Still think modern sportscars are safe and not prone to blowovers?

[Digital-Nitrate]

The problem is if this happens near a spectator area (55 all over again).

After seeing the lola flip at relatively slow speed, I wonder...

That's why, despite the anger from many fans who want to get up and close to various circuits, most modern governing bodies and track designers go out of their way to place spectators out of harms way, and design modern circuits to protect drivers, track workers, pit crews, and spectators... many would argue they have gone too far in fact, and made many circuits too "dull".

After all, despite the chaotic and relatively uncontrollable chain reaction that often occurs from a major crash, when was the last time a spectator was killed from a sanctioned circuit race? How many have died over the last twenty years?

All things considered, even though many of the things implemented to improve safety have also "watered down" the sport of racing, I would be very surprised if today's motor sport racing isn't far safer for everyone involved than it ever has been over it's long history.

 

[Motominded]

Earth i think your over reacting again.

 

[CAMikaze]

:idea:A thought comes to my mind...

Maybe someone can work on a way to reduce the chances of a LMP car flipping over like that after the race us run? I don't know if flaps on a LMP car would work out like they would on a stock car.

 

[V1P3R]

Oh Boy... Anyway, you see why I'm all for closed cockpits?

 

[GilesGuthrie]

Oh no oh no...another scary crash caused by the car lifting off the ground

Hideki Noda spun his LMP2 car entering the first chicane at Le Mans and it promptly went airborne and when it hit the earth again the car flipped 8 times....

He walked away from the car without appearance of any major injuries

Yes, he got himself out of the car within two minutes of the accident, and was walking around it, wondering if he could race it on Saturday & Sunday. Notice what he hit? Yes, that's right: nothing at all. Marc Gene went in at an oblique angle to some armco.

I think that the ACO should look at whether the NASCAR flaps could be made to work on sportscars. But for now, let's not get hysterical about it. When my father raced a GT40 at Le Mans there was a hay bale in front of each tree on the Mulsanne straight. It probably wouldn't have stopped the Ford, which was doing some 200mph down there.

Earth, it looks like you're about an inch from screaming Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children.

 

[Blake]

In 10 years, an accident like his may not even remotely bruise him.

This is it. It’s not like the crash tests don’t become more and more intensive to build extra redundancy into these cars. The passive safety in these cars is huge, and the above accidents prove it. Safety standards aren’t at a standstill and I can’t imagine they ever will be.

When my father raced a GT40 at Le Mans

 

[daan]

Malcolm Guthrie?

http://www.teamdan.com/archive/wsc/1969/69lemans.html

 

[Blake]

No way… Seriously?

 

[Scaff]

When my father raced a GT40 at Le Mans.....

OK you can't post something like that, stay on line and not come back with more details. Three hours I've been waiting for you to give more detail, come on............

Earth, it looks like you're about an inch from screaming Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children.

Quite agree (Earth = Daily Mail - that might only mean something to those in the UK).

Earth I just don't see exactly what point you are trying to make here? Motorsport has always been dangerous, however it is easily the safest its ever been in its history and governing bodies always react to examine and address (when needed) any accident.


Regards

Scaff

 

[GilesGuthrie]

OK you can't post something like that, stay on line and not come back with more details. Three hours I've been waiting for you to give more detail, come on............

Well, I didn't want to derail the thread, and he doesn't talk about it much. However, he raced one quite a bit in 68/69/70 I think, with Frank Gardner. I've done some searching online, but there's not much beyond bald race results, and it seems he was something of a Johnny Herbert.

 

[Earth]

.

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

Earth I just don't see exactly what point you are trying to make here? Motorsport has always been dangerous, however it is easily the safest its ever been in its history and governing bodies always react to examine and address (when needed) any accident.

Well said, and here is an example of just such a case:

• ACO to change Aero Rules After Accidents

👍

 

[the Interceptor]

I've read all the replies in this topic, but I am not in the mood to respond to most of them.

May I stress that I personally think you would have gotten very different responses if you had addressed the topic in another manner?

 

[Brett]

Marc Gene went in at an oblique angle to some armco.

I saw a video of this on another website and was surprised at what happened. It looks like it could be a pretty bad accident from the video. It does not surprise me though that little happened to Marc Gene, as it is a testament to the improvements in the safety of today's racing cars.

This accident and the injuries to the driver remind me of the 2007 Canadian Grand Prix and Robert Kubica's wreck, especially considering that both drivers had what amounted to only a scratch. Now that I think about it, almost every big wreck makes me think of Kubica's because of the thoughts that raced through my mind when it happened. Kubica's accident must have left a pretty good impression on my brain because I was genuinely concerned for his safety; after learning of only have a sprained ankle, I definitely let out a sigh of relief.

I think that the ACO should look at whether the NASCAR flaps could be made to work on sportscars. But for now, let's not get hysterical about it. When my father raced a GT40 at Le Mans there was a hay bale in front of each tree on the Mulsanne straight. It probably wouldn't have stopped the Ford, which was doing some 200mph down there.

Mulsanne's Corner has an interesting discussion of this accident. Here is the link: Link to Mulsanne's Corner

 

[Tornado]

ACO to change Aero Rules After Accidents

And? From what I read, it doesn't look like what they are describing doing will actually fix anything. I applaud the increased lateral protection, but I doubt that decreasing downforce will make any difference if the cars are taking flight after spinning.

 

[Earth]

.

 

[Joey D]

How is there anything nearsighted or misguided? You seemed to think modern racecars are unsafe but it's been shown that despite horrifying wrecks, these drivers walk away with without any serious or life threatening injuries. I really don't understand where you are coming from. All racecars and street cars for that matter as all prone to wrecks, they only should be deemed unsafe if someone dies in the process when they were doing all they could to prevent it.

 

[Tornado]

Until you show and others in this topic show a true interest in my responses and are not out just to try to pick them apart to get internet rep I will not reply to your comments.

For your information, I was replying to the things within the link you provided. In essence, I was replying to the link, with your post just being the way it came to my attention. The fact that I only posted the part of your post within the link, and that the only post I've replied to was that one, should have made my goal increasingly obvious. Would you have even said anything if I had instead replied to Digital-Nitrate (who posted the exact same link) with the same reply? Based on your regrettable moral high ground, I'm gonna guess no.

The idea the replys in this topic have been so far off and nearsighted has also helped me steer clear replying to most of the comments made in this thread.

Which is probably a good thing, because no one likes a holier-than-thou attitude. The fact that you think you know what is best is great, but you can come down to reality next time you expect others to simply accept your opinion because it is yours. You certainly haven't done much more than, having just read through the whole topic, throw hissy fits any time someone says anything contrary to what you keep presenting as "truth." I would also object to your apparent need to call me some kind of mindless dolt simply because I disagree (with the funny part being that I really didn't disagree with you); but its 12:23, I'm tired, and you're not worth my time based on the argument you have presented.

 

[Brett]

. . . (to put it into perspective, the top speeds at Monza are sufficient for a light aircraft to take off and fly!).

Very uneducated comment there by Mulsanne Mike . . .

I overlooked that part of the article because it is not very relevant to the overall discussion. Instead, I chose to focus on the important issue of how to improve these type of situations.

In conclusion, I'm certainly not advocating that nothing be done. But it isn't a situation where the solutions are easy. All modifications to the chassis regulations need to be done with study. Simply reducing the size of the rear wings or front splitters, as some advocate, will only further complicate things (and reduce efficiency while reducing drag--so you then have a car with a higher terminal velocity yet even less downforce!). Solutions that look at major alterations to the cars need to be made in concert with the data derived from the Piper report. Hacking willy nilly isn't a scientific way to go about this and could (dare I say will) lead to further muddying the waters.

I found this part to be a little more interesting, as it is much more relevant to this accident and the steps that need to be taken to fix this problem of blowever in modern prototypes/sportscars.

Until you show and others in this topic show a true interest in my responses and are not out just to try to pick them apart to get internet rep I will not reply to your comments.

I think many people, myself included, have shown interests in your responses and may not completely understand what point(s) you are trying to get across. I am a bit lost as to what you want me to understand. Without any explanation, it is a bit hard to show "interest". I also apologize if it appears I am trying to call you out here, but I am wanting to understand what point you are trying to make.

With that said, this incident is another example of why there needs to be a continued increase of the safety of the cars that participate in racing events. Accidents have long plagued motorsports and will continue to happen as long as we as humans continue to compete in any form of racing, which further provides reason to continue to look at potential safety hazards. It should also be noted that this incident is a testament to the increase in the relative safety provided by the modern race car.

But, this incident is by no means serious enough to put a stop to this year's running of the 24 Heures du Mans or any other racing in motor vehicles. Instead, it should serve as a reminder that death may be right around the corner when one is piloting these serious speed machines and a reminder that the designers of these vehicles should always be looking for a more 'safe' vehicle and that the rulemakers should always be pushing for more and more safety put into the vehicles.

 

[Mt. Lynx]

Well said, and here is an example of just such a case:

• ACO to change Aero Rules After Accidents

👍

I´m on Toronados side on this. I think the ACO are going in the completeley wrong direction in their proposals. What the cars need is infact more grip, both aero- and mechanical. Groundeffect and wider tyres should be the more accurate way to go, and reduce the power instead.

I mean, a modern LMP1 car has around 700 bhp, and the diesels pull well beyond 1000 nm of tourque. These cars weigh in at some 900 kg, so the total effect is just mindblowing.

AFAIK all of these "blowovers" happens at very high speed, so maybe an ACO rule that dictates dragcoeffiency is to prefer?

 

[GilesGuthrie]

What the cars need is infact more grip, both aero- and mechanical.

Not really, that's a bit simplistic. The problem is that when the angle of attack of the car (which way it's pointing) and the angle of travel become too different, the falloff in grip is too high. The cars can maybe cope with around 15-deg of a difference before there's a dramatic loss of downforce, but when they spin the difference gets very large very quickly, and so the falloff in downforce is very rapid.

That's why I was musing about the NASCAR flip-ups.

 

[daan]

.

Well, that's a nice adult response. I can't believe that you've deleted all your posts.

Way to throw your toys out of the pram. 👍

 

[Mt. Lynx]

Not really, that's a bit simplistic. The problem is that when the angle of attack of the car (which way it's pointing) and the angle of travel become too different, the falloff in grip is too high. The cars can maybe cope with around 15-deg of a difference before there's a dramatic loss of downforce, but when they spin the difference gets very large very quickly, and so the falloff in downforce is very rapid.

That's why I was musing about the NASCAR flip-ups.

Yes, indeed, and maybe a sort of flip-up system is feasable.
The thing about more grip though, is that the cars would be less prone to fall out of grip, but at the same time, when they do loose grip in that case, the loss would be even more sudden. I do however find it logical that groundeffect, ie venturitunnels under the car would take away some of the "wingeffect" these cars get when they loose contact with the track. Thinking about it, they could actually have tunnels going from behind the front wheels, and out in the rear end, wich would help them stay glued to the ground even if they go sideways.
Maybe I am being a bit simplistic about it, but I do blame the flat bottoms for much of these occurances.

 

[Blake]

Well, that's a nice adult response. I can't believe that you've deleted all your posts.

Way to throw your toys out of the pram. 👍

Yes, I really can’t believe that.

Thinking about it, they could actually have tunnels going from behind the front wheels, and out in the rear end, wich would help them stay glued to the ground even if they go sideways

But a diffuser doesn’t work sideways.

 

[Mt. Lynx]

Yes, I really can’t believe that.



But a diffuser doesn’t work sideways.

No, but they could look someting like this
...l...
[].l.[]
\..l../
.\.l./.
[]llll[]
where "l" is a straight tunnel from front to rear, the "/" and "\" are tunnels from behind the front wheels that will only work if the car goes sideways in high speed. Most likely they would have to be curved, rather than straight though. [] are tyres.

 

[nissan tuner]

Not really, that's a bit simplistic. The problem is that when the angle of attack of the car (which way it's pointing) and the angle of travel become too different, the falloff in grip is too high. The cars can maybe cope with around 15-deg of a difference before there's a dramatic loss of downforce, but when they spin the difference gets very large very quickly, and so the falloff in downforce is very rapid.

That's why I was musing about the NASCAR flip-ups.

i could see this working with GT cars but with prototypes? especially when P2 wont be forced to used closed tops like the future P1 class

 

[Venari]

As 'Son of Malcom' says (that is so cool) venturi tunnels are all very well, but the car, at some angles of attack, will still want to flip.

How about an example for illustration. Imagine a prototype style car travelling at 200mph.

Fault Condition:

Vehicle unloads the front wheels after a nasty impact with the suspension at full bound. The spring fully extends in a very short period of time, and the front end of the car begins to lift. As soon as the angle of attack goes over a certain amount, the car is suddenly collecting 200mph under its flat undertray - ergo, a high pressure zone. The high pressure zone that was on top of the car pushing it down has disppeared in double quick time - in fact, the leading edge of the nose, now it is elevated in not only not collecting air underneath, but it is suddenly causing the top of car to draw air down from above it - a low pressure zone. You're going to flip.

Method One: cause a massive increase in front downforce.

Tricky. But let's assume you do it, however you engineer it. The front hits the deck with massive downforce and the car breaks in two. Not good. Unless you can accurately control a front 'canard' type device such that it pushes the car down and then reduces downforce to nil (or a slight negative) it as it approaches the floor, you're still going to cause havoc. If the car has yawed during it's brief flight, and the steered wheels are not pointing in the right direction, you're stuffed. And if the back is in the air still, it's going to be one hell of a ride.

Method Two: 'Short circuit' the high-pressure underneath the car to the low pressure area behind/above the car.

Nice idea, but this simply means that the amount of downforce changes, and the vehicle is out of control. There is room to do it, servo actuators could quickly flip the sections inside the venturi and vent them to the top surface which could be 'trapdoored' at the front/sides of the cabin & engine compartment.



So, are aero devices the way forward?

Probably not. Active suspension, however, along with super-fast servo control of the rear wing for emergency use, may well fix the problem.

The condition is brought about by a 'fault'. Ridges, bumps, kerbs, these are the faults we can manage - much better with active suspension and emergency aero. Digging into grass, or a fast 180 spin because of oil, these are conditions which are a bit tougher to manage this way, but they are what the NASCAR hatches are designed to help.

 

[Duke]

No, but they could look someting like this
...l...
[].l.[]
\..l../
.\.l./.
[]llll[]
where "l" is a straight tunnel from front to rear, the "/" and "\" are tunnels from behind the front wheels that will only work if the car goes sideways in high speed. Most likely they would have to be curved, rather than straight though. [] are tyres.

The problem with this is that you are funneling air from a large opening at the front into a smaller opening between the rear wheels. This will actually create an area of positive pressure under the car, reducing downforce or possibly causing upforce.

 

[Venari]

... possibly causing upforce.

Psst. That would be 'lift', Duke. Ssshhhh, I won't tell anyone.

 

[Mt. Lynx]

The problem with this is that you are funneling air from a large opening at the front into a smaller opening between the rear wheels. This will actually create an area of positive pressure under the car, reducing downforce or possibly causing upforce.

I was actually thinking more in the lines of the group c era tunnels, whom where the same size all the way through AFAIK. You are right though, but as long as the top of the car also produces downforce, any occurances of lift should be prevented. All this are just theories though. I´m actually more into the idea of more drag and less power instead. A reduction of top end speed should reduce any chance of liftoff dramatically.

As 'Son of Malcom' says (that is so cool) venturi tunnels are all very well, but the car, at some angles of attack, will still want to flip.

How about an example for illustration. Imagine a prototype style car travelling at 200mph.

Fault Condition:

Vehicle unloads the front wheels after a nasty impact with the suspension at full bound. The spring fully extends in a very short period of time, and the front end of the car begins to lift. As soon as the angle of attack goes over a certain amount, the car is suddenly collecting 200mph under its flat undertray - ergo, a high pressure zone. The high pressure zone that was on top of the car pushing it down has disppeared in double quick time - in fact, the leading edge of the nose, now it is elevated in not only not collecting air underneath, but it is suddenly causing the top of car to draw air down from above it - a low pressure zone. You're going to flip.

This is exactly what happend to the CLR at Le Mans in -99.

Method One: cause a massive increase in front downforce.

Tricky. But let's assume you do it, however you engineer it. The front hits the deck with massive downforce and the car breaks in two. Not good. Unless you can accurately control a front 'canard' type device such that it pushes the car down and then reduces downforce to nil (or a slight negative) it as it approaches the floor, you're still going to cause havoc. If the car has yawed during it's brief flight, and the steered wheels are not pointing in the right direction, you're stuffed. And if the back is in the air still, it's going to be one hell of a ride.

Well, seeing how immense the flights are today, I think that is better. The car will be wreck anyhow, it´s just a question of flighttime. The shorter the better IMO.

Method Two: 'Short circuit' the high-pressure underneath the car to the low pressure area behind/above the car.

Nice idea, but this simply means that the amount of downforce changes, and the vehicle is out of control. There is room to do it, servo actuators could quickly flip the sections inside the venturi and vent them to the top surface which could be 'trapdoored' at the front/sides of the cabin & engine compartment.



So, are aero devices the way forward?

Probably not. Active suspension, however, along with super-fast servo control of the rear wing for emergency use, may well fix the problem.

The condition is brought about by a 'fault'. Ridges, bumps, kerbs, these are the faults we can manage - much better with active suspension and emergency aero. Digging into grass, or a fast 180 spin because of oil, these are conditions which are a bit tougher to manage this way, but they are what the NASCAR hatches are designed to help.

Thing is though, active suspension, and moving aeroparts aswell, aren´t looked upon with kind eyes by the ACO. And seeing as they already talk about a decrease in cornering speeds, active suspension is most likely out of the question. I like the idea though.
Another way to go would be nanny systems, like antiskid and antispin.

i could see this working with GT cars but with prototypes? especially when P2 wont be forced to used closed tops like the future P1 class

The entire idea has actually quietly been scrapped by the ACO. Both LMP1 and LMP2 can run either way. What the ACO wanted with closed tops, was cars that looked more like the everyday roadcars, but Peugeot effectivley ruined that idea. There will be changes though, but nothing definitive has come up.