| akuhner | 09-22-2005 01:57 PM |
[QUOTE=M. Hurst]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.
.[/QUOTE]So then, a harness bar behind the seats is better than stringing them all the way back because there will be less slack, right? I hope so because the car I'm trying to buy has a harness bar.
Longer event (time) results in less force.
.[/QUOTE]So then, a harness bar behind the seats is better than stringing them all the way back because there will be less slack, right? I hope so because the car I'm trying to buy has a harness bar.
| nimblegimbal | 09-22-2005 02:00 PM |
[QUOTE=CirrusWRX]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Hmmm... on impact the car probably bent, alot of the blunt force would be dissapated with that bend, so impact wouldn't happen so fast or with as much force on the driver side, ie, markko didn't come to an abrupt stop as fast as park, and didn't directly hit anything himself.
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.
[/QUOTE]
Hmmm... on impact the car probably bent, alot of the blunt force would be dissapated with that bend, so impact wouldn't happen so fast or with as much force on the driver side, ie, markko didn't come to an abrupt stop as fast as park, and didn't directly hit anything himself.
| GarySheehan | 09-22-2005 05:52 PM |
I don't think a conventional style rally car can be built to save a life in this type of an impact. There is just way too much energy to get rid of in way to little space. Not to be morbid, but Mike essentially hit a tree at 80mph while Marko was sitting in a car that hit a tree at 80mph. Big difference. Unless you can put the occupants in tandem and give each of them plenty of crushable area around them to absorb the impact, I can't see a way of preventing this type of outcome. Perhaps at lower speeds some of the suggestions would be helpful, but 80mph is really fast.
Driving through trees at high speeds is a very dangerous business. Although it looks like it would be blast, I am not brave enough to accept those risks.
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
Driving through trees at high speeds is a very dangerous business. Although it looks like it would be blast, I am not brave enough to accept those risks.
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
| Racer5 | 09-23-2005 07:22 PM |
:) I'm sure that things can be done to vastly increase the safety of a rally car.
What about a nerf bar style doorbar? This would add needed triangulation that the nascar style door bar does not have. With the angular point of the nerf bar style door bar being at the same point horizontally as the occupants torso / hips.
For the roof halo structure a diamond shape triangulation with the points of the diamond lining up with the occupants torso / head area when viewed from above.
Thoughts?
I need some good physics software...
What about a nerf bar style doorbar? This would add needed triangulation that the nascar style door bar does not have. With the angular point of the nerf bar style door bar being at the same point horizontally as the occupants torso / hips.
For the roof halo structure a diamond shape triangulation with the points of the diamond lining up with the occupants torso / head area when viewed from above.
Thoughts?
I need some good physics software...
| sunnynw | 09-23-2005 07:25 PM |
[QUOTE=Howl]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.[/QUOTE]
I really don't think that is a good idea. I would never get to say anything else to the Driver.
I really don't think that is a good idea. I would never get to say anything else to the Driver.
| GravelRash | 09-25-2005 06:46 AM |
Yeah...for OR, WA, and BC rallies you'd pretty much just need one instruction, right at the start: "Caution! Trees everywhere!" :eek:
I hadn't thought about it prior to this thread, but Storm's comment about the possible tilted attitude of the car, others' points about pillar and roof cage structure - and the screen shot, prompted an idea: filling in much of the open area among the roof halo members with a light, rigid, material like a honeycomb panel, or structural foam sandwich panel.
The goal would be to support the various halo members for loads applied in the plane of the roof, e.g. the current accident. The picture appears to show the maximum intrusion at the roof level, and this doesn't really surprise me: the bottom of the car has the entire floorpan backing up the sills and lower cage members; the roof, for these loads, has far less support.
If the roof halo were supported in this manner it seems that far more structure would be in play resisting this type of impact. All the pillars of the shell itself, plus the associated cage members, would be resisting movement of the entire roof/cage halo and distributing the loads.
If the roof/pillar stucture can absorb and distribute the loads with less deformation than shown here that should mean that the door and side cage have less work to do. And that's good, because there's so little that can practically be done to add significant strength in that area. Of course this doesn't help for something like a bridge abutment, but there are a lot more trees out there than there are short, solid, mandrel objects.
At some point it's a matter of inches - or less, particularly in this worst case scenario. Perhaps a much more rigid roof plane could buy more room...
I hadn't thought about it prior to this thread, but Storm's comment about the possible tilted attitude of the car, others' points about pillar and roof cage structure - and the screen shot, prompted an idea: filling in much of the open area among the roof halo members with a light, rigid, material like a honeycomb panel, or structural foam sandwich panel.
The goal would be to support the various halo members for loads applied in the plane of the roof, e.g. the current accident. The picture appears to show the maximum intrusion at the roof level, and this doesn't really surprise me: the bottom of the car has the entire floorpan backing up the sills and lower cage members; the roof, for these loads, has far less support.
If the roof halo were supported in this manner it seems that far more structure would be in play resisting this type of impact. All the pillars of the shell itself, plus the associated cage members, would be resisting movement of the entire roof/cage halo and distributing the loads.
