Getting rid of walls

[Franklin]

The thought occurred to me that if retaining walls were eliminated, not only would much of the rationale for restricting Indy car development no longer apply but many of the hazards would also be gone. So how do you safely put tens of thousands of spectators in proximity to an oval track or road course without any retaining walls? Or to be more specific, how do you install grandstands with no supporting structure underneath? Ever see the Golden Gate Bridge? The open space underneath suspended grandstands could be occupied by gravel traps or water traps.

[Crash Test]

[Franklin]

Several corporations and universities are doing research into fiberglass bridges, including suspension bridges. The big advantage for suspension bridges is because the resulting roadway weighs much less, the towers and anchors can also be made much lighter.

[Crash Test]

2 points:
1. Do you want we to tell you what is wrong with your idea?
2. I must say that i have thought about "water traps" in the past. It would be interesting to see what they would get on reseaching it.
a)The water couldn't be too deep, or else we would get a heap of ****ed of competitors with flooded engines.
b)They couldn't be too shallow or else cars are just going to skip over them.
c)There would be certain health issues involved, tracks are stingy as they are, do they want to go emptying huge volumes of water ever few days?
d)Sand traps have their problems, so do just plain asphalt.
It might be worth looking at, but since it isn't an Apollo rocket, we don't need to stick them in with trial.

(sorry i failed the grammar test once more )

[Franklin]

You do realize that coming to a sudden halt as the result of hitting a concrete wall is the prime cause of serious injury (or death) and destroyed cars? I mean we are clear on that point aren't we? When somebody uses flooded engines as a criticism for a track architecture that eliminates the prime cause for destroyed cars and/or seriously injured drivers I have to wonder what their priorities are. In fact, that's such a seriously screwed up set of priorities I must have been hallucinating when I read it. Surely no sensible person would propose that a track architecture which gets rid of retaining walls is a bad idea because occasionally a driver might have to take a car back to the garage to dry off the engine.

[This message has been edited by Franklin (edited 02 May 2000).]

[Crash Test]

Well i dont want to spend the rest of my life arguing with you there, but what the hey?
When i said flooded engines, i was thinking of a road circuit if a driver was to have a spin into a lake. Try driving your car into a lake, it might be an eye opening experience for you.

A few pointers about not having walls on the outside of the track:
1. Yes the wall hurts.....
2. How much money do you have?
3. If ever a car goes off the road on an oval, it will continue on at the same trajectory as the slope of the banking. Do you wish to argue that? Because i can give you some solid facts which back that up. Or are flying cars all right?
4. So you have sand at the side of the road. Sand will roll any car which hits it sideways. Do you wish to argue that? Because i can give you some solid facts which back that up. A roll rolling end for end at 230mp/h....i'll let you clean that mess up.
5. At 230mp/h, how much of an area are you giving the cars? A couple 100 meters? Go and ask a track owner if he is interested....
6. Unless you have water which can stick to a slope, the airbourne car will hit the water at a fantastic speed...once again i'll let you clean up the mess.

ON relatively straight pieces of road where the cars make a glancing blow with the wall, it is better to have that lump of concrete there than have a few hurdred yards of run off. I can prove that too.
In the corners where the heavy rear and side impacts occur, why not have some of those energy absorbing walls you talk so much about (once they are tested and proven to be an improvement)?

(Sorry about the grammar and spelin )

[slicktoast]

So the thought just occured to you. You seem to be one inspired person. Wouldn't it be strange for the spectator to have errant cars disapearing under them in a roar of steam and gurgling? Could be high on the cool factor...

[champcarfan01]

FRANKLIN: ARE YOU ON CRACK??????????!!!!!!

[Franklin]

No, are you in the habit of asking thoughtless ignorant questions?

[Lizzerd]

This idea is reedickilus (I spelt it rong on perpus, Frankliff), for all of the above stated reasons.

[jamie928]

Franklin...Your in the habit of making thoughtless and arrogant posts!!
Why can't you contribute to threads about the racing thats going on now? You have only annoyed the people who come here to talk motorsports. You insult them when they disagree with your Rube Goldberg type ideas on how you think racing can be improved. You really gotta grow up or get laid or something. You act like your wound up tighter than a $2 watch.

[jamie928]

Forget about the getting laid bit. I really don't want to hear about how you think the Karma Sutra should be changed cause it can cause back injuries!!!!

[Liz]

Franklin have you noticed that almost nobody gets hurt or killed racing these days, the way things are now? Do you realise that the pilotes know motor racing isn't pattycake? Is someone holding a gun on any one of them and forcing him to race fast cars on high speed tracks for very very very large sums of money and lots of public adulation? Do you think the people in the stands and hanging off the fences with their cameras over those fences don't know the difference between staying safely at home in their fallout shelters with their hands over their ears, and being inches from some of the fastest vehicles on Earth?

In other words, DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE WE ARE SO STUPID THAT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WE ARE DOING IS DANGEROUS? AND HAS IT ONCE OCCURRED TO YOU THAT WE, RACERS AND SPECTATORS, ARE THERE BECAUSE WE LIKE THE DANGER?

Honeychile, if you are that frightened of the big bad cars, maybe you would be best advised to stay home and play with your Legos.

[jamie928]

Liz,
You do have a way with words!!! I hope I stay on your good side. LOL!!

[Franklin]

"DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE WE ARE SO STUPID THAT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WE ARE DOING IS DANGEROUS? AND HAS IT ONCE OCCURRED TO YOU THAT WE, RACERS AND SPECTATORS, ARE THERE BECAUSE WE LIKE THE DANGER?" Well, it has now occurred to me that even women can use macho bullsh*t like that as a reason for sitting on their ass instead of using their imagination.

Fortunately, some people did use their imaginations so we got items such as the following. Helmets. BETTER helmets. Restraint harnesses. BETTER restraint harnesses. Rollcages. BETTER rollcages. Firesuits. BETTER firesuits. Fuel cells. BETTER fuel cells. Fire suppression systems. BETTER fire suppression systems. Window nets. Arm restraints.

And as far as danger is concerned, some people can learn a lesson from Richard Noble's comments on why failure with the Thrust SSC was not an option. "It would have been awful. It would have gone through the clouds. It would not have fluttered around like some formula car. It would have gone straight up through the clouds."

[Jay]

Obviously removing retaining walls is completely out of the question. Those cars have to come to a stop somewhere, and if they have damaged suspension, the brake will do nothing. And would you be willing to completely clear a large area of marshalls and safety workers? It's a dumb idea.

Racing will always be dangerous, but if you want to discuss some realistic options try:

gravel traps? -Would concrete be better
tire walls? - Are they the best?
Is the current formula safe?

[Crash Test]

Nah, it's all about getting laid, sorry

Fraklin: Feeling any better? Better bring a bucket.

[Lizzerd]

I can see that yellow card now... please hurry it up, Administrator.

[Franklin]

"Obviously removing retaining walls is completely out of the question. Those cars have to come to a stop somewhere, and if they have damaged suspension, the brake will do nothing. And would you be willing to completely clear a large area of marshalls and safety workers? It's a dumb idea."

The largest racetrack in the world is operated with vast stretches of it clear of marshalls and safety workers. It's called Bonneville. When cars don't have walls to run into safety workers are much less needed.

[Hyacinth]

Ladies and gentlemen

You will never convince Mr. Ratliff that the types of speed competition which interest him have little or no relevance or resemblance to the forms of motorsport that EVERY OTHER poster on these forums has come here to discuss. The concept of racecars actually having to turn right and left instead of mashing the throttle on a quarter-mile plus length of asphalt or on a salt-covered dry lake bed seems to be causing him a bit of a problem.

Mini-lakes to slow down cars, Franklin? What happens to a vehicle sliding sideways at 100-plus miles per hour when it hits your little lake? Do you think that there might be the slightest chance that the abrupt change in the surface it's sliding over might, just MIGHT, cause one side of the car to dig in and flip over? What happens to a driver hitting the surface upside down at those speeds?

And if the first impact doesn't kill him, the fans in your suspended grandstands might have the unique experience of watching him drown. Sounds like fun!!!!

Maybe you'd better go back to the Wile E. Coyote School of Engineering and work some of the bugs out of your theory.

[TimD]

This is a contest, isn't it? Somewhere in here is a common thread. Well, I claim the prize.

Who ran a car that he had built himself with no reference to Reynard or Lola?

Who tried to use braking parachutes to stop himself at 500mph?

Who ran at Bonneville Salt Flats?

Who used a water-filled culvert to ultimately stop himself?

Ladies and gentlemen, the answer is CRAIG BREEDLOVE in the original "Spirit of America". Do I get a donut?

As an aside, I might mention that at no time did Mr Breedlove attempt to turn left, thus removing the need for retainers of any kind on the corners. The braking parachutes disintegrated at that speed, and were very nearly useless, and I don't think that Mr Breedlove was particularly thrilled with the way his car nearly drowned him at the end of the run.

[Liz]

Franklin, I am glad your mommy taught you such good manners.

Please take your toys and go to "All Other Classes" where maybe your non-Open-Wheel-Racing ideas will receive some of the response you want.

Unless of course your desire is merely to annoy everybody who wants to talk about IndyCars?

[Franklin]

In 1940, hot rodder Bob Rufi went 140 mph at Muroc dry lake with a rear-engine open-wheel car using a laydown seating position. (Even the engineers at Auto Union had not realized the benefits of the laydown position.) By 1955, hot rodders had gone over 200 mph at Bonneville with a rear-engine open-wheel car using a laydown seating position. Hilborn fuel injection, the system that dominated Indy car racing for decades, was a hot rodder developed system first proven at the dry lakes.

Since for at least 20 years now, CART has had little to claim in the way of innovation I'm not criticizing a series with a long history of original thinking. The new HANS device? F1. Combining the vent with the fuel hose? F1. Wheel tethers? F1 (without even killing any spectators). Mandatory helmets for the pit crew? F1. The carbon fiber tub? F1. Passive ground effects? F1.

And actually, the last time Breedlove got into trouble was in October of 1996 when his latest "Spirit of America" tipped up on its left wheels at 600+ mph. To avoid running out of room, Breedlove made the world's fastest U-turn (and like F1 convention, it was a RIGHT turn).

In contrast Thrust SSC, at approximately 22,000 pounds the heaviest land speed car in history, could stop from supersonic speed within the available distance at Black Rock using just its wheel brakes and inherent aerodynamic drag without even overheating the brakes. For normal operation, the drag chutes were used to shorten the rollout distance and save wear on the brakes.

[This message has been edited by Franklin (edited 03 May 2000).]

[mapguy]

>>"The new HANS device? F1. "<<

Nope. Micheal Andretti was the first driver to test the HANS device. Check 7thGear News Tidbits section for a pic.

>>"Combining the vent with the fuel hose? F1."<<

Nope. Watch the Spanish GP and during the pit stops you will notice that there is no vent man.

>>"Wheel tethers? F1 (without even killing any spectators). "<<

The reason for wheel tethers was to prevent what happened to Senna from happening again. Also in that same race a wheel came flying off of Pedro Lamy's Lotus and into the crowd, injuring several spectators.

>>"Mandatory helmets for the pit crew? F1."<<

Only for the fuel man. CART made it mandatory for ALL crew members wearing helmets.

>>"The carbon fiber tub? F1. "<<

Agreed.

>>"Passive ground effects? F1."<<


Agreed. But it was close. 1 year later didn't JR drive the Pennzoil Chapparal?

>>"In 1940, hot rodder Bob Rufi went 140 mph at Muroc dry lake with a rear-engine open-wheel car using a laydown seating position. (Even the engineers at Auto Union had not realized the benefits of the laydown position.) By 1955, hot rodders had gone over 200 mph at Bonneville with a rear-engine open-wheel car using a laydown seating position. Hilborn fuel injection, the system that dominated Indy car racing for decades, was a hot rodder developed system first proven at the dry lakes."<<

This is a CART/IRL forum.

>>"And actually, the last time Breedlove got into trouble was in October of 1996 when his latest "Spirit of America" tipped up on its left wheels at 600+ mph. To avoid running out of room, Breedlove made the world's fastest U-turn (and like F1 convention, it was a RIGHT turn)."<<

This is a CART/IRL forum.

>>"In contrast Thrust SSC, at approximately 22,000 pounds the heaviest land speed car in history, could stop from supersonic speed within the available distance at Black Rock using just its wheel brakes and inherent aerodynamic drag without even overheating the brakes. For normal operation, the drag chutes were used to shorten the rollout distance and save wear on the brakes."<<

This is a CART/IRL forum.

Look, Franklin. If I wanted to talk about LSR's and drag racing I would go to the appropriate forum.

Would you go to a NAPCAR forum and talk about the proposed beryllium-lined cylinder heads that Ilmor/Mercedes were planning for their F1 motor? Would you go to a baseball forum and talk about what an awesome goalie Cujo (Curtis Joseph) is?

[Franklin]

">>"Combining the vent with the fuel hose? F1."<< Nope. Watch the Spanish GP and during the pit stops you will notice that there is no vent man." The reason there is no vent man is because of COMBINING THE VENT WITH THE FUEL HOSE. Let me explain it in a different way. When you have one hose that both supplies the fuel and vents the tank it's COMBINING THE VENT WITH THE FUEL HOSE. So when you're COMBINING THE VENT WITH THE FUEL HOSE that means you get rid of the vent man because the guy fueling the car is also venting the tank.

It is only now, after Michael Andretti runs over the head of one vent man and the leg of another vent man, that CART is finally getting off its collective butt about COMBINING THE VENT WITH THE FUEL HOSE.

"The reason for wheel tethers was to prevent what happened to Senna from happening again."
Senna got killed in May of 1994. Am I supposed to believe that after the F1 powers that be watched CART and IRL kill six spectators it was still Senna that lead them to implement wheel tethers?

[This message has been edited by Franklin (edited 03 May 2000).]