Dan Wheldon Indycar accident - retrospective discussion

[RB7ate9]

http://indycar.com/tech/content/34099-s ... nnovation/

Regarding the Barriers. Similar to what is used around F1 tracks.

Though, I agree with timbo: the catch fences are a definitive hazard to high-flying cars.

[cossie]

I like the idea of the hinged front wing even given it's limited effect.

But, back in the day when Gil de Ferran ran a 241 mph lap at Fontana, they were running a positive angle of attack on the front wing to force more mass through the tunnels creating a net increase in downforce.

I don't know the relation to front wing area to tunnels on the new Dallara.

It was a much smaller, 2 you wouldn't have to worry about the catch fences if the damn dallara wouldn't fly of , here's a pic of the reynard, a what
difference from the dallara

[wesley123]

and then we have the Hanford device they ran, don't know why they use this system now, it is much needed.

What it was was really simple, a simple vertical flap behind the rear wings trailing edge, it increased drag and reduced efficiency, but it would kill a lot of lift in a sudden yaw moment.

[countersteer]

you wouldn't have to worry about the catch fences if the damn dallara wouldn't fly of ,

Thanks Cossie... Help me a bit. What about the Dallara gives it the tendency to fly more than the Reynard (which, I agree, appears to be a much sleeker design). How did the G-Force compare?

Also, any thoughts on the effects of maintaining the air intake snorkel even though the new engine is a turbo?

Thanks...

Oh... and just another comment. Last year (or was it the year before?!?!), Dario ended up on his head twice. One of those ripped the roll hoop off of the car with no contact with the catch fence. They laughed it off afterwards but I'm betting he's had a few sleepless nights since then... some of them recently, I'm afraid.

[cossie]

this is from offcamber , it explains it in simple terms. no the Panoz did not have the flight problems,however the IRL disaproved some areo improvements for the Panoz and that ended the panoz and gave the dallara the leg up

from offcamber
There were plenty of instances where Champ Cars made it into the air as well, but they were usually airborn a very short time. From what I can recall without digging through youtube videos or pictures (maybe someone can help with that), Champ Cars would touch and change direction. That change in direction could be skyward as the contact forces would point them. But, this is where there skyward flight would spoil, energy would transfer into the air, and the car would settle almost immediatly after contact.

Now, let's take an IRL car. For example, they touch, change direction towards the sky just like a Champ Car would. But, the IRL car continues to point skyward and fly. The interaction between the air and the IRL car is much different at a "nose up" pitch than the old Champ Cars were. The IRL car makes a 2nd notion to go skywards, and it's purely by itself with no other interaction with other cars or objects.

Now, why are the cars so different?

1) Aero
2) Forward/aft weight distribution

Let's start with #1. Large wings that are probably very sensitive to pitch in reference to air velocity. Pitch them up, they create lift. Pitch them down, they create downforce. The larger the surface area, the more this is pronounced. Also, the shape of the bottom of the car plays a big roll too. It somehow is responsible as well. It just collects air under it and holds it there when pitched upwards.

Now, for #2..and some of you had touched on that already. The old IRL cars seemed to be weight biased heavily towards the rear, which is why they had a this thing about them about backing straight into walls. The newer IRL cars don't appear to be quite as bad as the originals were, but I think they are still biased pretty heavily towards the back.

Continued for #2: Now, watch an IRL fly slowly and we'll go throught the steps. Nose pitches up from wheel-to-wheel contact, initial momentum takes the car upwards. Now, air interacts with the car and takes it upwards. Aero reason's were explained in #1, but there is another player and thats, weight distribution. Each car has a center of mass and a center of pressure. If the center of mass is behind the center of pressure in a "nose up" situation, the car goes up. If the opposite is true, the car should return to earth pretty quickly. Watching an IRL take off though, it's pretty obvious that the center of mass of the car is pretty far back, because that is the axis at where the car will want to rotate upwards.

So, to fix the issue...and hopefully they have with the new car:

1) Smaller wings, and more tunnel under the car. Create downforce with the bottom of the chassis and less with the wings. Racing would probably be a lot better that way anyways. Remember how small Champcar oval wings were?

2) Get the car balanced out. Don't hang a big heavy tranny off the back of the car. Wind tunnel test and make sure that in a pitch up situation, that the center of pressure doesn't move in front of the center of mass.

Do those things, and I think a lot of the flying car problems go away.

[Scorpaguy]

As one of those Redneck Americans that applauds after the NASCAR carnage and enjoys the spectacle of numerous cars on track....I'd like to reiterate one point:

AOWR does not belong on high banked ovals. Indy's modest banking was historically the superspeedway of AOWR. The cars dont look quite right in NASCAR venues. A highly banked corner or two is fine....but a flatout, high-banked monorail type line is neither challenging nor entertaining. Keep it flat and let them slide around a bit.

I also do not think we mouth breathers across the pond care much for windtunnel maximaized aero. I'd prefer more "go" and more "Whoa". Gas-guzzling power (or ethanol), lots of sound, and all four corners locked up braking zones will slow and separate the cars (and men from boys).

[Jan_83]

Check out this concept rendering of an closed cockpit
F1 car (ignore the Kubica tag on the Ferrari)
It's just an idea so lets not get into too many details.

I'm doing some work on a future hybrid open wheel racing car
(formula 3 size) on my own for a while now. One intention was
to use structures to prevent interlocking wheels and increasing
aero efficiency.



When a few weeks ago in Formula One the discussion about fighter
jet canopies came up again -I think it was the Monza weekend -
I drew a canopy for this concept.







Surprisingly I liked the way it looks although I have to admit
that it now appears more like a prototype sports car than a formula
car. Yet If you want to do something serious for further driver
protection I think this direction is the only proper way. Only
extending the roll structure and higher cockpit sidewalls will not
be enough because it only gives you top and lateral protection with
no protection facing forward.
But -and that is one critical point-how can a driver get out of a
closed cockpit when being upside down? Maybe the answer to that
question is a combination of a bigger windshield -more a half canopy-
and an extended or additional roll structure.



If you would add doors you definitely end up with a prototype car, so
that will not be the way. However I believe it must not only be down
to the car design to increase driver safety. Maybe there are other solutions
concerning track safety to solve the bulk of the issues as well like other
catch fencing designs and technologies, so that there are no small
structures that can intrude into the cockpit opening. We would than have to
find a solution for protection against flying debris only.

[Belatti]

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns23670.html

After reading this Im thinking about the calculations for the glass thickness. Its all about m * v ???

[hardingfv32]

Add a little more surface area to the drawings above and you have a LMP car. What is the point?

They have the tops of the tires exposed, so what? This is open wheel racing?

Brian

[Richard]

Joe Saward has posted an update which included one particular interesting nugget:

"The investigation will also have access to the data from the accelerometers that are integrated into the radio earpieces worn by drivers, in order to measure dynamic forces during an accident."

Does F1 have those? It would be more accurate for assessing potential for head/neck injuries than the car mounted accelerometer.

http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2011/10/ ... -mistakes/

[Scania]

Is a canopy safer?

I doubt it.

If a driver is trapped in a car unconscious, when it's on fire, how will he get out?
You could have a release mechanism for the marshalls to get to, but that could compromise car performance, and more importantly, cannot be guaranteed failsafe, especially in the case of a fire, which could cause damage to the said release mechanism.

Motorsport is dangerous, as fans who have been to events have read, but it can be made safer for both the spectators and the participants.

Indycar needs to have a serious look at itself, is driving cars at 225mph around a 1.5 mile oval, with 35 very evenly matched cars and drivers safe? No, as multiple accidents have proved. It could learn from both F1 and LMP, as big accidents, such as Mcnish's and Rockenfeller's at Le Mans this year, have had drivers walk away.

Indycar needs to learn from this, and change now. Another incident like this may kill it off, and that would be a massive shame.

burned for few second or cut the head directly, which is more dangerous?

[Giblet]

Jan

If you lost the pods behind the front wheels and ahead of the rear wheels it would be a good compromise between safety of front/rear wheel contact and open wheel racing. Just a humble opinion, but I think it would snazzy.

[myurr]

Is a canopy safer?

I doubt it.

If a driver is trapped in a car unconscious, when it's on fire, how will he get out?
You could have a release mechanism for the marshalls to get to, but that could compromise car performance, and more importantly, cannot be guaranteed failsafe, especially in the case of a fire, which could cause damage to the said release mechanism.

Motorsport is dangerous, as fans who have been to events have read, but it can be made safer for both the spectators and the participants.

Indycar needs to have a serious look at itself, is driving cars at 225mph around a 1.5 mile oval, with 35 very evenly matched cars and drivers safe? No, as multiple accidents have proved. It could learn from both F1 and LMP, as big accidents, such as Mcnish's and Rockenfeller's at Le Mans this year, have had drivers walk away.

Indycar needs to learn from this, and change now. Another incident like this may kill it off, and that would be a massive shame.

burned for few second or cut the head directly, which is more dangerous?

Think more burned alive. If the car is upside down and resting on the canopy then how are you going to get it off? If the release system is damaged in the crash, again how are you going to remove it? What about smoke in the cockpit incapacitating a driver? How would a canopy even react to the catch fencing? Would it have helped in Wheldon's case or would it have been destroyed or ripped from its mounts?

Maybe canopies are the answer but it is not clear cut by any means.

[FW17]

Think more burned alive. If the car is upside down and resting on the canopy then how are you going to get it off? If the release system is damaged in the crash, again how are you going to remove it? What about smoke in the cockpit incapacitating a driver? How would a canopy even react to the catch fencing? Would it have helped in Wheldon's case or would it have been destroyed or ripped from its mounts?

Maybe canopies are the answer but it is not clear cut by any means.

When was the last time there was a crash fire in f1?

I thought FIA has done good enough a job that there are no more crash fires.

[myurr]

Think more burned alive. If the car is upside down and resting on the canopy then how are you going to get it off? If the release system is damaged in the crash, again how are you going to remove it? What about smoke in the cockpit incapacitating a driver? How would a canopy even react to the catch fencing? Would it have helped in Wheldon's case or would it have been destroyed or ripped from its mounts?

Maybe canopies are the answer but it is not clear cut by any means.

When was the last time there was a crash fire in f1?

I thought FIA has done good enough a job that there are no more crash fires.

When was the last time a driver was killed in F1? Just because something hasn't happened for a while doesn't mean you can get complacent against it.

There have been smoke and fires in F1 more recently - e.g. Kimi with smoke in the Ferrari from KERS, and Heidfeld twice this year with fires in the Renault.