From: hagood@sabre.den.mmc.com (Dave Hagood)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.sport
Subject: Re: F1/CART safety (Re: Mansell goes to Indycars)
Date: 28 Sep 92 05:02:25 GMT
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics Group

In article <1992Sep25.211202.13707@cbnewsd.cb.att.com>, slana@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (charles.e.slana) writes:
|> 
|> I'm sorry, I'm not a person who enjoys flaming, but...
|> 
	I don't consider myself flamed.  You didn't agree with my post, but
you didn't get personal, either.  To me, flaming is a personal attack thinly
disguised as rational discourse.  I thought your response was a reasoned
refutation of my argument.

|> > went headon into a concrete wall at 220 mph or so in a car that was not as
|> > crash-worthy as its F1 counterparts.              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> 
|> Excuse me???
|> 
|> Do you have data to back up the claim that a Lola Indy car is "not as crash-
|> worthy as it's F1 counterparts"?
|> 
	Nope, no hard data, but an opinion based upon reading AutoWeek,
watching TV coverage of IndyCar, F1, and IMSA events, and my own admittedly
minor experiences with strength of materials issues.

	As has been stated in r.a.s repeatedly, Lola's use of aluminum on
IndyCar tubs is based upon the perceived need to maintain the integrity of
the cockpit under multiple impacts (such as may be seen on high-speed ovals).
This is based (in my opinion) on the fact that the modulus of resilience (a
measure of a material's capability to absorb energy) of most metals at the
proportional limit is better than that of composites of similar strength.

	The proportional limit is that point where the stress/strain 
relationship starts to depart from Hooke's Law, and is basically where the
material starts to yield.

	Aluminum tubs have a lower proportional limit but greater resiliency;
composite tubs have a higher proportional limit but less resiliency.  The
loss of resiliency can be dramatic; some composites can shatter and leave
no further protection at a given impact whereas aluminum will deform but
still provide some protection for the same given impact.

|> [deletia]  
|> 
|> Piquet fared pretty well, if you ask me.  I sure wouldn't want to ever be
|> as badly messed up as he was, but when you can take a car 220 mph head on
|> into (and nearly perpendendicular to) a concrete wall and be in a non-life-
|> threatening situation, that tells me the car is pretty darned safe.
|> 
	Piquet is lucky to be alive, and yes, I agree that IndyCars are pretty
darned safe.  My point was not to slam IndyCars, or promote F1, but to point
out to a lot of people who have little knowledge of the Indianapolis 500 or
the Indianapolis Motor Speedway that Piquet's crash (and Jeff Andretti's)
was absolutely horrific.  I mean, head-on at 220 mph?  Geez...

	I don't really remember the TV clips of Piquet's crash very well.  I
looked at my tape of the Indy 500 and watched Jeff Andretti's crash a couple
of times to refresh my memory.  You see a rather simple 360 and a collision
with the wall.  The car veers away and rolls down the track, with obvious
but not tremendous damage.  The TV clips I've seen of these crashes does not
(to me, anyway) really convey the incredible speed of the cars.

|> I've never (since '82, at least) seen an Indy car tub disintegrate like
|> Donnelly's F1 tub did a couple years back, but I'm not going to claim that
|> makes F1 cars unsafe.  Every crash has it's own circumstances, and so far
|> there has been no data that I've heard of proving that a "type X at angle Y
|> at speed Z" impact is any safer for one particular car.  So unless somebody
|> can back up these claims with REAL data, let's stop spouting off just
|> because of personal preferences..
|> 
	Um, my personal preference is by far for IndyCars, because I see more
me on you racing there than in the F1 high-speed parades.  Also, I remember
some speculation (AutoWeek, r.a.s?) that the Donnelly crash was the direct
result of a poorly manufactured chassis.

|> By the way, everybody talks about F1 using carbon fiber for safety reasons,
|> but I always thought it was strictly for chassis stiffness and light weight.
|> What's the real deal?  Also, does F1 have any construction rules based on
|> safety such as positions of drivers' feet relative to the front wheels?
|> 
	As I understand it, the new IndyCar safety regulations with
respect to the upgraded design requirements for the footbox area is based
upon similar requirements for F1 cars.  If anybody knows for certain, I 
would appreciate the information.  Anyway, this is the major reason for my
rather off-the-cuff claim that F1 cars are more crashworthy.  I probably
should have said, more crashworthy for single-impact, head-on collisions such
as that suffered by Piquet.

	I know, I know.  Until an F1 car hits a concrete wall head-on at 220
mph or so, we won't REALLY know if the F1 footbox is actually better than
its current IndyCar equivalent.  But then, that was the first line in my
original post:  "I hope what happened to Piquet never happens to anyone,
ever".  :-) 

	Regards,

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
									|
David M. Hagood			Martin Marietta Astronautics Group	|
									|
Voice:  (303) 977-9657		When in danger, or in doubt,		|
E-mail: hagood@den.mmc.com	Run in circles, scream and shout.	|
Fax: (303) 977-1530							|
									|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
     static char *disclaimer = "My opinions, not Martin Marietta's."    |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------