Amazing pics of Indy 500 crash!

[Matra et Alpine]

Originally Posted by lightweight

They are right to use cement on ovals. Usually on ovals the cars don't crash head on. They crash "sideways". The course of the car and the bend form an angle of a few degrees. Studies have shown that under these circumstances, the cement absorbs the energy in the best way.

"best way" is about all you can say about it.

IF you have to contain a glancing blow you're right.

BUT it has NO PLACE on a race circuit for the racing or the safety.
Ovals are the stupidest form of racing as it is all about the crowd getting to see the carnage and less about real racing.

Air/pneumatic walls would be better under ALL CIRCUMSTANCE but would be expensive and would NOT tolerate rubbing.

Sayinbg concrete is "best" is like the Isle of Man TT still holding on to tyign straw bales around lamp posts that riders go past at 150_mph. Of course it's not any use AT ALL but there isnt' an alternative and keep the "tradition".

Nope, sorry, bare concrete vlose to the track should be out and has been for years on circuits around the world except ........ yep you guessed

[Suka]

I can't believe they don't have some sort of protective monocoque. The Libra is designed with a central monocoque, its completely fibreglass. If a low volume kit car manufacturer can do it, why can't the large racing car companies do it?! Oh and here is a picture of what happens when you hit the central reservation at 100mph, and walk away with bruises.

Safe?? You bet your ass it is.

[Matra et Alpine]

Originally Posted by Suka

I can't believe they don't have some sort of protective monocoque.

They did.
The problem back then - same on F1 - was that the driver sat MUCH further forward and their feet were between the suspension arms. This meant an inherent weakness in an incident as the suspension woudl tear it up - and the drivers legs Since then the drivers feet must now be behind the wheel line.
Also, IIRC the tub took multiple hits along the wall and at an oblique angle with the nose then being subjected to post-crash forces at 90 degrees and hence it sheared.
We've learned a lot since then and modern monocoques are much stronger and inherently safer.

The Libra is designed with a central monocoque, its completely fibreglass. If a low volume kit car manufacturer can do it, why can't the large racing car companies do it?!

You want to look at a GTM Rossa crash from 1995 ?
Comparing apples and oranges in cars is never a reasonable act
AND even the modern Libra weighs more than these cars. The bonnet on the Libra likely weighs the same as that whole tub

Oh and here is a picture of what happens when you hit the central reservation at 100mph, and walk away with bruises.

Safe?? You bet your ass it is.

That one was.
Problem with accident pics is the manufacturers ( and owners clubs ) make LOTS about the ones that survive and not much gets heard about the ones that don't The rolled Quantum pic is everywhere
How many didn't ? Without facts any single point is uninformative.

PS: Look at the top of the a-pillar and the split on the roof at the rear. THAT roof had folded FLAT. Passenger coudl easily have had a crushed skull there

[twinspark]

Originally Posted by lightweight

They are right to use cement on ovals. Usually on ovals the cars don't crash head on. They crash "sideways". The course of the car and the bend form an angle of a few degrees. Studies have shown that under these circumstances, the cement absorbs the energy in the best way.

On ovals cement is of course a good solution. I can think of cars bouncing cross the track taking out many other cars after hitting a tyrewall. But I've noticed that the non-oval circuits in US usually have less tyrewalls in critical places, and the safety areas with sand are smaller than in the rest of the world. I think they recently moved the walls further from the track in Laguna Seca, but the Greg Moore crash for example shows that there is still a lot of work to do.

[jorismo]

Originally Posted by lightweight

They are right to use cement on ovals. Usually on ovals the cars don't crash head on. They crash "sideways". The course of the car and the bend form an angle of a few degrees. Studies have shown that under these circumstances, the cement absorbs the energy in the best way.

Sow what did they use during the US Grand Prix?? Because when I saw the Ralf's crash, it didn't look like cement at all...

[Jack_Bauer]

Originally Posted by jorismo

Sow what did they use during the US Grand Prix?? Because when I saw the Ralf's crash, it didn't look like cement at all...

Indy had a new wall installed for 2005 after Ralf's accident in 2004. I don't really know the details of it but it is constructed to have a cushioning effect when the cars impact. I think it might be something like a much lighter type of concrete on the inside (where the cars hit) and then a thicker concrete wall on the outside.

I think quite a few of the oval tracks in the US have installed similar walls, and apparently they work pretty well.

[fa22_raptor]

Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine

Since then the drivers feet must now be behind the wheel line.

Hrm... in M Schumacher's crash in 1999 at Silverstone, IIRC, the suspension and what-not punctured the monocoque and broke his legs. Are you sure about this one? But whatever the case, racing cars today are infinitely safer than in the past.

[Jack_Bauer]

Originally Posted by Rockefella

Don't want to sound weird here, but does anyone have video of Greg Moore's crash? Heard about it a few times but just want to witness it.

Well, if you're really that keen to see it then try this website:
http://www.f1gp.ru/video/tragic/

It's all in Russian so is pretty difficult to understand, but Moore's accident is the one with "CART 2000" in the title (which is strange seeing as the accident happened in 1999 ).

There are quite a few grizzly accidents on that page (Jochen Rindt, Gilles Villeneuve, Riccardo Paletti in Canada '82) including what for me is the most horrific accident I've ever seen footage of: Jeff Krosnoff's fatal Indycar accident in 1996.

http://www.crashesonline.com/menu_cart.htm has a longer clip of Krosnoff's accident with the live commentary as they try and figure out exactly what was going on. Sadly a marshall was killed in that accident too, and I warn you it really isn't for the faint of heart.

[Jack_Bauer]

Originally Posted by fa22_raptor

Hrm... in M Schumacher's crash in 1999 at Silverstone, IIRC, the suspension and what-not punctured the monocoque and broke his legs. Are you sure about this one? But whatever the case, racing cars today are infinitely safer than in the past.

Single seater racecars have had to have the driver's feet behind the front-wheel centre line for quite a few years now, I'm 99.99% certain that it would've been the case for Schumi's accident in '99. You have to remember though that the dampers and torsion bars etc are located longitudinally along the chassis and actually point upwards towards the driver. I'm guessing that'll be why something managed to break through the monocoque and damage Schumi's legs.

[Suka]

Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine

They did.
You want to look at a GTM Rossa crash from 1995 ?
Comparing apples and oranges in cars is never a reasonable act
AND even the modern Libra weighs more than these cars. The bonnet on the Libra likely weighs the same as that whole tub

The Rossa is a different design. Thats not the same.

Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine

That one was.
Problem with accident pics is the manufacturers ( and owners clubs ) make LOTS about the ones that survive and not much gets heard about the ones that don't The rolled Quantum pic is everywhere
How many didn't ? Without facts any single point is uninformative.

Another one crashed recently, it left the road at about 50 and hit a road sign, side on. It only had a small crack on the bottom tub.

Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine

PS: Look at the top of the a-pillar and the split on the roof at the rear. THAT roof had folded FLAT. Passenger coudl easily have had a crushed skull there

What do you mean by folded flat? Those a-pillars take the force from the impact from the front aswell, by design. They held up increadably well for a 100mph crash. The shape is still the same, it just that the outer casing of the pillar is gone, the structural tube inside is still there.

[Matra et Alpine]

Originally Posted by Suka

The Rossa is a different design. Thats not the same.

That was the point I was making, S.
The crash in the original post was OLD technology, OLD design, no point comparing with modern ( apples and oranges )

Another one crashed recently, it left the road at about 50 and hit a road sign, side on. It only had a small crack on the bottom tub.

As I'd said, "good" accidents always get passed around clubs, "bad" ones don't

What do you mean by folded flat? Those a-pillars take the force from the impact from the front aswell, by design. They held up increadably well for a 100mph crash. The shape is still the same, it just that the outer casing of the pillar is gone, the structural tube inside is still there.

Look at the split at the top of the A-pillar and the clear crack in the C-pillar at the roof. Look at the angles of the pillar and the proximity the top now has to the passengers head position. It folded in. I'm not saying it FAILED, I'm saying it's not THAT safe and THAT from a crash where it clearly dissapated a LOT of the energy in discarding the front and rear ends. What might have happened if it had then rolled ? But it's mere conjecture as is the realtive safety of low volume cars produced in fibre glass - all it takes is a very damp day or a less than carefull roller

[Suka]

Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine

That was the point I was making, S.
The crash in the original post was OLD technology, OLD design, no point comparing with modern ( apples and oranges )

As I'd said, "good" accidents always get passed around clubs, "bad" ones don't

Look at the split at the top of the A-pillar and the clear crack in the C-pillar at the roof. Look at the angles of the pillar and the proximity the top now has to the passengers head position. It folded in. I'm not saying it FAILED, I'm saying it's not THAT safe and THAT from a crash where it clearly dissapated a LOT of the energy in discarding the front and rear ends. What might have happened if it had then rolled ? But it's mere conjecture as is the realtive safety of low volume cars produced in fibre glass - all it takes is a very damp day or a less than carefull roller

Fair enough. No one has crashed their car with a bad result. Yet. Had a few little things. A lot of ball joint failure but nothing too serious. I might start a thread soon portraying the safety designs of the car. Oh and as for the front and rear missing, they just come away easily. Hopefully when we are next both at a show we can have a better chat, i can show you around the car, and you can have a sit in it and stuff.

[QuattroMan]

Originally Posted by Jack_Bauer

I found a sequence of photos showing in detail Stan Fox's mind-boggling crash at the first turn of the '95 Indy 500 at a speed in excess of 200mph. Apparently he did suffer some head injuries from the initial impact with the wall, but astonishingly the only injury to his legs was a bruised heel!

He later made a full recovery and returned to racing, though sadly he lost his life in a road car accident a few years ago I believe.

Makes you wonder about the safety levels back then. The cars don't look too disimilar to today's Indy cars yet you'd have to think/hope that that kind of destruction to the front of a car wouldn't be possible these days.

I think the fact that his feet landed on the rear wing of the other car helped him out a lot, if they hadn't then the car probably would've rotated further and he would've landed feet first onto the tarmac!

like I always say..."you play hard you pay hard",

[Matra et Alpine]

Originally Posted by Suka

Fair enough. No one has crashed their car with a bad result. Yet. Had a few little things. A lot of ball joint failure but nothing too serious. I might start a thread soon portraying the safety designs of the car. Oh and as for the front and rear missing, they just come away easily. Hopefully when we are next both at a show we can have a better chat, i can show you around the car, and you can have a sit in it and stuff.

I had a closer look at the varoius cars on the stand when I was first looking for you
re the front and rear, yep the BIG advantage of a well-designed monmocoque is enabling the fronts and rears to "detach" - are they specific strength bolts attaching them ??
What hubs and ball joints does it use ?

[Suka]

Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine

I had a closer look at the varoius cars on the stand when I was first looking for you
re the front and rear, yep the BIG advantage of a well-designed monmocoque is enabling the fronts and rears to "detach" - are they specific strength bolts attaching them ??
What hubs and ball joints does it use ?

To attach the front clamshell (i would talk about the rear but i havn't got any pictures of it) there is a hinge at the front, its a small pin that goes through the front moulding and through a braket in the clamshell. At the top it is bolted down with small fastners. They go through the fibreglass and screw into a small mounting thing. See pictures.

As for hubs and ball joints. They use Metro hubs and i think they use Land Rover ball joints. I'm not sure.