Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Front roll hoops for protection by FIA


  • Please log in to reply
636 replies to this topic

#101 AdHoc

AdHoc
  • Member

  • 223 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 26 April 2012 - 06:30

Let's say it goes 150 km/h and the car goes 200+ km/h = same result? :o

Edited by AdHoc, 26 April 2012 - 06:34.


Advertisement

#102 HP

HP
  • Member

  • 14,346 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 26 April 2012 - 06:32

You know what would be really cool, is an automated shield that pops up for a split second when it detects debris approaching.

Could use sonar or lasers.

Oh, and it could also pop up when the car flips over to act as an extra tall rollover bar.

And if it rains the system has to be switched off or what? While it sounds cool, there is no technology at this time that could keep up with your idea.

A friend of mine who is contracted to check out engineering systems for every day use told me about the difficulties they have to make household robots to work. They use different kind of approaches, but so far nobody invented a system that enables such a roboter to not bump into anything over a longer period of time. Laser and anything else systems cannot be made precise and intelligent enough at this time. And there we're talking about detecting things approaching at very low speed. He told me of this, because he just couldn't believe it that a bank would loan a few more millions for a concept he knows can't be made possible in near and mid future. After all his current company's opinion helps decide investors if they want to loan money for a project or not, and he had tested several models of that household robot, and knew they can't make it work. My friend also used to invent for a very successful company that design a number of gadgets for the PC and other computer systems.

Myself I helped design an electronic ignition (for a 6-cylinder Benelli motorbike) with an infrared sensor. Compensating for thermo and other issues, were huge obstacles. And what you are talking is magnitudes more complex.

Also, there's the story of misfiring airbags.

So sorry, what you're suggesting sound's cool, but isn't practical or feasible at this time.

#103 Funkyskunk2

Funkyskunk2
  • Member

  • 49 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 26 April 2012 - 06:48

Let's say it goes 150 km/h and the car goes 200+ km/h = same result? :o

Inverse tan of 150/200 is 36.87 degrees so no it's much shallower than the drawing. Assuming no drag(I've got no idea what the terminal velocity of a tire is) you're still launching the thing 88 meters in the air. A heroic tire.

#104 HP

HP
  • Member

  • 14,346 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 26 April 2012 - 07:01

Not possible. A tire will have to fly up faster than it comes down due to drag, so how can a tire fly up faster than 300kph?! Its not about the tire speed, its usually bouncing around at a relatively slow speed, its the car going 300kph and hitting one in midair that's the problem. The impact will be almost straight on like the test no matter what the tire's trajectory.

You're assuming that the tire is still intact. My opinion is that freak or other accidents will always happen and in certain situations can a safety precaution backfire in an unusal set of circumstances. For example ever heard of blown pop off valves from pressure cooker pots in the kitchen and what they can do? The safer they are built in normal circumstances, the more spectacular they fail in unusual circumstances.

As to the canopy, the thing that I question most this is the following: If they go down that route, there will invariably come the time when there comes the inquiry to give the driver a better view, meaning his head will stick up a few centimeters higher out of the survival cell than it's now, most likely to compensate for loss of view with the canopy. After all the driver is now more secure, isn't he? But is he really, or is it just false security? And the argument of loss of view is to be taken seriously too.

The obvious answer for me is to make the canopy part of the survival cell, but how can you do that, without running into other issues mentioned in the entire thread? In the end it's a trade off, but which one is the correct and safest one? For me the answer is there is never one safe and correct solution, that can take care of all possibilities.

And - I know it sounds harsh - but how much money do we expect teams to be able to spend on safety, for something that possibly never happens or chances are very, very low. Let's not forget that the last driver fatality in F1 is quite a while back. More endangered and being killed in recent times, were race marshals, serious injuries sustained by team members run over at pit-stops. Do they get a canopy or front roll hoops too? Drivers are most visible to the general public, but I think there are more pressing safety aspects that need to be considered.

#105 AdHoc

AdHoc
  • Member

  • 223 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 26 April 2012 - 07:03

A heroic tire.


:lol:

#106 Funkyskunk2

Funkyskunk2
  • Member

  • 49 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 26 April 2012 - 07:07

The obvious solution for an F1 noob (me) is end open wheel racing(think x1 minus the canopy) but that's blasphemy...as we watch ramp nosed, canopied cars limp around on melting Perelli hyper-degradation tires. At least we can listen to those V6's roar.

Edited by Funkyskunk2, 26 April 2012 - 07:09.


#107 HP

HP
  • Member

  • 14,346 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 26 April 2012 - 07:15

The obvious solution for an F1 noob (me) is end open wheel racing(think x1 minus the canopy) but that's blasphemy...as we watch ramp nosed, canopied cars limp around on melting Perelli hyper-degradation tires. At least we can listen to those V6's roar.

Sure we can do that, but then we have the problem what to do in Kubika's rally accident for example. Think about it, Kubika get a worse injury in a "proper" car than in an open-wheeled car.

I don't think the request to build safer barriers for any kind of vehicle on public roads will be heard, and is even more complicated to achieve (think motorbike), than bolt a freaking canopy on top of an F1 car :)

#108 Funkyskunk2

Funkyskunk2
  • Member

  • 49 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 26 April 2012 - 07:21

Sure we can do that, but then we have the problem what to do in Kubika's rally accident for example. Think about it, Kubika get a worse injury in a "proper" car than in an open-wheeled car.

I don't think the request to build safer barriers for any kind of vehicle on public roads will be heard, and is even more complicated to achieve (think motorbike), than bolt a freaking canopy on top of an F1 car :)


I don't know what you mean by road barriers, I just think the cars need fenders.

Posted Image

#109 Finn

Finn
  • Member

  • 35 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 26 April 2012 - 07:34

Posted Image

What about something like this?


What is this? An F1 car for ants? How can we expect the drivers to drive around and around... if they can't even fit inside the car?

I don't wanna hear your excuses! The car has to be at least... three times bigger than this!

#110 Cool Beans

Cool Beans
  • Member

  • 1,553 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 26 April 2012 - 07:38

And if it rains the system has to be switched off or what? While it sounds cool, there is no technology at this time that could keep up with your idea.

A friend of mine who is contracted to check out engineering systems for every day use told me about the difficulties they have to make household robots to work. They use different kind of approaches, but so far nobody invented a system that enables such a roboter to not bump into anything over a longer period of time. Laser and anything else systems cannot be made precise and intelligent enough at this time. And there we're talking about detecting things approaching at very low speed.

I'm sorry but I just don't quite understand this. Google has made a car that drives autonomously in traffic and doesn't bump into anything. Give that robot a few Kinect sensors and you're golden.
Anyway a simple radar or something similar should do the trick here, the mechanic/hydraulic parts are fast enough to react in time; after all a spinning table saw can retract itself when you try to poke it with a finger so popping up a ramp in time shouldn't be a problem. This would be the most awesome safety device ever.

#111 AdHoc

AdHoc
  • Member

  • 223 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 26 April 2012 - 07:42

I'm sorry but I just don't quite understand this. Google has made a car that drives autonomously in traffic and doesn't bump into anything. Give that robot a few Kinect sensors and you're golden.
Anyway a simple radar or something similar should do the trick here, the mechanic/hydraulic parts are fast enough to react in time; after all a spinning table saw can retract itself when you try to poke it with a finger so popping up a ramp in time shouldn't be a problem. This would be the most awesome safety device ever.


An F1 car is complex machinery going at 300 kmh, it's not the same as a stationary saw with stationary sensors.

#112 Ulysses777

Ulysses777
  • Member

  • 64 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 26 April 2012 - 07:52

An example (not motorsport related) of how 'safety' can go wrong.

1961, the Liberty Bell 7 spaceflight piloted by Gus Grissom. After splashdown, the hatch opens accidentally, and the capsule takes on water and sinks, but Grissom survives.

1967, Apollo 1. The hatch now opens inward to prevent the previous accident. A fire breaks out inside the capsule during a manned test, the increased air pressure makes the hatch impossible to open, and the same man Grissom is killed along with his crewmates.



When you try to do something to try to solve one safety problem, you need to make absolutely damn sure that you don't create another problem at the same time.

In the case of this roll hoop, reduced visibility and the chance of it collapsing toward the driver in the event of the car flipping and moving forward, will IMO be creating new problems.

#113 Ali_G

Ali_G
  • Member

  • 18,432 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 26 April 2012 - 08:00

F1 car with a canopy

Posted Image


I would expect the canopy to reach further forwards and for the airbox to be merged more aerodynamically with the canopy.

#114 CoolBreeze

CoolBreeze
  • Member

  • 474 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 26 April 2012 - 08:02

If Senna's death didn't result in closed cockpit F1 cars, i doubt we'll ever see this.

#115 iotar

iotar
  • Member

  • 2,153 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 26 April 2012 - 08:04



it was posted in planet-f1 , seems the visibility will be ridiculous and the looks of the cars would be terrible i guess ,
they say it could be mounted from the opening of the cockpit to the end of the bulkhead and will prevent drivers from flying tyres !! how often do we see tyres flying from cars ?


This kind of attitude reminds me of complaints about HANS by drivers. OMG, I don't like it, it's heavy and affects my movement. Oh wait, my neck is not broken, I guess it's OK. F1 drivers are dummies and should not be listened to.

#116 Risil

Risil
  • Member

  • 14,286 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 26 April 2012 - 11:22

Sounds like the FIA are favouring the front roll-hoop. The tests have raised the good point that a strong enough canopy could deflect a tyre high into the air. Possibly into spectators or marshals. The roll-hoop would deflate the tyre, much reducing the chance of it doing damage with secondary impacts. Something to think about, possibly, if we're talking about the Law of Unintended Consequences.

There's also concern about about the aerospace-grade canopy flexing under impact: I'm not sure why this is a problem although I assume it's got something to do with the driver's head hitting against it?

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/99155

Edited by Risil, 26 April 2012 - 11:23.


#117 GotYoubyTheBalls

GotYoubyTheBalls
  • Member

  • 301 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 26 April 2012 - 11:29

Not needed, full stop.

#118 krapmeister

krapmeister
  • Member

  • 5,602 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 26 April 2012 - 11:32

Posted Image


:love:

#119 muramasa

muramasa
  • Member

  • 3,248 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 26 April 2012 - 11:34

I would expect the canopy to reach further forwards and for the airbox to be merged more aerodynamically with the canopy.

yeah, maybe somewhere between RedBull X1 and Caparo T1.



Advertisement

#120 sofarapartguy

sofarapartguy
  • Member

  • 1,051 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 26 April 2012 - 11:47

It's all nice but driver still needs to escape cockpit in 6 seconds.

#121 Jon83

Jon83
  • Member

  • 1,925 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 26 April 2012 - 12:17

Hope it doesn't happen.

Quite like the open cockpit and open wheels. In fact, seeing as I watch very little other motorsport, it is all I know.

I don't really think, as an outsider, that F1 is that unsafe that these drastic measures (which is what it would be) need introduced. Just my opinion though and I think those who will come back with stuff like we have seen in this thread (referring to DW's wife for instance) are being a bit ridiculous.



#122 LoudHoward

LoudHoward
  • Member

  • 1,318 posts
  • Joined: April 06

Posted 26 April 2012 - 12:43

An F1 car is complex machinery going at 300 kmh, it's not the same as a stationary saw with stationary sensors.


While I don't particularly agree with his idea (I don't think anything should be popping up out of a car lol, good luck being the guy that gets to clean the drivers visor in a pitstop) I think the technology is available. They can put sensors on military vehicles that can detect RPGs coming in and destroy them, so I think they could manage sensing a tyre coming in at 300km/h.

#123 AlexS

AlexS
  • Member

  • 2,568 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 26 April 2012 - 13:22

It will be very bad for F1, and paradoxically for pilots, that they start feeling invulnerable.

#124 Risil

Risil
  • Member

  • 14,286 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 26 April 2012 - 13:24

You mean they'll intentionally start driving through flying tyres and bits of debris? :confused:

It seems to be worth pointing out the obvious that there has been top-level, high performance motorsport with closed cockpits for a very long time.

Edited by Risil, 26 April 2012 - 13:25.


#125 Funkyskunk2

Funkyskunk2
  • Member

  • 49 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 26 April 2012 - 13:31

Slept on it, now I remember why I'm wary of cockpits.



Marshal response was quick.

Edited by Funkyskunk2, 26 April 2012 - 13:35.


#126 David1976

David1976
  • Member

  • 915 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 26 April 2012 - 14:14

I personally do not like the idea of the front roll hoops.

It will completely change the look of an F1 car in a negative way. I know safety is paramount, but we haven't had any deaths in F1 since 1994 and I think this is a step too far.

Surely the obstruction of the hoop would maximize the potential for accidents due to the drivers having the vision restricted? One benefit could easily be replaced with another negative.

#127 Rubens Hakkamacher

Rubens Hakkamacher
  • Member

  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 26 April 2012 - 14:25

I don't think a canopy would of saved WHeldon - did you see the state of the car ? roll hoops were simply ripped off, what makes you think a bit of bodywork would of saved him ?


That's not the point. Increasing safety overall should not become an issue of "will this work in all circumstances?"

On the other hand, the hoop idea is dumb because, while it works great for this one artificial circumstance - a tire at a certain angle - it does nothing for other angles and cockpit intrusion of objects that obviously could not only get around the hoop, but could be worse because *the hoop itself could act as a "net" in grabbing flying parts!".

Massa had a serious injury and he came back.


Massa's injury may not have been serious with a canopy. Or when Christiano daMatta had a deer jump into the cockpit of his Champ car. Or situations involving suspension pieces flipping back into the cockpit - which, IMO, we have been very, very lucky with a number of crashes in recent years.

Motorsport deaths are utterly tragic, but they are a fact of life.


No reason to be accepting of a current state of affairs unless one is uncivilized.

I'd be willing to bet if you removed all danger many drivers wouldn't be interested - its part of their psyche to battle rivals and themselves.


I think you may be surprised to find that as race drivers are higher up the ladder, they are not of a mindset that you think.


#128 whitewaterMkII

whitewaterMkII
  • Member

  • 5,351 posts
  • Joined: November 05

Posted 26 April 2012 - 14:30

Here's the vid of Lyn St. James upside down and on fire in a closed cockpit GTP car, and walked away.
Boy do I mis GTP, those were some beeeautiful rides...
1986 Riverside

#129 Cavani

Cavani
  • Member

  • 905 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 26 April 2012 - 14:34

a simple question , why do all drivers love monaco ? because its more dangerous and one mistake will end up with you in the wall . that is what drives them ,that is what makes them more concentrated and more focused and therefore go faster

#130 plastik2k9

plastik2k9
  • Member

  • 507 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 26 April 2012 - 15:46

a simple question , why do all drivers love monaco ? because its more dangerous and one mistake will end up with you in the wall . that is what drives them ,that is what makes them more concentrated and more focused and therefore go faster

They don't go there to be struck on the head with a tyre. That's the point of this test. We still don't have a way of preventing what happened in Formula 2 a few years back, where a relatively minor incident resulted in someone's death due to a loose tyre. Tyre related head injuries are by far the most likely to cause death it would seem, given the advances in most other areas. In an ideal world, the tyres would vaporise into thin air when they detach. There is nothing to love about them.

The adrenaline factors at Monaco are mainly risks of crashing, and the rewards of not crashing when you push to the edge. No amount of safety measures will take away the adrenaline and excitement of driving on the edge at Monaco, because there's always that risk of crashing. Drivers enjoy that risk, but they don't want to die. When we stop F1 cars crashing, then there is a problem.

That said, this is clearly not a perfect concept. It doesn't protect from all angles. It doesn't stop a lot debris. But it alleviates concerns about the closed cockpit idea; you can't be trapped in the car by this hoop. I can't possibly oppose their intentions, but clearly there are many ideas to consider, not just this one.

#131 Octavian

Octavian
  • Member

  • 703 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 26 April 2012 - 17:34

Close the cockpit and close the wheels - like in Newey's Gran Turismo design.
That combination would have several benefits including safety and racing performance - it would clean up the air no end and solve the dirty air problem we have in F1.
An enclosed cockpit would improve visibility too, by lowering the side walls and replacing with the clear canopy. This is the step F1 needs to make.

#132 Ali_G

Ali_G
  • Member

  • 18,432 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 26 April 2012 - 17:49

That combination would have several benefits including safety and racing performance - it would clean up the air no end and solve the dirty air problem we have in F1.


The lack of open wheels would essentially wipe out the drag of the car and hence the slipstream. The strakes on the diffuser is the major problem in terms of turbulence along the centre line of the car.

#133 FW09

FW09
  • Member

  • 318 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 26 April 2012 - 18:37

Riiiight. Let's put some explosives into the cars in the name of safety.


We all have some explosives in our cars. Seat belt pretensioners and airbags.

Mercedes SLS actually has doors that explode off if the car goes belly up.


#134 Octavian

Octavian
  • Member

  • 703 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 26 April 2012 - 18:48

The lack of open wheels would essentially wipe out the drag of the car and hence the slipstream. The strakes on the diffuser is the major problem in terms of turbulence along the centre line of the car.


It wouldn't wipe out slipstream. The car in front is still punching a massive hole in the air and thus slipstreaming will still occur for a car following directly behind.

The strakes are an issue but if you've ever watched a simulation of air leaving an F1 car at speed you'll see just how much turbulence the wheels generate.



#135 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 26 April 2012 - 18:54

Slept on it, now I remember why I'm wary of cockpits.



Marshal response was quick.

The canopy keeps him alive! Without it he'd have been burned during the crash and before he could get his leg free.

This is typical of the muddled thinking on this subject.

#136 RedOne

RedOne
  • Member

  • 1,666 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 26 April 2012 - 20:21

Since tyres bounce, what is to stop it from bouncing over the roll hoop onto the drivers head?

#137 SirRacer

SirRacer
  • Member

  • 1,162 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 26 April 2012 - 20:37

Since tyres bounce, what is to stop it from bouncing over the roll hoop onto the drivers head?

The car's speed

#138 Funkyskunk2

Funkyskunk2
  • Member

  • 49 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 26 April 2012 - 20:42

Since tyres bounce, what is to stop it from bouncing over the roll hoop onto the drivers head?


The speed of the car means the tire is going to come at a very close to horizontal trajectory.


The canopy keeps him alive! Without it he'd have been burned during the crash and before he could get his leg free.

This is typical of the muddled thinking on this subject.


? Were talking about F1 cars, the fuel is behind. A canopy prevents marshalls from spraying fire retardant directly onto an unconscious driver until you can pull it off. Its just something else in the way.

And I'm also curious if a driver is in a partially burning car, wouldn't opening a canopy release a bubble of oxygen rich air attracting flames to the driver?

#139 jondon

jondon
  • Member

  • 510 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 26 April 2012 - 20:44

An example (not motorsport related) of how 'safety' can go wrong.

1961, the Liberty Bell 7 spaceflight piloted by Gus Grissom. After splashdown, the hatch opens accidentally, and the capsule takes on water and sinks, but Grissom survives.

1967, Apollo 1. The hatch now opens inward to prevent the previous accident. A fire breaks out inside the capsule during a manned test, the increased air pressure makes the hatch impossible to open, and the same man Grissom is killed along with his crewmates.



When you try to do something to try to solve one safety problem, you need to make absolutely damn sure that you don't create another problem at the same time.

In the case of this roll hoop, reduced visibility and the chance of it collapsing toward the driver in the event of the car flipping and moving forward, will IMO be creating new problems.


Excellent, excellent post!

Advertisement

#140 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 26 April 2012 - 20:51

the problem with the rollhoop on the test is that it would do nothing in an accident like the one that killed Henry Surtees for example, where the wheel didn't come at him from the front but came from the side.

#141 Funkyskunk2

Funkyskunk2
  • Member

  • 49 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 26 April 2012 - 21:03

the problem with the rollhoop on the test is that it would do nothing in an accident like the one that killed Henry Surtees for example, where the wheel didn't come at him from the front but came from the side.

It only looks like that, the tire was so slow its coming from the side didn't matter. Relative to the driver it's head on.

#142 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 26 April 2012 - 21:10

It only looks like that, the tire was so slow its coming from the side didn't matter. Relative to the driver it's head on.


what?

#143 Funkyskunk2

Funkyskunk2
  • Member

  • 49 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 26 April 2012 - 21:16

what?

Imagine it as a driver. You're doing 300 kph. A tire would have to be moving a tremendous speed to hit from the side or top.


Stop imagining it as the tire striking the car, it's the drivers head striking the tire.

#144 Ali_G

Ali_G
  • Member

  • 18,432 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 26 April 2012 - 21:22

Imagine it as a driver. You're doing 300 kph. A tire would have to be moving a tremendous speed to hit from the side or top.


Stop imagining it as the tire striking the car, it's the drivers head striking the tire.


THis post makes no sense.

#145 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 26 April 2012 - 21:23

Imagine it as a driver. You're doing 300 kph. A tire would have to be moving a tremendous speed to hit from the side or top.


Stop imagining it as the tire striking the car, it's the drivers head striking the tire.


I have no clue what you are talking about, I spoke specifically of Henry Surtees' accident, a rollhoop in front of him like the one on the FIA video would have been no help. In case you are not familiar with the accident, video is here, the wheel did hit him from the side

#146 Ali_G

Ali_G
  • Member

  • 18,432 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 26 April 2012 - 21:23

It wouldn't wipe out slipstream. The car in front is still punching a massive hole in the air and thus slipstreaming will still occur for a car following directly behind.

The strakes are an issue but if you've ever watched a simulation of air leaving an F1 car at speed you'll see just how much turbulence the wheels generate.


They do generate turbulence. But much of this turbulence is not along the centre line of the car where the following car will be producing it's downforce.

The tyres as they are turning against airflow create a large percentage of the cars overall drag and slipstream in it's wake.

#147 Funkyskunk2

Funkyskunk2
  • Member

  • 49 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 26 April 2012 - 21:26

THis post makes no sense.

Its like you guys have never taken a physics class. Were is the energy coming from? The bouncing tire? No its the speeding car! Look at the tire in the video of Surtees, if that hit a man standing still would it of killed him?

#148 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 26 April 2012 - 21:28

Its like you guys have never taken a physics class. Were is the energy coming from? The bouncing tire? No its the speeding car! Look at the tire in the video of Surtees, if that hit a man standing still would it of killed him?


yes it would have but that's completely irrelevant. A roll hoop IN FRONT of the cockpit wouldn't have deflected that specific tyre, didn't they cover that in your physics class?

#149 Funkyskunk2

Funkyskunk2
  • Member

  • 49 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 26 April 2012 - 21:34

yes it would have but that's completely irrelevant. A roll hoop IN FRONT of the cockpit wouldn't have deflected that specific tyre, didn't they cover that in your physics class?


300kph/3.6 = 83.3 meters per second. Lets say there is a entire meter between driver and hoop. 1/83.3=0.012 seconds. That's the window of opportunity for a tire to slip between and strike the driver. Not only is it unlikely, its impossible unless the tire is moving at huge speeds similar to that of the actual car. That cannot happen. A tire is unlikely to be traveling 100 kph perpendicular to the track.



#150 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 26 April 2012 - 21:36

yes it would have but that's completely irrelevant. A roll hoop IN FRONT of the cockpit wouldn't have deflected that specific tyre, didn't they cover that in your physics class?

Funkyskunk is correct. The wheel moves into his path from the side, but at the the impact it IS in his path. It's is like 99% frontal. The wheel is doing maybe 20-30kph while the car is doing 300. Square those for the energy...