Jump to content


Photo

V8 Supercar Crash Test (Holden)


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 V8SupercarMadness

V8SupercarMadness
  • New Member

  • 7 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 17 June 2011 - 05:52

Back in 2008, During a Practice session for the Bathurst 1000 (Australia's Greatest Race) Paul Weel and Chris Pither got involved in a Nasty Crash. The accident occurred near the McPhillamy Park area of the circuit, when Weel made contact with a safety barrier and slid sideways onto the track and Pither slammed into the driver's side door. Click the Link Here to See -

This Sparked Safety Concerns and After that V8 Supercars Australia Sent Paul Weels to a Advanced Crash Test Lab in Germany. V8 Supercars Finally Released the Footage! Check it out Below!

------ > V8 Supercar Crash Test < ------



Advertisement

#2 V8SupercarMadness

V8SupercarMadness
  • New Member

  • 7 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 17 June 2011 - 05:54

Paul Weels Holden Commodore After the Crash Posted Image

#3 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,009 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 17 June 2011 - 06:07

That is disturbing. I would have thought that with the roll cage and chassis stiffening the car would have held up better than that. The front deforming didn't shock me, but the way the rear end just buckled was crazy. I have seen some hard front end crashes in V8's, but I have never seen the rear end get mangled in a front crash.

I would hate to see what would have happened to an old VN. The driver would have probably got decapitated by the fuel tank if that's what a VE does.

Edited by Jazza, 17 June 2011 - 10:29.


#4 TTim

TTim
  • New Member

  • 13 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 17 June 2011 - 09:24

I think you would really have to see what happened underneath the body work to draw any useful conclusions.

When you look at this one , you see just how easily these things shed there non-structural body work.

#5 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,009 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 17 June 2011 - 11:41

I think you would really have to see what happened underneath the body work to draw any useful conclusions.

When you look at this one , you see just how easily these things shed there non-structural body work.


Yeah but you can fairly well tell from the outside what is happening under the skin in the crash test. At one point the boot is nearly touching the ground and the floor in front of the rear wheels is over half a meter off the ground. Near the end of the crash the car looks like it shrinks about 2 feet, and the back of the car ends up looking like a VW beetle. The car looks like it is made out of jelly.

I have just never seen that kind of distortion in a V8 crash. Smashed fronts often get repaired, and even in write offs the back end normally looks alright. This is just frightening considering how slow it is to real track speed. Yes it is not a tyre barrier as would happen in real life, but it is still a heck of a lot of warping.




#6 V8SupercarMadness

V8SupercarMadness
  • New Member

  • 7 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 17 June 2011 - 20:34

Yeah but you can fairly well tell from the outside what is happening under the skin in the crash test. At one point the boot is nearly touching the ground and the floor in front of the rear wheels is over half a meter off the ground. Near the end of the crash the car looks like it shrinks about 2 feet, and the back of the car ends up looking like a VW beetle. The car looks like it is made out of jelly.

I have just never seen that kind of distortion in a V8 crash. Smashed fronts often get repaired, and even in write offs the back end normally looks alright. This is just frightening considering how slow it is to real track speed. Yes it is not a tyre barrier as would happen in real life, but it is still a heck of a lot of warping.


I Agree mate, Remember both of the Paul Radicish crashes at bathurst they were both over 100km/h
Here- http://www.youtube.c...feature=related
And Here - http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

They were not Dead on Straight into a Wall, But i have to admit with my Crash Test Video I Uploaded. I knew the Front end would do some damage but then i saw the back end do that and that Birds eye view they show (Around the 24sec mark of the video) How the car explodes. wow. It really did surprise me. Another thing i thought was strange and shocked me was that crash at Hamilton with Fabian Coulthard and Tim Slade. Your comment "Car looks like its made of jelly" Reminds me of it. Here is the video -

Not sure. I only wish the Drivers Maximum Safety when they race. Lets hope we don't see anything major in Today's and Tomorrow's Races.



#7 prty

prty
  • Member

  • 5,161 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 17 June 2011 - 21:24

I Agree mate, Remember both of the Paul Radicish crashes at bathurst they were both over 100km/h
Here- http://www.youtube.c...feature=related
And Here - http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

They were not Dead on Straight into a Wall, But i have to admit with my Crash Test Video I Uploaded. I knew the Front end would do some damage but then i saw the back end do that and that Birds eye view they show (Around the 24sec mark of the video) How the car explodes. wow. It really did surprise me. Another thing i thought was strange and shocked me was that crash at Hamilton with Fabian Coulthard and Tim Slade. Your comment "Car looks like its made of jelly" Reminds me of it. Here is the video -

Not sure. I only wish the Drivers Maximum Safety when they race. Lets hope we don't see anything major in Today's and Tomorrow's Races.


In the first video, I don't think he hit the wall at anywhere near 100 km/h. In the second one either, plus there were a tyre wall, reducing a lot the energy and making it a very different accident.

In a crash, 100 km/h when hitting the wall is huge, not many crashes are like that. To put it into perspective, Schumacher hit in Silverstone 1999 a double tyre wall in an F1 car at 107 km/h (source). And it was a lot faster:




#8 V8SupercarMadness

V8SupercarMadness
  • New Member

  • 7 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 18 June 2011 - 00:04

In the first video, I don't think he hit the wall at anywhere near 100 km/h. In the second one either, plus there were a tyre wall, reducing a lot the energy and making it a very different accident.

In a crash, 100 km/h when hitting the wall is huge, not many crashes are like that. To put it into perspective, Schumacher hit in Silverstone 1999 a double tyre wall in an F1 car at 107 km/h (source). And it was a lot faster:


Yeah Schumacher's Crash does look faster but the V8 Crash.. First video he hit the wall at 170km/h, And the 2nd video hit at 150km/h

Really got to see the TEGA Vision to really feel the speed of the car. But those are Confirmed Speeds from those crashes

#9 wonk123

wonk123
  • Member

  • 927 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 18 June 2011 - 00:32

I am actually happy to see the amount of destruction of the car, the more it is crushed and bent means that more energy is absorbed, just so long as the survival shell is intact. The interesting part of the first video is how good the cage looks in Paul Weel's car (with the exception of one broken bar).

I had a mate have a massive shunt at Calder in a NAscar in the early 90's where he turned hard right going into turn1, and while not a head on impact the car was just too strong. I was amazed by the lack of damage to it. Unfortunately much of the energy was transferred to the driver, He couldnt walk for almost a week just from the bruising from the belts. There is a common belief that a 50g impact can be fatal (generally tearing your hearft from the veins and arteries) although people have survived higher.

In a head on collision like the one shown the fact that the car talks over a metre to stop greatly reduces the G forces imparted on the driver. I would be very interested to see what impact the engine had on the drivers compartment.

#10 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,009 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 18 June 2011 - 01:04

I am actually happy to see the amount of destruction of the car, the more it is crushed and bent means that more energy is absorbed, just so long as the survival shell is intact.

...

In a head on collision like the one shown the fact that the car talks over a metre to stop greatly reduces the G forces imparted on the driver. I would be very interested to see what impact the engine had on the drivers compartment.


Completely agree with that point. Earnhardt is a sad example of not enough give in the car. However, I am not exactly sure how rear deformation in a frontal crash is going to help the driver. In effect, the driver has already stopped when the rear starts to buckle. His Maximum G load has already happened. The rear crushing itself is now only reducing energy that would otherwise continue to be absorbed by the front of the car. While this may in the end be a good thing if there is nothing left for the front of the car to take (which in this accident would probably be the case), it is if anything actually making the driver come to a quicker stop then if that energy continued to crush the front of the car, removing precious cm of the driver's travel in the crash. However, having watched the video a couple of more times, I do wonder if there is an intentional weak spot at the C pillar to remove further stress on the cabin of the car, by causing the rear end to buckle under and push the cabin upwards to help burn more energy off.

Edited by Jazza, 18 June 2011 - 01:30.


#11 Myrvold

Myrvold
  • Member

  • 2,755 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 18 June 2011 - 01:46

In the first video, I don't think he hit the wall at anywhere near 100 km/h. In the second one either, plus there were a tyre wall, reducing a lot the energy and making it a very different accident.

In a crash, 100 km/h when hitting the wall is huge, not many crashes are like that. To put it into perspective, Schumacher hit in Silverstone 1999 a double tyre wall in an F1 car at 107 km/h (source). And it was a lot faster:



Was schumachers hit on 107 km/h, any theories on how it would've been today, with asphalt instead of gravel?

#12 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 2,231 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 18 June 2011 - 05:33

That is disturbing. I would have thought that with the roll cage and chassis stiffening the car would have held up better than that. The front deforming didn't shock me, but the way the rear end just buckled was crazy. I have seen some hard front end crashes in V8's, but I have never seen the rear end get mangled in a front crash.

I would hate to see what would have happened to an old VN. The driver would have probably got decapitated by the fuel tank if that's what a VE does.



Watch the sections of roll cage you can see through the windows and in the shot from under the car, the roll cage itself isn't flexing.

The warping you see at the bottom of the car and towards the back of the car is just the thinner outer bodywork flexing and pealing away from the mount points like it's designed to do, there is nothing structural in the boot area of the car.

Always amazing to see these kinds of videos :)

#13 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,009 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 18 June 2011 - 06:09

Watch the sections of roll cage you can see through the windows and in the shot from under the car, the roll cage itself isn't flexing.

The warping you see at the bottom of the car and towards the back of the car is just the thinner outer bodywork flexing and pealing away from the mount points like it's designed to do, there is nothing structural in the boot area of the car.

Always amazing to see these kinds of videos :)


I have to disagree with that sorry. I can clearly see a lot of flexing. (Which is not a bad thing. Flexing stops breaking, and in that regard it is doing its job well.) Look at how many of he vertical bars move closer together, and how the top bar starts bending. Even the way the doors and roof panel no longer fits shows that the centre part of the car has not held it shape.

I would love to see that car broken down to get an idea of what was happening. As you say, these videos are amazing.


#14 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 2,231 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 18 June 2011 - 06:43

I have to disagree with that sorry. I can clearly see a lot of flexing. (Which is not a bad thing. Flexing stops breaking, and in that regard it is doing its job well.) Look at how many of he vertical bars move closer together, and how the top bar starts bending. Even the way the doors and roof panel no longer fits shows that the centre part of the car has not held it shape.

I would love to see that car broken down to get an idea of what was happening. As you say, these videos are amazing.



The thin roof flexes away from the frame, but the frame itself isn't bending and pushing it up.

The bodywork is just lifting away from the mounting points on the crash structure from the force of the crash.

#15 Chubby_Deuce

Chubby_Deuce
  • Member

  • 5,919 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 18 June 2011 - 07:18

The airbags didn't even go off.

#16 prty

prty
  • Member

  • 5,161 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 18 June 2011 - 07:32

Yeah Schumacher's Crash does look faster but the V8 Crash.. First video he hit the wall at 170km/h, And the 2nd video hit at 150km/h

Really got to see the TEGA Vision to really feel the speed of the car. But those are Confirmed Speeds from those crashes


I am not saying you didnt see those figures, but there is no way those were the speeds, or anywhere near. For the first video it could be the speed at which he touched the wall he slided with, but not the head on wall. Otherwise he wouldnt have survived.

Another example: Kovalainens was at 130 km/h against a very wide tyre barrier, and the guy got knocked out:



Edited by prty, 18 June 2011 - 08:07.


#17 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,739 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 18 June 2011 - 07:45

its amazing how the car flexes entirely :/