If the roof/pillar stucture can absorb and distribute the loads with less deformation than shown here that should mean that the door and side cage have less work to do. And that's good, because there's so little that can practically be done to add significant strength in that area. Of course this doesn't help for something like a bridge abutment, but there are a lot more trees out there than there are short, solid, mandrel objects.
At some point it's a matter of inches - or less, particularly in this worst case scenario. Perhaps a much more rigid roof plane could buy more room...
| CirrusWRX | 09-25-2005 10:41 AM |
^that sounds like a pretty good idea- thinking about last years Solberg/Mills crash in Rally Deutschland with one of those hinklestein (sp? giant concrete tank-directing objects burried in the ground)
The first hit they took was sort of on the upper a-pillar which many thought comprimised the cage on the first hit, then, after every flip, it further compressed to the point where it started pushing against Mills' head causing him to "bend" towards the center of the car. Maybe if the roof/a-pillar had held up just a bit better he wouldn't have been in such a close call. But again, as you point out, like with the Peugot crash, this was with a gigantic concrete object used to steer tanks, so maybe it is just "what can you do?"
The first hit they took was sort of on the upper a-pillar which many thought comprimised the cage on the first hit, then, after every flip, it further compressed to the point where it started pushing against Mills' head causing him to "bend" towards the center of the car. Maybe if the roof/a-pillar had held up just a bit better he wouldn't have been in such a close call. But again, as you point out, like with the Peugot crash, this was with a gigantic concrete object used to steer tanks, so maybe it is just "what can you do?"
| FaastLegacy | 09-25-2005 10:47 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.
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]
That'd be true if he hit another car going the same speed, 80 mph. But he hit a stationary object, in that case 80 mph is 80 mph.
I don't think this incident was as much about speed as it was cockpit intrusion. Otherwise Markko would have perished as well. Certainly speed contributed to it, but the deforming of the passenger side appears to be what ultimately led to Park's demise.
I think we got really lucky last year with Petter and the hinkelsteins. One more roll, even half a roll, and that could have been it. Thank god codrivers sit lower in the car.
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]
That'd be true if he hit another car going the same speed, 80 mph. But he hit a stationary object, in that case 80 mph is 80 mph.
I don't think this incident was as much about speed as it was cockpit intrusion. Otherwise Markko would have perished as well. Certainly speed contributed to it, but the deforming of the passenger side appears to be what ultimately led to Park's demise.
I think we got really lucky last year with Petter and the hinkelsteins. One more roll, even half a roll, and that could have been it. Thank god codrivers sit lower in the car.
| Geek Guy | 09-25-2005 12:22 PM |
Mike,
Can you comment on the similar aspects of Mark Lovell/Roger Freeman accident at Oregon Trails a number of years back, and Markko/Michael's accident here at Rally GB. Both seem to have similar impacts on the location of the cars, speeds, etc.
Can you comment on the similar aspects of Mark Lovell/Roger Freeman accident at Oregon Trails a number of years back, and Markko/Michael's accident here at Rally GB. Both seem to have similar impacts on the location of the cars, speeds, etc.
| GarySheehan | 09-25-2005 03:56 PM |
You have to consider that increasing the rigidity of the cage to prevent intrusion will increase the chances of injury or death to the opposite occupant.
Also, consider that they use FIA seats in these cars, which are quite flexible. I'd bet that Marko's seat flexed towards the point of impact quite a bit, increasing his crash event duration. Even with a rigid cage that prevented intrusion, Michael's seat wouldn't have the free space to move and he would still be in contact with the tree.
I'm not saying it's impossible to improve the safety of these cars, but this is one of the most fatal hits a rallycar can take given the occupants seating position.
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
Also, consider that they use FIA seats in these cars, which are quite flexible. I'd bet that Marko's seat flexed towards the point of impact quite a bit, increasing his crash event duration. Even with a rigid cage that prevented intrusion, Michael's seat wouldn't have the free space to move and he would still be in contact with the tree.
I'm not saying it's impossible to improve the safety of these cars, but this is one of the most fatal hits a rallycar can take given the occupants seating position.
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
| RRR-K2 | 09-25-2005 04:26 PM |
[QUOTE=Geek Guy]Mike,
Can you comment on the similar aspects of Mark Lovell/Roger Freeman accident at Oregon Trails a number of years back...[/QUOTE]
As far as I know, he unfortunately really can't (without opening a big can-o-worms for himself, SCCA, etc...).
Without saying too much publicly, I will add that in the two [U]competitor[/U] death's that have happened in the PA woods in the past 15 yesrs, it appears that we are talking about the same kind of thing. This is the kind of "off" that worries me more than anything else.
As for Rodger Freeth (Possum's Co-Driver), the shoulder belts were attached to the "original seat belt mounts for the rear seat passengers <as opposed to the cage>. When the car hit the tree, <on Roj's side> it moved that part of the body-shell back, and the belts compressed Roj's rib cage, squashing his lungs, liver, and kidneys." <taken from Possum's autobiography "Bourne to Rally">
The ironic part is that they had already moved the mounts to the cage crossbar in all the other cars, and were going to move them in that car after that rally :(
Matt Kennedy
[URL=http://www.RockyRoadRacing.com][U][COLOR=DarkRed]www.RockyRoadRacing.com[/COLOR][/U][/URL]
Can you comment on the similar aspects of Mark Lovell/Roger Freeman accident at Oregon Trails a number of years back...[/QUOTE]
As far as I know, he unfortunately really can't (without opening a big can-o-worms for himself, SCCA, etc...).
