bars don't help much if you can't move the occupants closer together to gain crumple zone; given a compact car like and Impreza, this isn't real feasible.
2--NASCAR door bars would make ingress/egress do difficult that they'd add a degree of danger in the typical "climb out the window when you're upside down in the ditch" kind of normal rally shunt.
3--The NASCAR door bars would make window design problematic, especially as regards weather protection. Stock car races get canceled if it rains--rallies don't. Ditto for snow, sleet, dust, or hail.
These issues are just a start. Technical discussion is good, it's just hard to handle emotionally when memories are raw like right now.
Dave G
lastditchracing.net
| RaceComp Engineering | 09-22-2005 10:34 AM |
[QUOTE=rallykeith]While I understand fully the point you are trying to make, I just want it to be known that I have personally gotten involved in this conversation because 8 days from now I will be in this position. International Rally NY is sept. 30th, and I would rather have some understanding of things before I get in the passangers seat. As a co-driver it takes a lot to put your life in someone else's hands, and at a time like this I worry. Being able to talk out these things is helping me. It doesn't mean I respect the situation any less, in many respects I feel I respect it more.[/QUOTE]
Keith, I agree with you on that, and its just as hard to get in a car and race knowing the dangers as well.
How about this. We all deal with it differently. Whe I race its only me and not a co-driver. I guess ( and certainly this is an eye opener for me in this thread) as a driver with a co-driver its even harder as you have another life you are risking at all times.
So then I back off a little, and can see you guys( the actuall drivers and co-drivers) points. I can see where my opinion was more so based on the timing. But yeah Keith when you put it that way, it doesnt change things alot.
It made me think of a time when I lost a friend in a car who had a cage that bolted to the floor ( same make as mine) and it poked thru on a soft once over roll. I knew I had to get in the same type of car with the same type of cage and drive,..........as ITB cars roll more often than one would think.
So in that there is an apology.
Keith, I agree with you on that, and its just as hard to get in a car and race knowing the dangers as well.
How about this. We all deal with it differently. Whe I race its only me and not a co-driver. I guess ( and certainly this is an eye opener for me in this thread) as a driver with a co-driver its even harder as you have another life you are risking at all times.
So then I back off a little, and can see you guys( the actuall drivers and co-drivers) points. I can see where my opinion was more so based on the timing. But yeah Keith when you put it that way, it doesnt change things alot.
It made me think of a time when I lost a friend in a car who had a cage that bolted to the floor ( same make as mine) and it poked thru on a soft once over roll. I knew I had to get in the same type of car with the same type of cage and drive,..........as ITB cars roll more often than one would think.
So in that there is an apology.
| M. Hurst | 09-22-2005 10:48 AM |
[QUOTE=Racer5] I think the first thing we all need to do is to think seriously about the nascar style doorbars that extends into the doors as far as is reasonable / possible.
Seats are very important in this type of accident as well.
Charles[/QUOTE]
This is not a comment / reaction to this week's events, only a comment about "nascar" type bars in general.
Nascar style door bars, which curve outward from the front and rear hoops, are not recommended for rally cars, because unlike circuit racing, the bars are likely to be impacted and yield at a single point (tree), and the extra length of the curved bar will allow the bar to form a point and fold inward towards the occupant.
Although Nascar type bars have the advantage of compression loads at the welded joints, it has been discovered that it is safer to load the side bars in tension to their breaking point, instead of having an outwardly curved bar yield, and collapse inward.
Be sure to leave the doors stock, with impact beams, inner panels, and trim panels, even the regulator intact, because these items help to spread the load of a tree impact over a wider area on the door bars.. If the door is hollowed to make room for nascar bars, there is no structure left to help spread the load out onto the door bars, which makes them more likely to yield at a single point.
...from FIA safety consultants.
Mike Hurst
Technical Director
Rally-America
Seats are very important in this type of accident as well.
Charles[/QUOTE]
This is not a comment / reaction to this week's events, only a comment about "nascar" type bars in general.
Nascar style door bars, which curve outward from the front and rear hoops, are not recommended for rally cars, because unlike circuit racing, the bars are likely to be impacted and yield at a single point (tree), and the extra length of the curved bar will allow the bar to form a point and fold inward towards the occupant.
Although Nascar type bars have the advantage of compression loads at the welded joints, it has been discovered that it is safer to load the side bars in tension to their breaking point, instead of having an outwardly curved bar yield, and collapse inward.
Be sure to leave the doors stock, with impact beams, inner panels, and trim panels, even the regulator intact, because these items help to spread the load of a tree impact over a wider area on the door bars.. If the door is hollowed to make room for nascar bars, there is no structure left to help spread the load out onto the door bars, which makes them more likely to yield at a single point.
...from FIA safety consultants.
Mike Hurst
Technical Director
Rally-America
| CirrusWRX | 09-22-2005 11:04 AM |
I don't want to get into a pissing match and this is not directed at anybody in particular and I apologize for getting off topic, but I'm going to relay this incident to another sport that is near and dear to my heart: kiteboarding.
I assure you all my testicles are no larger than anybody else's, but I CAN assure you that kiteboarding is without a doubt more deadly than any form of auto racing. How do I know this? The number of people who die every MONTH around the globe. Beginners and experienced, pro's and kooks. When somebody learns of a death, the details are usually posted online and compiled in a list of fatal kiting accidents. The conditions when the incident took place are described (weather, temperature, location, etc.), what gear the kiter was using, the terrain and surrounding area (rocky, shallow, waves, etc.). People are shocked, people are saddened, people are sullen to hear about these deaths, and undoubtedly, family, friends, and loved ones feel the brunt of the tragedy.
Of course, the initial response is: "Let's go to xyz beach and have an afternoon session in memory of John Doe... that's what he would've wanted." It's a great way to remember the victim- do what they loved to do as a sign of respect, gratitude, and solitude. I'm sure they'd be proud.
Then, inevitably, people start analyzing what happened that resulted in the death of John Doe. Why? Because that's the only way we'll learn how to make the sport safer. We're not engineers, we're not physics majors, we're kiters. It's barely a 5 year old sport and the technoligcal advancements have come a LONG way since the beginning with a focus on safety. New designs and techniques are emerging literally every quarter.
Guess what: people still die. So the manufacturers go back to the drawing board and try to eliminate the weaknesses, improve safety and performance, without hopefully introducing new problems. People come up with ideas for modifying a safety system to make it better. The recommend conditions to avoid, where NOT to kite, what to do in an emergency situation, etc.
When you read about what caused some fellow kiter to lose his/her life, you can LEARN from their misfortune and frequently become more aware of yourself and your surroundings and YOUR habbits and techniques, thus, making YOU a safer and more experienced kiter. It reminds you that what you're doing can be deadly and should be treated as such. I understand we all don't drive WRC cars nor do we have the vast amounts of resources available to prepare our weekend racers like one, but for the love of god, get off "your" (not anybody in particular) high horse and realize we ALL might be able to take something away from this crash and LEARN something. Maybe it's cage design that needs to be discussed- just ideas kicked around. Maybe we need to rethink about taking our new, bone stock, STi's out to an HPDE and driving bawls out with no safety gear. Maybe we need to think about seating position relative to the side of the car. Maybe we should think about getting a HANS etc before our next race. Maybe we should think twice about pulling an all-nighter working on the car only to race tired the next day.
Take away from this crash and tragedy what you will. If you choose to not take anything other than sorrows, that's your choice, but please leave other people to this discussion
And for the record, just like race car drivers, we understand every time we go out on the beach and launch a gigantic kite in the air, something could go wrong; we could die doing what we love. Anybody who doesn't think about this is kidding themselves. That doesn't make us cool or sexy, but the thrill, emotion, and feeling you get when kiting is enough to make the risks worthwhile and keep everything in perspective.
Sorry for the OT, it's just something I had to say.
I assure you all my testicles are no larger than anybody else's, but I CAN assure you that kiteboarding is without a doubt more deadly than any form of auto racing. How do I know this? The number of people who die every MONTH around the globe. Beginners and experienced, pro's and kooks. When somebody learns of a death, the details are usually posted online and compiled in a list of fatal kiting accidents. The conditions when the incident took place are described (weather, temperature, location, etc.), what gear the kiter was using, the terrain and surrounding area (rocky, shallow, waves, etc.). People are shocked, people are saddened, people are sullen to hear about these deaths, and undoubtedly, family, friends, and loved ones feel the brunt of the tragedy.
Of course, the initial response is: "Let's go to xyz beach and have an afternoon session in memory of John Doe... that's what he would've wanted." It's a great way to remember the victim- do what they loved to do as a sign of respect, gratitude, and solitude. I'm sure they'd be proud.
Then, inevitably, people start analyzing what happened that resulted in the death of John Doe. Why? Because that's the only way we'll learn how to make the sport safer. We're not engineers, we're not physics majors, we're kiters. It's barely a 5 year old sport and the technoligcal advancements have come a LONG way since the beginning with a focus on safety. New designs and techniques are emerging literally every quarter.
Guess what: people still die. So the manufacturers go back to the drawing board and try to eliminate the weaknesses, improve safety and performance, without hopefully introducing new problems. People come up with ideas for modifying a safety system to make it better. The recommend conditions to avoid, where NOT to kite, what to do in an emergency situation, etc.
When you read about what caused some fellow kiter to lose his/her life, you can LEARN from their misfortune and frequently become more aware of yourself and your surroundings and YOUR habbits and techniques, thus, making YOU a safer and more experienced kiter. It reminds you that what you're doing can be deadly and should be treated as such. I understand we all don't drive WRC cars nor do we have the vast amounts of resources available to prepare our weekend racers like one, but for the love of god, get off "your" (not anybody in particular) high horse and realize we ALL might be able to take something away from this crash and LEARN something. Maybe it's cage design that needs to be discussed- just ideas kicked around. Maybe we need to rethink about taking our new, bone stock, STi's out to an HPDE and driving bawls out with no safety gear. Maybe we need to think about seating position relative to the side of the car. Maybe we should think about getting a HANS etc before our next race. Maybe we should think twice about pulling an all-nighter working on the car only to race tired the next day.
Take away from this crash and tragedy what you will. If you choose to not take anything other than sorrows, that's your choice, but please leave other people to this discussion
And for the record, just like race car drivers, we understand every time we go out on the beach and launch a gigantic kite in the air, something could go wrong; we could die doing what we love. Anybody who doesn't think about this is kidding themselves. That doesn't make us cool or sexy, but the thrill, emotion, and feeling you get when kiting is enough to make the risks worthwhile and keep everything in perspective.
Sorry for the OT, it's just something I had to say.
| Kha0S | 09-22-2005 12:08 PM |
[QUOTE=M. Hurst]
Although Nascar type bars have the advantage of compression loads at the welded joints, it has been discovered that it is safer to load the side bars in tension to their breaking point, instead of having an outwardly curved bar yield, and collapse inward.
Be sure to leave the doors stock, with impact beams, inner panels, and trim panels, even the regulator intact, because these items help to spread the load of a tree impact over a wider area on the door bars.. If the door is hollowed to make room for nascar bars, there is no structure left to help spread the load out onto the door bars, which makes them more likely to yield at a single point.
[/QUOTE]
Solid points, Mike, and I appreciate your candor in contributing here, as you are perhaps the most equipped of anyone here to comment on cage requirements in the context of rallying.
The discussion of compression versus tension loads in the stressed members of a cage during an impact is a good one. Certainly, a mandrel-type impact (tree, post, or other narrow, immovable object) is very different in the sorts of loads than would be seen in a wall or t-bone type impact (that would be the predominant type of side-impact in stock car racing, with the exception of a pit-entry wall type impact).
To reflect this, IIHS and NCAP have both begun instituting post-type side-impact tests in addition to the classic T-bone tests in their vehicle safety evaluations. It's interesting to note that even low speed post-type side impacts (on the order of 20-30MPH) have shown fatal level injuries in road-car designs, predominantly due to impact forces of the head upon an cabin intrusion. This has driven the design of window curtain-type airbags that have improved survivability in these types of impacts.
A common metric used in the industry is B-pillar intrusion distance with reference to the centerline of the seat. The intrusion that the Peugeot 307 WRC suffered was markedly similar in terms of the structural failure to these sorts of post-type tests.
I think it's obvious that the cage failed under a combination of compression and tension loads at various points in the cage (though, the exact combination of failures can't be known until more information is released).
As Mike indicated, the compression-type joints in a NASCAR-style cage wouldn't provide any substantial improvement in intrusion with an impact with narrow application of force. On the same token, additional supporting materials within the door bars, overhead halo, and main hoop areas could likely have lessened the level of failure within the cage and reduced the depth of the cabin intrusion.
It's interesting to note that the WRC cars also run stock door panels and roof panels (ie, must be the standard steel pieces from the homologated model), and cannot run composites for those parts. I don't know the FIA regs regarding maintaining other components within the door, however (namely the impact beam structure).
In order for the B-pillar to intrude, the side of the cage (including door bars and rear bars extending behind the B-pillar) would have had to fail in tension, the crossbars in the main hoop and the roof would have had to fail in compression. These cages are optimized for chassis rigidity, weight, and occupant protection... is it possible that previously "redundant" elements that were avoided for extra weight and no substantial increase in rigidity might have prevented the intrusion of the pillar? What other sorts of incidents have we seen similar hits?
Keep the discussion going! Lots of great information in here.
/Andrew
Although Nascar type bars have the advantage of compression loads at the welded joints, it has been discovered that it is safer to load the side bars in tension to their breaking point, instead of having an outwardly curved bar yield, and collapse inward.
Be sure to leave the doors stock, with impact beams, inner panels, and trim panels, even the regulator intact, because these items help to spread the load of a tree impact over a wider area on the door bars.. If the door is hollowed to make room for nascar bars, there is no structure left to help spread the load out onto the door bars, which makes them more likely to yield at a single point.
[/QUOTE]
Solid points, Mike, and I appreciate your candor in contributing here, as you are perhaps the most equipped of anyone here to comment on cage requirements in the context of rallying.
The discussion of compression versus tension loads in the stressed members of a cage during an impact is a good one. Certainly, a mandrel-type impact (tree, post, or other narrow, immovable object) is very different in the sorts of loads than would be seen in a wall or t-bone type impact (that would be the predominant type of side-impact in stock car racing, with the exception of a pit-entry wall type impact).
To reflect this, IIHS and NCAP have both begun instituting post-type side-impact tests in addition to the classic T-bone tests in their vehicle safety evaluations. It's interesting to note that even low speed post-type side impacts (on the order of 20-30MPH) have shown fatal level injuries in road-car designs, predominantly due to impact forces of the head upon an cabin intrusion. This has driven the design of window curtain-type airbags that have improved survivability in these types of impacts.
A common metric used in the industry is B-pillar intrusion distance with reference to the centerline of the seat. The intrusion that the Peugeot 307 WRC suffered was markedly similar in terms of the structural failure to these sorts of post-type tests.
I think it's obvious that the cage failed under a combination of compression and tension loads at various points in the cage (though, the exact combination of failures can't be known until more information is released).
As Mike indicated, the compression-type joints in a NASCAR-style cage wouldn't provide any substantial improvement in intrusion with an impact with narrow application of force. On the same token, additional supporting materials within the door bars, overhead halo, and main hoop areas could likely have lessened the level of failure within the cage and reduced the depth of the cabin intrusion.
It's interesting to note that the WRC cars also run stock door panels and roof panels (ie, must be the standard steel pieces from the homologated model), and cannot run composites for those parts. I don't know the FIA regs regarding maintaining other components within the door, however (namely the impact beam structure).
In order for the B-pillar to intrude, the side of the cage (including door bars and rear bars extending behind the B-pillar) would have had to fail in tension, the crossbars in the main hoop and the roof would have had to fail in compression. These cages are optimized for chassis rigidity, weight, and occupant protection... is it possible that previously "redundant" elements that were avoided for extra weight and no substantial increase in rigidity might have prevented the intrusion of the pillar? What other sorts of incidents have we seen similar hits?
Keep the discussion going! Lots of great information in here.
/Andrew
| AdvanSTI | 09-22-2005 12:30 PM |
[QUOTE=rallykeith]That would help. In the states we mandadted FIA approved cage padding for anywhere a helmet could hit, but that was all. Maybe adding it between the seat and the cage would be good.[/QUOTE]
Maybe a thick rubber bushing-type around the seat mounts? kind of like an engine mount? it could take off some of the force from the impact. not ALOT but it could help. any ideas on it?
Maybe a thick rubber bushing-type around the seat mounts? kind of like an engine mount? it could take off some of the force from the impact. not ALOT but it could help. any ideas on it?
| Howl | 09-22-2005 01:35 PM |
I realize WRC team make their own stage notes, but for regional rallys with route notes maybe "Caution! Tree Outside", should be used in places where there is the potential for this kind of accident. Mind you in some rallys you may need to use it an almost every corner.
| TimStevens | 09-22-2005 01:40 PM |
[QUOTE=AdvanSTI]Maybe a thick rubber bushing-type around the seat mounts? kind of like an engine mount? it could take off some of the force from the impact. not ALOT but it could help. any ideas on it?[/QUOTE]
This could, potentially, make things worse. A small amount of movement at the seat mounting point could result in a few inches worth of movement up at the occupant's head. And, the movement would be toward whatever object the car had impacted. That could be a problem in certain circumstances.
That said, something similar like seat sliders could work for head-on or rear-on impacts, that would allow the seats to slide forward or back maybe 6 inches in a massive accident to slow the decelleration. however, since the harnesses aren't attached to the seats, they'd have to somehow be modified to provide for the movement... that'd add a lot of potential failure points.
This could, potentially, make things worse. A small amount of movement at the seat mounting point could result in a few inches worth of movement up at the occupant's head. And, the movement would be toward whatever object the car had impacted. That could be a problem in certain circumstances.
That said, something similar like seat sliders could work for head-on or rear-on impacts, that would allow the seats to slide forward or back maybe 6 inches in a massive accident to slow the decelleration. however, since the harnesses aren't attached to the seats, they'd have to somehow be modified to provide for the movement... that'd add a lot of potential failure points.
| M. Hurst | 09-22-2005 01:45 PM |
[QUOTE=AdvanSTI]Maybe a thick rubber bushing-type around the seat mounts? [/QUOTE]
The occupant sees more G forces than the car does.
This is because of the relative motion of the occupant to the chassis of the car in the early stages of impact. Therefore the crash event occurs over a shorter period of time for the occupant than it does for the vehicle.
The sooner the occupant stops moving in relation to the car (end of slack in the belts, head aginst the head restraint in the seat), the longer the crash event becomes for the occupant.
Longer event (time) results in less force.
So no, a flexible seat mount is not good, because it delays the slowing of the occupant, and shortens the impact time resulting in an increase in force...be sure to think in terms of a brutal 30-100G imapct, not how a soft or flexible seat feels better in reacting to light forces.
This is why in testing, it has been shown that tighter belts, and belts that restrain even the pelvis area sooner in the impact event, will result in a decrease in neck tension and shear.
More dense cage padding also lengthens the time from when the helmet contacts the padding, to when the padding is fully compressed.
Issues concerning intrusion are a seperate matter.
The occupant sees more G forces than the car does.
This is because of the relative motion of the occupant to the chassis of the car in the early stages of impact. Therefore the crash event occurs over a shorter period of time for the occupant than it does for the vehicle.
The sooner the occupant stops moving in relation to the car (end of slack in the belts, head aginst the head restraint in the seat), the longer the crash event becomes for the occupant.
Longer event (time) results in less force.
So no, a flexible seat mount is not good, because it delays the slowing of the occupant, and shortens the impact time resulting in an increase in force...be sure to think in terms of a brutal 30-100G imapct, not how a soft or flexible seat feels better in reacting to light forces.
This is why in testing, it has been shown that tighter belts, and belts that restrain even the pelvis area sooner in the impact event, will result in a decrease in neck tension and shear.
More dense cage padding also lengthens the time from when the helmet contacts the padding, to when the padding is fully compressed.
Issues concerning intrusion are a seperate matter.
| CirrusWRX | 09-22-2005 01:47 PM |
What is known about this particular area leading up to where Markko went off? Has it been stated already, if so I apologize?
In other words, was he coming out of a turn, on a straightaway, preparing for a turn? Was he most likely braking/accelerating? Was there an obstacle that threw off his line (marked or otherwise?)
In other words, was he coming out of a turn, on a straightaway, preparing for a turn? Was he most likely braking/accelerating? Was there an obstacle that threw off his line (marked or otherwise?)
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét