TBK-Light.com

Motorsport videos and chat.
It is currently Mon Sep 26, 2022 10:18 am

All times are UTC+01:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 1988 posts ]  Go to page Previous 194 95 96 97 98100 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Oct 19, 2011 2:40 am 
Offline
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2008 3:16 pm
Posts: 5480
Location: In the land of Del's and NY Systems.
Has thanked: 84 times
Been thanked: 136 times
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/motor/in ... 50819204/1

Foyt and Andretti respond to Jimmie Johnson's harsh criticism of oval racing.


Top
PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 3:22 am 
Offline
"The Cricket"
"The Cricket"
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 8:31 pm
Posts: 3161
Location: Chirping at Le Sarthe
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 39 times


When a car flips in that way, you have a fundamental design flaw somewhere in there.

_________________
Hank Hill wrote:
I would like the username rgordon changed to Hank Hill. Its what I use on other forums, and rgordon quite honestly sounds stupid and has for awhile.


Top
PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 7:12 am 
Offline
Silver Member
Silver Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 12:31 am
Posts: 1599
Location: the danger zone
Has thanked: 49 times
Been thanked: 18 times
[youtubeidiot]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Filv50aB6do[/youtubeidiot]
Anyone else remember Tony George talking about developing a catchfence alternative after this crash?


Top
PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 8:33 am 
Offline
Moderator - Shareholder
Moderator - Shareholder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:05 am
Posts: 10060
Has thanked: 432 times
Been thanked: 519 times
TM93 wrote:
When a car flips in that way, you have a fundamental design flaw somewhere in there.


Unfortunately that design flaw is apparent in almost all modern race cars that travel at these speeds. IndyCars are no worse than anything else, but they do travel 20-30mph faster than anything else, and do it at almost every oval, thus making it appear more of an issue for them.

You only have to look at Mark Webbers Valencia accident, and the countless LMP take offs (especially during 2008) to see that this isn't an IndyCar specific problem, but rather a problem with most modern race cars. It's actually quite a difficult problem to solve, as even big massive fins on the LMPs hasn't kept them on the ground.


Top
PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 4:06 pm 
Offline
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:13 pm
Posts: 644
Location: Ogden, Utah, USA
Been thanked: 122 times
TM93 wrote:


When a car flips in that way, you have a fundamental design flaw somewhere in there.


Of course there is, it's fundamentally known that whenever a car hits a piece of debris or hits a tire, it's bound to launch the thing in the air due to the air getting underneath the car... :o


Top
PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 5:32 pm 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 7:56 pm
Posts: 4812
Has thanked: 108 times
Been thanked: 88 times
Dan Wheldon is the fifth driver to die in the same year after winning Indianapolis 500.

Gaston Chevrolet (1920), Joe Boyer (1924), Ray Keech (1929) and George Robson (1946) suffered the same fate. Keech lived the shortest time of those, as he died on June 15th. In those years, the race was held on May 30 regardless of weekday.

Floyd Roberts (1938) and Bill Vukovich (1954) died during Indianapolis 500 while both being reigning winners. Vukovich was of course a two-time winner, having also won in 1953.


Top
PostPosted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 7:22 pm 
Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member

Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 7:54 pm
Posts: 189
Location: Canada
Been thanked: 2 times
Philthy82 wrote:
rhashana wrote:
Thomas Schekter was on Twitter Monday saying from now on he will make sure this never happens again. Too little too late.


I'm glad that few in racing share your attitude. Taking action only after a tragedy is a sad inevitability of the human condition, but to not take action to prevent it happening again because it's "too little too late" would be absolutely inhuman.
I was implying "for Dan Wheldon" at the end of my statement. Schekter also claims that drivers had voiced their concerns prior to the start but had been told by officials to "shut up and drive". Every driver did.


Top
PostPosted: Sat Oct 22, 2011 2:59 am 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 7:08 pm
Posts: 4281
Location: 1980s
Has thanked: 667 times
Been thanked: 190 times
I hope Tomas continues to race. He's underrated imo.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Oct 22, 2011 3:05 am 
Offline
Honorary Member
Honorary Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:34 am
Posts: 9098
Has thanked: 240 times
Been thanked: 297 times
He's said he still will, and I also think he's underrated, he should have a full time drive, just like Dan should have as well (same goes for Wade Cunningham imo)

_________________
"An idea whose time has come cannot be stopped by any army or any government"


3x TBKL rFactor Hillclimb champion


Top
PostPosted: Sat Oct 22, 2011 12:10 pm 
Offline
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 4:51 pm
Posts: 7737
Has thanked: 1318 times
Been thanked: 408 times
ellis wrote:
TM93 wrote:
When a car flips in that way, you have a fundamental design flaw somewhere in there.


Unfortunately that design flaw is apparent in almost all modern race cars that travel at these speeds. IndyCars are no worse than anything else, but they do travel 20-30mph faster than anything else, and do it at almost every oval, thus making it appear more of an issue for them.

You only have to look at Mark Webbers Valencia accident, and the countless LMP take offs (especially during 2008) to see that this isn't an IndyCar specific problem, but rather a problem with most modern race cars. It's actually quite a difficult problem to solve, as even big massive fins on the LMPs hasn't kept them on the ground.


I posted this in another thread, it's a more technical description as to why they fly, running the cars with more negative rake than a regular car also adds to the problem, as Dave says, it's not a design flaw, it's simple physics.

Ian-S wrote:
The cars (excluding this crash) get airborne because they are traveling at a speed where induced drag (lift - from the shape of the car) exceeds aerodynamic drag (downforce - from the wings) if the aerodynamic drag is removed, it's complicated, but basically the shape of the car excluding the wings produces lift, the wings and floor produce downforce, the two are constantly fighting one another and if one is removed, depending on the velocity of the object, it will take off, regardless of it's weight or shape (and of course if the object is traveling at high speed, the only variable that can be instantly removed is the aero drag), all cars are affected by this, from Formula 1 down to your road car.


Top
PostPosted: Sat Oct 22, 2011 12:22 pm 
Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2011 6:21 pm
Posts: 160
Location: Vigo
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 21 times
Today is the funeral:

INDYCAR will hold a public memorial service to celebrate the life of IZOD IndyCar Series driver Dan Wheldon at 4 p.m. (ET) Oct. 23 at Conseco Fieldhouse in Indianapolis. Doors open at 1:30 p.m. and seating begins at 2:30.
The memorial also will be broadcast on www.indycar.com, VERSUS, ESPNEWS, ESPN3 and locally on WRTV-6 and WTTV-4.

Funeral services for Dan Wheldon will be held at 10 a.m. (ET) Oct. 22 at First Presbyterian Church of St. Petersburg, 701 Beach Drive N.E. in St. Petersburg, Fla.

----

And a pretty video... http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/22825103/ ... 7#44992317

_________________
@Pereira_FC - Hit the pace car!!!


Top
PostPosted: Sat Oct 22, 2011 8:20 pm 
Offline
Founder of the Yaytree
Founder of the Yaytree
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:27 pm
Posts: 26130
Location: Birmingham, UK (Not near DEGA :( )
Has thanked: 1173 times
Been thanked: 1716 times
Ian-S wrote:
ellis wrote:
TM93 wrote:
When a car flips in that way, you have a fundamental design flaw somewhere in there.


Unfortunately that design flaw is apparent in almost all modern race cars that travel at these speeds. IndyCars are no worse than anything else, but they do travel 20-30mph faster than anything else, and do it at almost every oval, thus making it appear more of an issue for them.

You only have to look at Mark Webbers Valencia accident, and the countless LMP take offs (especially during 2008) to see that this isn't an IndyCar specific problem, but rather a problem with most modern race cars. It's actually quite a difficult problem to solve, as even big massive fins on the LMPs hasn't kept them on the ground.


I posted this in another thread, it's a more technical description as to why they fly, running the cars with more negative rake than a regular car also adds to the problem, as Dave says, it's not a design flaw, it's simple physics.

Ian-S wrote:
The cars (excluding this crash) get airborne because they are traveling at a speed where induced drag (lift - from the shape of the car) exceeds aerodynamic drag (downforce - from the wings) if the aerodynamic drag is removed, it's complicated, but basically the shape of the car excluding the wings produces lift, the wings and floor produce downforce, the two are constantly fighting one another and if one is removed, depending on the velocity of the object, it will take off, regardless of it's weight or shape (and of course if the object is traveling at high speed, the only variable that can be instantly removed is the aero drag), all cars are affected by this, from Formula 1 down to your road car.


And I have posted and will keep posting until people understand that the IRL rules package make this a lot worse than any other series causing the cars to fly further and longer than anyone else.
As is posted above, getting a car to do a complete backflip after braking for a considerable margin then running over some debris at about 100mph is just ridiculous.

The IRL seriously need to look at their rules package, its just a question of if they want to give up their photo-finishes in the name of safety.


Top
PostPosted: Sat Oct 22, 2011 8:39 pm 
Offline
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 4:51 pm
Posts: 7737
Has thanked: 1318 times
Been thanked: 408 times
You're talking about the Horish crash at Indy right? Watch the rear angle and listen, he's still hard on the throttle when he hits the attenuator, the engine bounces off the rev limiter as it takes off.


Top
PostPosted: Sat Oct 22, 2011 8:40 pm 
Offline
The Finnish Paul Page
The Finnish Paul Page
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 5:07 pm
Posts: 6308
Location: Racing is in my blood
Has thanked: 725 times
Been thanked: 563 times
As an engineer, I can see the problem with negative rake to be taken seriously. It is definitely something that would set the car unstable aerodynamically in situations where the front wheels would take off from the ground. The balanced aerodynamic angle is very narrow with negative rake, when the wings at front and back are close to almost zero degree angle. In this kind of conditions, when front would lift off in speeds of well over 200mph, the car would suddenly start to work like a aeroplane, the downforce would fade away fast and the lift would take a place.

If it's all about negative rake, there's an easy solution for it. New car should feature a suspension that has minimum ground clearance for the rear suspension that would always be higher than the front suspension. It's a one solution, but the other things is the speed itself. When going over 220mph, there's also a lot of forces that affect on the car and aerodynamics are more sensitive. The reason LMP prototypes had so many flips suddenly was because of very fine tuned aerodynamics. They only work when the car is moving in ideal conditions to straight forward. A spin or a rear wheel puncture lifting the nose caused similar effects that negative rake does, the car goes unbalanced and loses all of its downforce and takes off. The reason why CART Reynards didn't flip was because of the shape of the car, it's having normal rake and aerodynamically inefficient profile, meaning that it is not that stressed by aerodynamical forces.

_________________
"Indy doesn't give you a second chance. You have to earn it."


Top
PostPosted: Sat Oct 22, 2011 8:43 pm 
Offline
Founder of the Yaytree
Founder of the Yaytree
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:27 pm
Posts: 26130
Location: Birmingham, UK (Not near DEGA :( )
Has thanked: 1173 times
Been thanked: 1716 times
NVirkkula wrote:
As an engineer, I can see the problem with negative rake to be taken seriously. It is definitely something that would set the car unstable aerodynamically in situations where the front wheels would take off from the ground. The balanced aerodynamic angle is very narrow with negative rake, when the wings at front and back are close to almost zero degree angle. In this kind of conditions, when front would lift off in speeds of well over 200mph, the car would suddenly start to work like a aeroplane, the downforce would fade away fast and the lift would take a place.

If it's all about negative rake, there's an easy solution for it. New car should feature a suspension that has minimum ground clearance for the rear suspension that would always be higher than the front suspension. It's a one solution, but the other things is the speed itself. When going over 220mph, there's also a lot of forces that affect on the car and aerodynamics are more sensitive. The reason LMP prototypes had so many flips suddenly was because of very fine tuned aerodynamics. They only work when the car is moving in ideal conditions to straight forward. A spin or a rear wheel puncture lifting the nose caused similar effects that negative rake does, the car goes unbalanced and loses all of its downforce and takes off. The reason why CART Reynards didn't flip was because of the shape of the car, it's having normal rake and aerodynamically inefficient profile, meaning that it is not that stressed by aerodynamical forces.


And I imagine having a heavier car and ground effect didn't hurt really (See Brack, Michigan 2000, wheel to wheel contact, car settles back down on the ground after a brief nose-up hop)

Thanks NVirkkula, nice to have an engineers perspective on all this.


