No, if you could see his feet the chassis did NOT protect him. Luck did. It really IS that simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by shazbot
Gary
Printable View
No, if you could see his feet the chassis did NOT protect him. Luck did. It really IS that simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by shazbot
Gary
Luck is not quanitifiable, chassis construction is. He had a huge accident and the only thing between Kubica and the wall was the chassis. I believe the chassis protected him in the same way it protected all the F1 drivers that have had sizeable accidents in the last few years. I think we are going round in circles a bit so perhaps we should agree to disagree! :) I'd like to see the focus of this thread directed at innovative safety improvements to the next generation of IRL cars, or perhaps a new thread entirely if there's the interest?.
I'd like to see links for that post, please. I'd like to see your data that the IRL crash test specs are less than F1.Quote:
Originally Posted by shazbot
Quote:
Originally Posted by shazbot
Yes it is not quantifiable. The only point I was trying to make was that if their feet were exposed there was a failure in the chassis in one of the key safety aspects it is supposed to provide. Yes it saved their lives. But it didn't do its entire job. To bring this back on topic, I believe one of the most stringent parts of the spec is and should be in the area of the foot box.
Gary
I agree, although it is almost impossible to design a nose cone that would disipate the energy of a high speed head on crash. Of course you can't make a car totally safe from impacts, and I think that Kubica's accident was so violent that without a total re-think on the way cars are designed and drivers are postioned no car could withstand that kind of impact without transfering massive forces the driver. The fact that cars crush in a fairly controlled way helps to reduce the G-loading on the driver. As I'm sure you guys know the FIA place load sensors on the impacting part of the test equipment. If the G load excedes a pre-set limit the part fails regardless of how little/much it crushed. Interestingly if you look at the Kubica accident you'll notice that the nose cone was knocked off on the initial impact, reducing its ability to absorb the impact somewhat. The FIA has various 'push-off' tests conducted on the chassis, one of which is the nose. It's easy to say that perhaps that should be a more stringent test but again this was a hefty impact.
Safest in what respect? Certainly not by FIA standards.Quote:
Originally Posted by fan-veteran
The only time I've ever seen an F1 car hit a concrete wall on an oval the driver broke several vertabrae...(and sat unattended to for several minutes, but that's a different story). I find that FIA talks a great game when it comes to safety but their execution tells a different story. Those horse blinder raised cockpit sides they mandated this year are a joke and with all the resources at their disposal they've yet to come up with a wheel tether that actually works.
I certainly don't think the Dallaras are anything to brag about either but if I had to drive into a cement wall (and not a 6 deep tire safety barrier) at 200 miles an hour I would probably choose the Dallara.
I know very little about the safety features of a Dallara vs an F1 car but based on that ignorance I'd prefer a Dallara on an oval and an F1 on a road course.
IMHO, the Panoz wouldn't work in an evironment of competing chassis. Normally chassis builders have to work within in an ever tightening box of rules and differentiate their offering thru research and development.
Small details and engineering make up the difference between chassis. The DP01 was built to a cost/performance standard, and could do things like increase tunnel size for free downforce.
If you took the specs for the DP01 and let Lola build the car (or Panoz) you can bet it would perform much better.
Then you would have to tighten the rules and so on and so on. One other thing, while I can't be sure, I think the high nose was mostly for that euro look. Whn you look at what drove the development of the high nose cars in F1 it was a way around the rules, not some natural evolution. I believe it is highly likely that a combination oval/road course design would go in a different direction, like the Lolas and Reynards.
Anyways, just my thoughts. Also I think the DP01 gearbox is basically the same as the Lolas IIRC, not sure.
rh
IRL Roll Hoop - 25kN Laterally, 50 kN longitudinally, 70kN verticallyQuote:
Originally Posted by tbyars
F1 Roll Hoop - 50kN Laterally, 60 kN longitudinally, 90kN vertically
IRL front impact test @ 12m/s (there is a secondary impact test @ 8.5 m/s)
F1 front impact test @ 15m/s
This is basic stuff because the F1 regs seem to be more specific on initial investigation, and the IRL don't specify in as much deatil that I can find. Rear impact tests on both are conducted at similar speeds. The nose push off tests appear to be the same as well. The F1 cars have a regulated side impact crash structure which the IRL do not have. They do however mandate side pod construction and there is a side intrusion test (tub).
I think the Dallara looks ugly.Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig
Simon Marshall designed the DP09.
Video with Menard V-12
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kwkKn7Zm_U
Simon:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ma75_Q2U4w
Future indy cars
Specifics weren’t offered on future car configurations or whether the series will return to turbocharged engines from the current naturally aspirated format. The IndyCar Series’ current engine/chassis generation ends after the 2009 season.
http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/artic...ication-plans/