Without saying too much publicly, I will add that in the two [U]competitor[/U] death's that have happened in the PA woods in the past 15 yesrs, it appears that we are talking about the same kind of thing. This is the kind of "off" that worries me more than anything else.
As for Rodger Freeth (Possum's Co-Driver), the shoulder belts were attached to the "original seat belt mounts for the rear seat passengers <as opposed to the cage>. When the car hit the tree, <on Roj's side> it moved that part of the body-shell back, and the belts compressed Roj's rib cage, squashing his lungs, liver, and kidneys." <taken from Possum's autobiography "Bourne to Rally">
The ironic part is that they had already moved the mounts to the cage crossbar in all the other cars, and were going to move them in that car after that rally :(
Matt Kennedy
[URL=http://www.RockyRoadRacing.com][U][COLOR=DarkRed]www.RockyRoadRacing.com[/COLOR][/U][/URL]
| AlexP | 09-25-2005 05:36 PM |
[QUOTE=Car #187]So then, a harness bar behind the seats is better than stringing them all the way back because there will be less slack, right? I hope so because the car I'm trying to buy has a harness bar.[/QUOTE]
BINGO! Remember the MGB-GT that went head-on into a tree at a spectator point at STPR a couple years back? He had a harness bar directly behind his seat, his belts where TIGHT, and his helmet still hit (and broke) his steering wheel. FIA style belts are, IMO, absolutely absurd.
For those that witnessed this accident (I did), it really didn't look that bad, but the force involved was tremendous. Not only did the driver's helmet contact the steering wheel, the entire drivetrain (including the unibody mounting points) shifted in the car about 6 inches.... Didn't look like much more than a 40mph hit, too.
And the amount of physics ignorance being spouted in this thread is scary....
BINGO! Remember the MGB-GT that went head-on into a tree at a spectator point at STPR a couple years back? He had a harness bar directly behind his seat, his belts where TIGHT, and his helmet still hit (and broke) his steering wheel. FIA style belts are, IMO, absolutely absurd.
For those that witnessed this accident (I did), it really didn't look that bad, but the force involved was tremendous. Not only did the driver's helmet contact the steering wheel, the entire drivetrain (including the unibody mounting points) shifted in the car about 6 inches.... Didn't look like much more than a 40mph hit, too.
And the amount of physics ignorance being spouted in this thread is scary....
| M. Hurst | 09-25-2005 06:01 PM |
[QUOTE=GarySheehan]You have to consider that increasing the rigidity of the cage to prevent intrusion will increase the chances of injury or death to the opposite occupant......
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url][/QUOTE]
Other forms of motorsports have proven that the human body is capable of 100+G impacts without serious injury.
...so increased rigidity of the car and cage to reduce intrusion can work, but [B]only[/B] if this is accompanied by restraining the driver / co-driver better with restraints and containment seats. One won't work without the other.
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url][/QUOTE]
Other forms of motorsports have proven that the human body is capable of 100+G impacts without serious injury.
...so increased rigidity of the car and cage to reduce intrusion can work, but [B]only[/B] if this is accompanied by restraining the driver / co-driver better with restraints and containment seats. One won't work without the other.
| akuhner | 09-26-2005 10:09 AM |
[QUOTE=M. Hurst]Other forms of motorsports have proven that the human body is capable of 100+G impacts without serious injury.
...so increased rigidity of the car and cage to reduce intrusion can work, but [B]only[/B] if this is accompanied by restraining the driver / co-driver better with restraints and containment seats. One won't work without the other.[/QUOTE]
So then why do we approve belts that stretch? There are plenty of textiles that do not stretch that can be used, I'm sure some of the no-stretch rope materials developed for sailing could be applied to belts.
...so increased rigidity of the car and cage to reduce intrusion can work, but [B]only[/B] if this is accompanied by restraining the driver / co-driver better with restraints and containment seats. One won't work without the other.[/QUOTE]
So then why do we approve belts that stretch? There are plenty of textiles that do not stretch that can be used, I'm sure some of the no-stretch rope materials developed for sailing could be applied to belts.
| M. Hurst | 09-26-2005 10:54 AM |
[QUOTE=Car #187]So then why do we approve belts that stretch? There are plenty of textiles that do not stretch that can be used, I'm sure some of the no-stretch rope materials developed for sailing could be applied to belts.[/QUOTE]
In terms of the amount of belt strech relative to the deformation of the human body, the belts we use now are hardly stretching.
In the videos we've seen video of high force impacts, whether human or dummies, the vast majority of the forward motion of the subject (coming away from the seat back), is the result of compression / deformation of the body, not belt stretch.
In terms of the amount of belt strech relative to the deformation of the human body, the belts we use now are hardly stretching.
In the videos we've seen video of high force impacts, whether human or dummies, the vast majority of the forward motion of the subject (coming away from the seat back), is the result of compression / deformation of the body, not belt stretch.
| ChicksDigWagons | 09-26-2005 12:25 PM |
[QUOTE=Subie Gal]
it's like this.
80mph - into a tree = 160mph impact
- speed doubles when you hit something that abruptly, just like a head on collision -
Jamie[/QUOTE]
[b]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.[/b]
:eek:
it's like this.
80mph - into a tree = 160mph impact
- speed doubles when you hit something that abruptly, just like a head on collision -
Jamie[/QUOTE]
[b]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.[/b]
:eek:
| nimblegimbal | 09-26-2005 12:34 PM |
well, while it is just blatantly wrong, she has something of a point...
f=ma, or f=m*(change in v/change in t) , as you decrease time (ie, abrupt impact) , the accelleration increases alot, thus the force increases, higher G's...
f=ma, or f=m*(change in v/change in t) , as you decrease time (ie, abrupt impact) , the accelleration increases alot, thus the force increases, higher G's...
| tt_ttf | 09-26-2005 03:25 PM |
[QUOTE=RRR-K2]
As for Rodger Freeth (Possum's Co-Driver), the shoulder belts were attached to the "original seat belt mounts for the rear seat passengers <as opposed to the cage>. When the car hit the tree, <on Roj's side> it moved that part of the body-shell back, and the belts compressed Roj's rib cage, squashing his lungs, liver, and kidneys." <taken from Possum's autobiography "Bourne to Rally">
The ironic part is that they had already moved the mounts to the cage crossbar in all the other cars, and were going to move them in that car after that rally :(
[/QUOTE]
This actually has more in common than most of the comments I have seen about NASCAR and Earnhart. I think a few people here need to go read the formal NASCAR report
Dale's crash had 2 major factors that were totally unrelated to the cage in anyway and one of them was bad luck, the second was his own fault and something he had already been warned about
1. His initial crash vector was actually minor, but the bump from the other car basically turned him into the wall whilst he was trying to steer/power out of it. Went from shallow to basically right at the wall and accelerating.
2. He had been repeatedly warned about how he attached the torso straps of his harness to the floor of his car. The extreme angle tore one side of it loose during the first impact with the other car.
Those 2 items were the single largest contributors to the accident. There is a good deal of belief that if the belt had held, whilst he would not have been well, he would have had a good chance of survival.
As for Beef, have a good look at the car - it was square centered on the tree and short of driving a tank that could have made the tree snap and be the crumble zone, there is very little practical that could have been done.
Tragically, it came down to there being no where for the energy to be dispated to before he ran out of room.
The worst of this is that is a simple racing accident, the sort that there is always a chance of happening in this sport, and Markko will be second guessing himself. I only hope he will be able to get through that.
That will be the second tragedy in all this and one that even Beef himself would not want to see Markko scarred by.
As for Rodger Freeth (Possum's Co-Driver), the shoulder belts were attached to the "original seat belt mounts for the rear seat passengers <as opposed to the cage>. When the car hit the tree, <on Roj's side> it moved that part of the body-shell back, and the belts compressed Roj's rib cage, squashing his lungs, liver, and kidneys." <taken from Possum's autobiography "Bourne to Rally">
The ironic part is that they had already moved the mounts to the cage crossbar in all the other cars, and were going to move them in that car after that rally :(
[/QUOTE]
This actually has more in common than most of the comments I have seen about NASCAR and Earnhart. I think a few people here need to go read the formal NASCAR report
Dale's crash had 2 major factors that were totally unrelated to the cage in anyway and one of them was bad luck, the second was his own fault and something he had already been warned about
1. His initial crash vector was actually minor, but the bump from the other car basically turned him into the wall whilst he was trying to steer/power out of it. Went from shallow to basically right at the wall and accelerating.
2. He had been repeatedly warned about how he attached the torso straps of his harness to the floor of his car. The extreme angle tore one side of it loose during the first impact with the other car.
Those 2 items were the single largest contributors to the accident. There is a good deal of belief that if the belt had held, whilst he would not have been well, he would have had a good chance of survival.
As for Beef, have a good look at the car - it was square centered on the tree and short of driving a tank that could have made the tree snap and be the crumble zone, there is very little practical that could have been done.
Tragically, it came down to there being no where for the energy to be dispated to before he ran out of room.
The worst of this is that is a simple racing accident, the sort that there is always a chance of happening in this sport, and Markko will be second guessing himself. I only hope he will be able to get through that.
That will be the second tragedy in all this and one that even Beef himself would not want to see Markko scarred by.
| sunnynw | 09-26-2005 03:46 PM |
[QUOTE=M. Hurst]Other forms of motorsports have proven that the human body is capable of 100+G impacts without serious injury.
...so increased rigidity of the car and cage to reduce intrusion can work, but [B]only[/B] if this is accompanied by restraining the driver / co-driver better with restraints and containment seats. One won't work without the other.[/QUOTE]
What about adding energy absorbing high density sheet foam like the type BSCI makes to re-enforce the door structures & the roof in conjunction with additional better restraints?
Also, what about adding Drivers nets to the list of additional restraints? Safety Solutions makes several Drivers nets(NOT Window nets) that are designed to go between the Driver & Co-Driver to help guide the occupant back into the seat system during an impact.