Top
PostPosted: Sat Oct 22, 2011 9:08 pm 
Offline
The Finnish Paul Page
The Finnish Paul Page
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 5:07 pm
Posts: 6308
Location: Racing is in my blood
Has thanked: 725 times
Been thanked: 563 times
Weight helps a lot also, heavier car doesn't take off as easily as lighter if they have similar shape and speed.


But I'm not convinced that a car with high ground effect would be safer. Prototype C sports cars and 80's open wheelers flipped even in low speeds during the ground effect era. The similar aerodynamical instability was there for these cars as it is for high downforce racecars of today. The aerodynamics are refined to work in one direction only, take a 90 degree or 180 degree spin and it's all changed for both types. Like said before by other forum members, it is not an easy thing to solve, when traveling in speeds well over 200mph.

_________________
"Indy doesn't give you a second chance. You have to earn it."


Top
PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 8:17 am 
Offline
Moderator - Shareholder
Moderator - Shareholder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:05 am
Posts: 10060
Has thanked: 432 times
Been thanked: 519 times
NVirkkula wrote:
The reason LMP prototypes had so many flips suddenly was because of very fine tuned aerodynamics. They only work when the car is moving in ideal conditions to straight forward. A spin or a rear wheel puncture lifting the nose caused similar effects that negative rake does, the car goes unbalanced and loses all of its downforce and takes off.


Well it's more to do with the floor than anything else. LMP aerodynamics haven't drastically changed in over 10 years, but the floors have been raised and are chamfered. It makes it easier for the floor to gain large amounts of air underneath.


Top
PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 8:31 am 
Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member

Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 7:54 pm
Posts: 189
Location: Canada
Been thanked: 2 times
The Mercedes CLR at Le Mans that one yeartook flightt once, twice, three times.. "okay boys, we've got a problem" and it was done for good.

IndyCars take flight one, two, three, four, five, six..... and "it's okay, only 1 driver died (renna), Mario got a scratch on his nose, Hornish walked away unscathed, and the rest, well, they lived. We'll get a new car one day but until then at least we'll make the highlight reels".

It is no laughing matter though. Some people have been warning that the luck will run out for years.
Last Sunday proved that the current cars are only as safe as luck allows.


Top
PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 8:47 am 
Offline
Moderator - Shareholder
Moderator - Shareholder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:05 am
Posts: 10060
Has thanked: 432 times
Been thanked: 519 times
rhashana wrote:
The Mercedes CLR at Le Mans that one yeartook flightt once, twice, three times.. "okay boys, we've got a problem" and it was done for good.

IndyCars take flight one, two, three, four, five, six..... and "it's okay, only 1 driver died (renna), Mario got a scratch on his nose, Hornish walked away unscathed, and the rest, well, they lived. We'll get a new car one day but until then at least we'll make the highlight reels".

It is no laughing matter though. Some people have been warning that the luck will run out for years.
Last Sunday proved that the current cars are only as safe as luck allows.


Not really the same thing is it. The Merc took flight 3 times in 3 days of running. IndyCars have done it over years, and more importantly, more than 1 manufacture, with 2 completely unrelated designs have done it. That tells you there is something wrong with the rules package, rather than the individual cars.

The Mercedes also took off completely unattended, under normal circumstances. No IndyCar has ever taken off in those conditions. They have always been involved with another car, a piece of debris, or traveling at a bad angle (such as backwards or wideways). And under those circumstances, countless cars have taken off through aerodynamics. Red Bull never retired Vettel when Webber took off at Valencia. Not one LMP was parked in 2008, despite multiple take offs. And when was the last time NASCAR parked the other 42 cars because 1 of them blew over?

Also, Wheldons accident had nothing to do with taking off like you're talking about. Wheldon and Power used other cars as launch ramps, and as the Fuji accident in 1998 showed, that can happen at low speed, nevermind 220 mph.


Top
PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 9:03 am 
Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member

Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 7:54 pm
Posts: 189
Location: Canada
Been thanked: 2 times
^ No, but everything comes back to the "we'll live with it for now, take our chances and keep our fingers crossed" attitude in general in IndyCar. That needs to change.


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 1988 posts ]  Go to page Previous 194 95 96 97 98100 Next

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited