rll9466@wucec2.UUCP (Richard L. Lantz) (10/29/85)
First, I'd like to thank everyone for answering my initial posting, and now to
generate some conversation...
.
I'm beginning to wonder about Tom Sneva. The last few events seem to fall into
the same sort of pattern: he complains about his Eagle, switches to the back up
Lola, and ends up a DNF due to some obscure reason such as "handling". Mean
while we see Ed Pimm in the other Eagle (and who doesn't have the option of the
Lola) going on to very respectable finishes; and this from a man who was in
danger of losing his ride due to a propesity to crash. Tom has had some very
good drives this season, but where's the consistency? Shall we expect friction
with the Guerny-Curb people from his apparent lack of confidence in the Eagle?
Anybody have an opinion or better information?
.
I've had several conversations lately about safety in motor sports. I thought
it would be worth the effort to shift the topic out to net postings. The
biggest topics are ground-effects vs. flat-bottom and tire quality/reliability.
The arguements against ground-effect cars is that A) they increase speeds and
B) when the ground-effect is disrupted, the car becomes uncontrolable. The
combination being complimentary and bad--more speed = more violent crash, and a
crash can be triggered by a bump that simply disrupts the ground effect. The
recent (and MOST unfortunate ) deaths of F1 drivers Manfred Winklehock and
Stephan Bellof in WEC Group C Porsche's were hinted at being ground-effect
related (at least in the severity of the crashes, I do realise that I've made a
gross over-simplification). The tire question brings up the question of
liability of manufacturerers in racing. This especially after the Donohue vs.
Goodyear suit of the last year. Ok, people, what do you think? I'm offering
subjects for now, and will be glad to join conversation if any of you are
interested....
Rich Lantz
rll9466@wucec2.UUCPhaapanen@watdcsu.UUCP (Tom Haapanen [DCS]) (11/01/85)
In article <1140@wucec2.UUCP> rll9466@wucec2.UUCP (Richard L. Lantz) writes: > >The arguements against ground-effect cars is that A) they increase speeds and >B) when the ground-effect is disrupted, the car becomes uncontrolable. The >combination being complimentary and bad--more speed = more violent crash, and a >crash can be triggered by a bump that simply disrupts the ground effect. The >recent (and MOST unfortunate ) deaths of F1 drivers Manfred Winklehock and >Stephan Bellof in WEC Group C Porsche's were hinted at being ground-effect >related (at least in the severity of the crashes, I do realise that I've made a >gross over-simplification). Immediately after the switch in F1 from ground effects to flat bottoms, the speeds went down. However, now that we are in the third year of flat-bottom cars, practically all lap records on the F1 circuit have been shattered. So flat bottoms don't really work effectively toward reduced speeds, but they *do* provide a less sudden transition near the limit. A flat-bottom car begin sliding at a lower speed than a ground-effect car, but the breakaway is much more gradual and hence more predictable. Likely the most valid safety comparison can be made between F1 and CART; both are single-seater monocoque chassis racing cars, with *approximately* equivalent speeds and tire characteristics. F1 is flat bottomed, while CART is ground effect. It seems to me (although I don't follow CART quite as closely as F1) that CART has more *single-car* accidents than does F1; most of the F1 crashes are of the multi-car collision type. Do other people agree with me? F1 seems to be relatively safe (no serious injuries in the last while); this can be largely attributed to the strength of the monocoque chassis. Even when the car ends up being completely mangled, the driver climbs out unharmed. Alas, in World Championship Rallying, the strength of the roll cage is not as high, and this may have caused the seriousness of the injuries to Ari Vatanen (driving a Peugeot in Argentina) and the death of Attilio Bettega (driving a Lancia in Corsica) this year. Rallying speeds are going way up with the increases in horsepower (450 hp in the Audi Quattro Sport, almost as much in the Peugeot 205 evolution model). >The tire question brings up the question of >liability of manufacturerers in racing. This especially after the Donohue vs. >Goodyear suit of the last year. I personally believe that Mark Donohue turned in his grave when Goodyear was sued. He accepted the risk in motor racing as part of the sport and said to never blame the car, the tires or the engine, but always blame the driver. So far, though, there have not been any negative repercussions from the lawsuit, and hopefully there will be none. Some of the recent F1 accidents have appeared to be tire-related -- take for example Mansell's crash in qualifying in France, where he received a concussion. Part of the problem stems from the fact that the maximum tire size regulations were set when everybody was running 300-hp Cosworths. Now the qualifying engines are approaching 1000 hp (especially Honda and BMW) and the tires are just unable to cope with that stress. Increasing the max tire size, though, has the negative effect of providing increased cornering power, and therefore increasing lap speeds. Anyone care to comment? \tom haapanen watmath!watdcsu!haapanen Don't cry, don't do anything No lies, back in the government No tears, party time is here again President Gas is up for president (c) Psychedelic Furs, 1982
doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee) (11/01/85)
Just my own opinion: Tom Sneva is just too darned egotistical, and
believes that nobody except Tom Sneva knows anything about racing.
That's too bad, because he has shown that he can indeed perform well.
I sort of hope that being shown up by Pimm will make him reconsider,
but I don't know too many people who successfully reduced their egos.
On ground effects: I'm agin' 'em. Wings and stuff on top are bad
enough, but ground effects should go. Reasons: Ground clearance is
too low; tracks are damaged (Phoenix and Spa both had to cancel/postpone
races at the last instant this year because of track surface being
pulled up by ground-effects suction); and once the car gets out of
shape enough to lose ground-effects, it's all over but the crash.
On the Winklehock crash... either Speedweek or MotorWeek Illustrated
indicated that the track management had permitted dirt to be piled
up behind the crash barrier, and so the barrier was unable to give.
--
Doug Pardee -- CalComp -- {calcom1,savax,seismo,decvax,ihnp4}!terak!dougrll9466@wucec2.UUCP (Richard L. Lantz) (11/02/85)
> reduced speeds, but they *do* provide a less sudden transition near > the limit. A flat-bottom car begin sliding at a lower speed than a > ground-effect car, but the breakaway is much more gradual and hence > more predictable. Indeed, this is the most important point, the driver being in control, and not surprised by any unexpected lack of grip. Some reduction in cornering speeds combined with predictability being benefits of flat-bottom cars. > > Likely the most valid safety comparison can be made between F1 and > CART; both are single-seater monocoque chassis racing cars, with > *approximately* equivalent speeds and tire characteristics. F1 is > flat bottomed, while CART is ground effect. It seems to me (although > I don't follow CART quite as closely as F1) that CART has more > *single-car* accidents than does F1; most of the F1 crashes are of the > multi-car collision type. Do other people agree with me? Hey, I think you've got something here! Hadn't really thought about it in those terms before, but you are correct--you hear more of people just "losing it" in CART than in F1, where it tends to be "ran into...". > > F1 seems to be relatively safe (no serious injuries in the last > while); this can be largely attributed to the strength of the > monocoque chassis. Even when the car ends up being completely > mangled, the driver climbs out unharmed. Alas, in World Championship There were a few leg injuries in F1 last year; Tambay before Canada (?), Brundle at Dallas ('84 , remember). This year has been quite good, perhaps as a result of FISA's increased crash-worthyness testing. > Rallying, the strength of the roll cage is not as high, and this may > have caused the seriousness of the injuries to Ari Vatanen (driving a > Peugeot in Argentina) and the death of Attilio Bettega (driving a > Lancia in Corsica) this year. Rallying speeds are going way up with > the increases in horsepower (450 hp in the Audi Quattro Sport, almost > as much in the Peugeot 205 evolution model). Oh, yes, rally speeds are escalating rapidly as manufacturerers jump into the "Formula 1" rallying. I use "formula 1" in the sense that BIG budgets are going into rallying. Safety may not be keeping up with the speeds. On another note, rallying is a little harder to police with safety crews than an enclosed permanent circuit is. It is also hard to remove trees, etc from a rally course -- the kinds of dangerous obsticals that are not found on other circuits. Rich Lantz rll9466@wucec2.UUCP 6060 Pershing Ave #204 St. Louis, MO 63112 (314) 725-3061