[url]http://www.safedrives.com/proddetail.asp?prod=SafeSolHDNet&cat=31[/url]
...so increased rigidity of the car and cage to reduce intrusion can work, but [B]only[/B] if this is accompanied by restraining the driver / co-driver better with restraints and containment seats. One won't work without the other.[/QUOTE]
What about adding energy absorbing high density sheet foam like the type BSCI makes to re-enforce the door structures & the roof in conjunction with additional better restraints?
Also, what about adding Drivers nets to the list of additional restraints? Safety Solutions makes several Drivers nets(NOT Window nets) that are designed to go between the Driver & Co-Driver to help guide the occupant back into the seat system during an impact.
[url]http://www.safedrives.com/proddetail.asp?prod=SafeSolHDNet&cat=31[/url]
| tt_ttf | 09-26-2005 03:56 PM |
[QUOTE=sunnynw]What about adding energy absorbing high density sheet foam like the type BSCI makes to re-enforce the door structures & the roof in conjunction with additional better restraints?
Also, what about adding Drivers nets to the list of additional restraints? Safety Solutions makes several Drivers nets(NOT Window nets) that are designed to go between the Driver & Co-Driver to help guide the occupant back into the seat system during an impact.
[url="http://www.safedrives.com/proddetail.asp?prod=SafeSolHDNet&cat=31"]http://www.safedrives.com/proddetail.asp?prod=SafeSolHDNet&cat=31[/url][/QUOTE]
That misses the point of this crash.
Those devices are good in rollover/bouncing around type events where the occupants are held into their safety environment and/or where there are making momentary contact with objects like the bars and helping to protect whilst the energy around them is disapated.
The physics of this are that at the point of impact, the G forces Beef encountered would have been much much higher (like many orders of magnitude!) as that tree does not effectively move and Beef, once the little space was remove between the tree and him, would have endured almost infinite instantaneous G impulses.
I don't know of a substance on earth that would be able, in sub inch thickness, disapate that much energy.......
Also, what about adding Drivers nets to the list of additional restraints? Safety Solutions makes several Drivers nets(NOT Window nets) that are designed to go between the Driver & Co-Driver to help guide the occupant back into the seat system during an impact.
[url="http://www.safedrives.com/proddetail.asp?prod=SafeSolHDNet&cat=31"]http://www.safedrives.com/proddetail.asp?prod=SafeSolHDNet&cat=31[/url][/QUOTE]
That misses the point of this crash.
Those devices are good in rollover/bouncing around type events where the occupants are held into their safety environment and/or where there are making momentary contact with objects like the bars and helping to protect whilst the energy around them is disapated.
The physics of this are that at the point of impact, the G forces Beef encountered would have been much much higher (like many orders of magnitude!) as that tree does not effectively move and Beef, once the little space was remove between the tree and him, would have endured almost infinite instantaneous G impulses.
I don't know of a substance on earth that would be able, in sub inch thickness, disapate that much energy.......
| GarySheehan | 09-26-2005 05:10 PM |
[QUOTE=tt_ttf]I don't know of a substance on earth that would be able, in sub inch thickness, disapate that much energy.......[/quote]
Sorbothane shoe inserts!......no, wait....
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
Sorbothane shoe inserts!......no, wait....
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
| tt_ttf | 09-26-2005 08:30 PM |
[QUOTE=GarySheehan]Sorbothane shoe inserts!......no, wait....
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url="http://www.teamSMR.com"]www.teamSMR.com[/url][/QUOTE]
Boy don't we all wish it was that simple.........:(
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url="http://www.teamSMR.com"]www.teamSMR.com[/url][/QUOTE]
Boy don't we all wish it was that simple.........:(
| fastdreams | 09-26-2005 09:34 PM |
didn't mean to post...sorry.
| WRXedUSA | 09-29-2005 10:22 PM |
I was just looking at some old pictures of Martin/Park I had from rallies. I've been reading this thread, sitting on the sideline in respect of the current situation.
In short, just by looking at the 307, Michael had no chance.
There is no cage surrounding him, no head restraint, no nothing. Poor guy never had a chance. Maybe a 307 cc convertible car isnt the best car for rallying from a safety perspective. There is no technical reason for the accident, it was just a horrible accident.
[IMG]http://www.thawa.net/gallery/albums/WRCGermany/MartinRammen.jpg[/IMG]
:(
In short, just by looking at the 307, Michael had no chance.
There is no cage surrounding him, no head restraint, no nothing. Poor guy never had a chance. Maybe a 307 cc convertible car isnt the best car for rallying from a safety perspective. There is no technical reason for the accident, it was just a horrible accident.
[IMG]http://www.thawa.net/gallery/albums/WRCGermany/MartinRammen.jpg[/IMG]
:(
| SlideWRX | 09-30-2005 02:02 PM |
[QUOTE=WRXedUSA]
There is no cage surrounding him, no head restraint, no nothing. Poor guy never had a chance. Maybe a 307 cc convertible car isnt the best car for rallying from a safety perspective. [/QUOTE]
I never knew that the 307 car was based off of the convertible version. I had never looked closely, as I just thought the 307 was relatively ugly. :) I'm suprised there wasn't more stink when it was introduced; the lack of a B-pillar should have been an obvious safety problem. I don't care if there's an additional cage; These aren't track cars, they are meant to be driven sideways. That certainly didn't help the roof structure. Considering that door openings get seam welded, a B-pillar could have helped a lot in this situation.
[QUOTE=ilnmcom]Not sure if this helps the tech discussion here, but...
[img]http://www.peugeot.de/sport/img/img_der307wrc.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
You can see in the image (and one above) that there isn't a B-pillar, just the A & C-pillars.
Tom
There is no cage surrounding him, no head restraint, no nothing. Poor guy never had a chance. Maybe a 307 cc convertible car isnt the best car for rallying from a safety perspective. [/QUOTE]
I never knew that the 307 car was based off of the convertible version. I had never looked closely, as I just thought the 307 was relatively ugly. :) I'm suprised there wasn't more stink when it was introduced; the lack of a B-pillar should have been an obvious safety problem. I don't care if there's an additional cage; These aren't track cars, they are meant to be driven sideways. That certainly didn't help the roof structure. Considering that door openings get seam welded, a B-pillar could have helped a lot in this situation.
[QUOTE=ilnmcom]Not sure if this helps the tech discussion here, but...
[img]http://www.peugeot.de/sport/img/img_der307wrc.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
You can see in the image (and one above) that there isn't a B-pillar, just the A & C-pillars.
Tom
| WRXedUSA | 09-30-2005 04:38 PM |
[IMG]http://bestcars.free.fr/Mondial2002/Peugeot%20307%20cc%201.jpg[/IMG]
Guh.
SWRT is running a special sticker in memorial on the rear spoiler. Check [url]www.subaru-global.com[/url] for pics.
Guh.
SWRT is running a special sticker in memorial on the rear spoiler. Check [url]www.subaru-global.com[/url] for pics.
| Protege Menace | 09-30-2005 05:22 PM |
[QUOTE=Howl]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.[/QUOTE]
They do. I can remember all of them too. I read it, look ahead and see a tree WAY closer to the road than the normal treeline. The dangerous sections are marked, even in route books.
They do. I can remember all of them too. I read it, look ahead and see a tree WAY closer to the road than the normal treeline. The dangerous sections are marked, even in route books.
| MyScoobie28 | 09-30-2005 08:55 PM |
sorry that im a little bit late with the news, but i just have three questions:
1. who was the driver/co-driver which which manufacture?
2. at which rally was this? and
3. which one died?
-Arthur.
1. who was the driver/co-driver which which manufacture?
2. at which rally was this? and
3. which one died?
-Arthur.
| akuhner | 10-01-2005 08:57 AM |
[QUOTE=MyScoobie28]sorry that im a little bit late with the news, but i just have three questions:
1. who was the driver/co-driver which which manufacture?
2. at which rally was this? and
3. which one died?
-Arthur.[/QUOTE]
Did you read the thread? You just created your own reading comprehension quiz, you must get 100% right for a passing grade... get to it.
1. who was the driver/co-driver which which manufacture?
2. at which rally was this? and
3. which one died?
-Arthur.[/QUOTE]
Did you read the thread? You just created your own reading comprehension quiz, you must get 100% right for a passing grade... get to it.
| burnera | 10-01-2005 05:41 PM |
The rallyt director quote had it right i think: design safer stages.
If hitting a tree side ways at 80mph isn't 100% survivable by any means, then remove the friggin tree!
I realize that removing tons of trees isnt possible in some places, but i would think the main areas of concern are after the apex of a turn.
also,
Perhaps some of this energy absorption material could be moulded into half-circles and then bungie-corded to offending trees before the rally.
---
with beefier door bars, one concern is getting out of the car in case the car becomes inhospitable. I'm thinking situations like fire (large or small) or being upside down in water.
If hitting a tree side ways at 80mph isn't 100% survivable by any means, then remove the friggin tree!
I realize that removing tons of trees isnt possible in some places, but i would think the main areas of concern are after the apex of a turn.
also,
Perhaps some of this energy absorption material could be moulded into half-circles and then bungie-corded to offending trees before the rally.
---
with beefier door bars, one concern is getting out of the car in case the car becomes inhospitable. I'm thinking situations like fire (large or small) or being upside down in water.
| bjorn240 | 10-01-2005 05:48 PM |
Better yet, why don't we just race around on tracks, with convenient ambulances and corner workers. Even better, that would allow us to dispense with co-drivers altogether. They could just sit in the pits and eat hot dogs.
I think the key is to balance the safety factor with the character of the sport. If you were going to remove all the dangerous trees at STPR, you'd deforest all of Tioga county. Then it's not rallying anymore...
- Christian
I think the key is to balance the safety factor with the character of the sport. If you were going to remove all the dangerous trees at STPR, you'd deforest all of Tioga county. Then it's not rallying anymore...
- Christian
| burnera | 10-01-2005 06:09 PM |
[QUOTE=burnera]
I realize that removing tons of trees isnt possible in some places, but i would think the main areas of concern are after the apex of a turn.
[/QUOTE]
thats why i put this sentence in there. Of course i dont know how much an extra 20' of sliding room would help... if at all.
and again, what about putting safer barriers in front of the trees?
maybe something like the water-filled barrels on highways and such.
I realize that removing tons of trees isnt possible in some places, but i would think the main areas of concern are after the apex of a turn.
[/QUOTE]
thats why i put this sentence in there. Of course i dont know how much an extra 20' of sliding room would help... if at all.
and again, what about putting safer barriers in front of the trees?
maybe something like the water-filled barrels on highways and such.
| akuhner | 10-01-2005 11:40 PM |
[QUOTE=burnera]The rallyt director quote had it right i think: design safer stages.
If hitting a tree side ways at 80mph isn't 100% survivable by any means, then remove the friggin tree!
.[/QUOTE]That's asinine. Rally IS racing on real roads with real trees and real dangers - rallyists CHOOSE to do this knowing that there are trees on the apex, and every where else for that matter. Taking down a single tree is a waste of time. Let's not forget, as noted above, the year that we lost 2 competitors in SCCA pro-rally you were as safe in a rally car as you were in a street car in NJ. What are you going to do to reduce that risk, take all the other cars off the road and ban driving in the rain?
Yes, make a safer car, but do it without changing the nature of the sport, "real cars, real roads, real fast" (stolen from SCCA's old rally motto). It comes with real risk too, just like everything else in life.
If hitting a tree side ways at 80mph isn't 100% survivable by any means, then remove the friggin tree!
.[/QUOTE]That's asinine. Rally IS racing on real roads with real trees and real dangers - rallyists CHOOSE to do this knowing that there are trees on the apex, and every where else for that matter. Taking down a single tree is a waste of time. Let's not forget, as noted above, the year that we lost 2 competitors in SCCA pro-rally you were as safe in a rally car as you were in a street car in NJ. What are you going to do to reduce that risk, take all the other cars off the road and ban driving in the rain?
Yes, make a safer car, but do it without changing the nature of the sport, "real cars, real roads, real fast" (stolen from SCCA's old rally motto). It comes with real risk too, just like everything else in life.
| bjorn240 | 10-02-2005 10:42 AM |
[QUOTE=burnera] and again, what about putting safer barriers in front of the trees? maybe something like the water-filled barrels on highways and such.[/QUOTE]
I know a little bit about the Fitch system. Here's a link to the New Jersey Department of Transportation design manual for inertial barrier systems:
[url]http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/eng/documents/RDME/figure9f.shtm[/url]
From the standards, to provide adequate safety for a 1,800 lbs vehicle at 50mph, you need 6 rows of barrels, with a total weight of 5,800 lbs. For a vehicle at 60mph, add another 5,800 lbs or so. Multiply that by 30 or 40 especially dangerous trees, and you're taking about a logistical undertaking the National Guard couldn't pull off.
Given this, I think it's clear that any safety additions in rallying needs to address the construction of the car, or the speeds attainable by the cars on stage. In other words, move the occupants in from the sides of the car, make the cars wider, or stick restrictors on the car.
Seriously, this is of more than academic importance to me, but to stick bumpers on every tree in the woods is no solution.
- Christian
[url]www.christianedstrom.com[/url]
I know a little bit about the Fitch system. Here's a link to the New Jersey Department of Transportation design manual for inertial barrier systems:
[url]http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/eng/documents/RDME/figure9f.shtm[/url]
From the standards, to provide adequate safety for a 1,800 lbs vehicle at 50mph, you need 6 rows of barrels, with a total weight of 5,800 lbs. For a vehicle at 60mph, add another 5,800 lbs or so. Multiply that by 30 or 40 especially dangerous trees, and you're taking about a logistical undertaking the National Guard couldn't pull off.
Given this, I think it's clear that any safety additions in rallying needs to address the construction of the car, or the speeds attainable by the cars on stage. In other words, move the occupants in from the sides of the car, make the cars wider, or stick restrictors on the car.
Seriously, this is of more than academic importance to me, but to stick bumpers on every tree in the woods is no solution.
- Christian
[url]www.christianedstrom.com[/url]
| RRR-K2 | 10-02-2005 01:22 PM |
[QUOTE=burnera] but i would think the main areas of concern are after the apex of a turn.[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily.
You're just as likely to loose it under heavy braking (remember, were usually talking about loose/unpredictable surfaces). And when you do find yourself in such a situation, you often have much less control over the outcome than when coming out of a corner (it basically becomes "[B]which[/B] tree do I want to hit...)
Matt Kennedy
[URL=http://www.RockyRoadRacing.com][U][COLOR=DarkRed]www.RockyRoadRAcing.com[/COLOR][/U][/URL]
Not necessarily.
You're just as likely to loose it under heavy braking (remember, were usually talking about loose/unpredictable surfaces). And when you do find yourself in such a situation, you often have much less control over the outcome than when coming out of a corner (it basically becomes "[B]which[/B] tree do I want to hit...)
Matt Kennedy
[URL=http://www.RockyRoadRacing.com][U][COLOR=DarkRed]www.RockyRoadRAcing.com[/COLOR][/U][/URL]
| Phil Jr. | 10-02-2005 09:01 PM |
Some of you have probably seen the old Air force experiments for ejection seats. In the early 50s a guy was propelled to 600+mph then stopped in under 1.5 seconds. That lead to about a 48g deceleration force, he survived....but was pushing the limits of the human body (I believe his retina were datched, among other injuries). I dont know where you guys have seen 100g+ accidents being survived. How much velocity and how little time would you need to produce a 100g decleration?
| M. Hurst | 10-02-2005 09:37 PM |
[QUOTE=Phil Jr.]I dont know where you guys have seen 100g+ accidents being survived. How much velocity and how little time would you need to produce a 100g decleration?[/QUOTE]
Ever heard of the IRL?
From a meeting with John Melvin, I've seen the data / crash recordings. The data is recorded by the vehicles, many in excess of 100G, and remember, the driver sees more force than the car.
The foundation of the theories of containment seats, etc, were born out of the history of indy car driver having 100G surviveable crashes, and stock car drivers having 50G fatal impacts...Why? 2 reasons.
1. Indy car drivers were / are fitted so tightly in their cars, stock car drivers were not restrained (side to side) above the torso.
2. In the pre-hans days, the Indy car drivers were hitting the steering wheel with the forehead area of the helmet in high-G frontal crashes, whereas the stock car drivers were hitting the steering wheel with the chin or chin bar area of the helmet...and yes, the body compression / belt stretch does allow your head to hit the wheel even when tightly belted in, in rally cars too!
Once again, this is not a comment on recent events, and intrusion is a completely different issue.
Ever heard of the IRL?
From a meeting with John Melvin, I've seen the data / crash recordings. The data is recorded by the vehicles, many in excess of 100G, and remember, the driver sees more force than the car.
The foundation of the theories of containment seats, etc, were born out of the history of indy car driver having 100G surviveable crashes, and stock car drivers having 50G fatal impacts...Why? 2 reasons.
1. Indy car drivers were / are fitted so tightly in their cars, stock car drivers were not restrained (side to side) above the torso.
2. In the pre-hans days, the Indy car drivers were hitting the steering wheel with the forehead area of the helmet in high-G frontal crashes, whereas the stock car drivers were hitting the steering wheel with the chin or chin bar area of the helmet...and yes, the body compression / belt stretch does allow your head to hit the wheel even when tightly belted in, in rally cars too!
Once again, this is not a comment on recent events, and intrusion is a completely different issue.
| Phil Jr. | 10-02-2005 09:45 PM |
yes, I have heard of the "in real life".... :rolleyes:
can you give an specific examples? I am mainly curious to see what speeds and times are involved to create a 100g decleration...
can you give an specific examples? I am mainly curious to see what speeds and times are involved to create a 100g decleration...
| bjorn240 | 10-02-2005 09:53 PM |
Robby Gordon's accident in practice at Michigan a few years ago was recorded at -115G. Robby is alive. I don't know the specific speed and distance of the crash, but I think 200mph and about 16" of compression are fair guesses.
Kenny Br�ck's accident in Texas, 2003, was measured in excess of 190G. He was going 220mph, apparently.
- Christian
Kenny Br�ck's accident in Texas, 2003, was measured in excess of 190G. He was going 220mph, apparently.
- Christian
| M. Hurst | 10-03-2005 12:41 AM |
It not the absolute speed, its the difference or "delta V".
An example Dr. Melvin used a Scott Goodyear crash from the IRL, with a "delta V" of over 60mph over approximately 0.1 second, with a peak force of 135G. Goodyear suffered a leg fracture and a temporary loss of consciousness.
An example Dr. Melvin used a Scott Goodyear crash from the IRL, with a "delta V" of over 60mph over approximately 0.1 second, with a peak force of 135G. Goodyear suffered a leg fracture and a temporary loss of consciousness.
| Phil Jr. | 10-03-2005 01:28 AM |
then those loads must not have been what the driver experienced. I dont see how Stapp (the one riding the rocket sleds) nearly died when subjected to 48gs, yes these car drivers are fine with 4 times the Gs? Something doesnt add up.
| M. Hurst | 10-03-2005 07:33 AM |
A long, "square wave" pull of 48G while decelerating from 600mph? I can see how that would be bad.
Crashes are generally higher G loads for a very short period of time...but long enough to break your neck.
Crashes are generally higher G loads for a very short period of time...but long enough to break your neck.
| Racer5 | 10-03-2005 02:30 PM |
With regards to the Park Incident.
What are your thoughts to a side curtain type airbag. Obviously it would have to be a custom air bag made specifically for the 307 rally car. The idea is to put something between the passanger and the side of the vehicle.
What are your thoughts to a side curtain type airbag. Obviously it would have to be a custom air bag made specifically for the 307 rally car. The idea is to put something between the passanger and the side of the vehicle.
| Phil Jr. | 10-03-2005 06:53 PM |
an airbag would do little considering how far the tree intruded into the cockpit. Also, airbags seem sort of redundant in race cars considering the occupants are wearing helmets. Now in regular street cars, they are needed because occupants usually dont wear a helmet while driving to the store.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét