How will the sport change?

Victor Broccoli · 20 Feb 2001, 07:36 (Ref:65675)

Whenever somebody dies in sport, there are different things that occur to prevent this from happening. Whether it be the batters helmet (Ray Chapman), the football helmet (a couple hundred people), or racing...whenever somebody dies at a sport, something has to change.

Whenever the person that dies is a legend, things have a way of changing very quickly.

When Senna died, the change to F1 was dramatic. Mainly aerodynamic things and the presence of chicanes.

NASCAR has, and always will be, a sport run by a tight-knit community. Until last year, the organization was run by a father and later his son. Dale Earnhardt was a key member of this family. Undoubtedly, with the loss of Dale, the sport of NASCAR will change dramatically.

The question is: How will NASCAR be changed?

Joe Fan · 20 Feb 2001, 08:49 (Ref:65679)

I am not sure since oval racing is more difficult to make safer than road circuits due to the concrete walls. However, it appears that soft walls will ultimately be the answer. From what I have heard, it is hard to find one that is safe for both open wheel and stock cars which is necessary since they often race at many of the same tracks. I have heard that NASCAR is working on a soft wall that is essentially made out of chewed up tires.

I have also seen on TV that Charlotte is already installing soft walls--note this track does not hold an open wheel race. So some of the concerns of certain types of soft walls when it came to open wheels cars (ie allowing the nose of the cars to penetrate, stick in the soft wall and thus snap the car sideways which would be worse) are not an issue there.

As far as a HANS device, I would probably wear one and I am glad that my favorite driver Dale Jarrett wears one but many drivers are worried that such a device would slow them down in situations where they needed to get out of the car fast due to fire. Funny, this is the same argument that the open wheel crowd uses in defense of the open cockpit concept. The HANS device has its own critics and it is believed that the system still may not prevent brain injury in a violent crash because the forces still thrust the brain inside the skull. NASCAR has recommended that drivers try them and help develop them for stock car use. Ford, GM and Dodge have offered to pay the costs for any of their drivers but only about 6-7 used them on Sunday. Should NASCAR mandate them? I am not completely sure but I am leaning in that direction. The creator of this device claims that no driver has ever died while wearing one. However, my gut feeling is that such a device wouldn't have saved Petty and Irwin if they had stuck throttles as believed.

The creator of the HANS device said on an interview on CNN that he wasn't sure that his device would have saved Dale Earnhardt. I have heard rumors that Earnhardt's death was an upper body restraint system failure because the steering wheel was supposedly forced way down in the crash. It seems to make sense to me if that is true because Ken Schrader was involved in the same accident, hit the same wall at the same speed and at a much worse angle where there would be less crushable structure to absorbe the energy from the crash. And yet he walked away fine. However, Schrader wasn't hit from the side shortly after his first impact into the wall like Earnhardt was. I have seen many crashes of a similar variety and the driver walks away.

As far as restrictor plates, the same crash that Earnhardt had could have occured without one, so getting rid of will not prevent the same from occuring but it would lessen the possibilites. And then you would have horsepower issues to deal with.

There may need to be more emphasis placed in absorbing energy in frontal impacts. Can a marriage of carbon fibre body work and roll cage tubing be the answer? Perhaps. Maybe it is the answer for all of motorsports because the strength of stock cars versus open wheel cars, is the ability of the cars to roll and tumble violently while protecting the driver.

My feeling is that this is a difficult problem to solve and unfortunately, there isn't a lot of time to get it right. It looks like this will be solved through trial and error like it always has to.

[Edited by Joe Fan on 20th February 2001]

Valve Bounce · 20 Feb 2001, 10:31 (Ref:65685)

From memory of what I saw on the news, (I don't have the tape), Dale veered left towards the infield then flicked back on opposite lock up towards the outside wall. The angle of impact appeared to be around 30 degrees. Assuming he was still moving at 180 MPH, this would have made the impact velocity against the wall at 180 X sin30degrees which works out at around 90 MPH. In other words, it would have been like hitting a wall front on at 90 MPH. The accident looked very much less simply because there were other cars travelling at the same speed so that the relative velocity with the other cars lessened the visual impression of the impact against the wall. It was only when I checked my Trig formulae that this dawned on me.
Sure, from this moment on, people will think of ways to improve safety - you don't lose a man like Dale and pretend nothing needs to be done. I certainly hope the engineers will come up with a solution to protect drivers in such crashes. Soft walls, changing the shape of the inside of hte cockpit and providing better energy absorption from inside as well as outside the car, and so on. We can actually start a brainstorm session, suggesting a number of solutions, then considering the two best and two worst solutions. Of course, these solutions must then be carefully analysed to make sure that they in turn do not create a life threatening condition in a different situation. I remember the crash fences held up by poles in F1, only to find the poles used to fly around at tremendous speed and create an even more dangerous situation.
I'll kick off with a suggestion of some form of air bag that is inflated under certain conditions. Or some form of hard foam cushion that is installed in front of the driver inside the cockpit. Over to the next poster.

Joe Fan · 20 Feb 2001, 10:39 (Ref:65686)

Valve Bounce, from what I have heard, air bags probably wouldn't be able to deploy fast enough in a crash at those speeds. I don't know it to be true but it seems logical. And would they be able to withstand that type of force? Probably not the ones we have in our passenger cars.

Joe Fan · 20 Feb 2001, 11:07 (Ref:65688)

One thing I mentioned way back after the death of Kenny Irwin, was that I thought the front of tubular frame chassis needed to be built where it would come more to a point like the nose of an open wheel car. The outside of the car could still like just like it is now but underneath it would differ where it would matter most. The nose of an open wheel car is purposely designed to come to a point so that the force is transferred away from the driver. The carbon fibre that the chassis is made out of, is of course, designed to absorb energy. In summary, the goals are to transfer and absorb energy.

The thinking behind the front of tubular frame chassis is provide a crushable area that absorbs the energy instead of the driver. The chassis of a NASCAR car is designed to transfer energy away from the driver to a certain extent, but nowhere as effectively at the open wheel car.

I think this would definately help but regardless, if you hit a concrete wall straight on in an open wheel car or stock car at a high enough speed, I think you will meet your maker in either car. The whole idea is to try to transfer or absorb as much energy in a crash so that it gives the driver a better chance of survival.

R · 20 Feb 2001, 17:07 (Ref:65711)

I agree completely, Joe. And, if what I've read is true, that Earnhardt's impact with the wall generated a force of 150 to 200 g, there's no safety device in the world that could have saved him. He probably died of brain damage, caused by the rapid deceleration. The brain is soft tissue, and it will continue forward inside the skull in the case of a sudden impact like that. No type of helmet or HANS device could have prevented Earnhardt's death.

Liz · 20 Feb 2001, 20:57 (Ref:65768)

Something that no one has mentioned yet - being more concerned it seems with technical changes - is the change of attitude that may occur. There is an article in MSN today called "I killed Dale Earnhardt" by a NASCAR fan who ends his article with this rather telling paragraph:

"The qualities that make NASCAR fun to watch are the same ones that make it so deadly. Many fans loved Dale Earnhardt specifically because he often slammed other cars, sending them into dangerous spins as he passed by unharmed. I admit I get a thirll from watching cars crash at 190 mph. I admit I was glad that NASCAR tweaked the rules to bring cars closer together, increasing tension but also the risk of a wreck."

We have been having this discussion on various boards regarding the selling of the movie "Drivel" (I mean Driven

) by showing film of horrendous accidents, thus attempting to draw in the people like this man, who attend racing hoping to see big accidents. Perhaps a few of these people will now realise that when they are urging their drivers on to accidents they may also be saying "Kill yourself, Bubba!" Perhaps it is time for some people to realise that racing is a dangerous enough sport without the fans trying to convince the powers that be to make it even more dangerous just to satisfy their appetite for gore.

Neil C · 21 Feb 2001, 01:35 (Ref:65822)

Liz, those people are on the peripheral of the sport,(just as they have occassionaly been in and out of these forums).

Whether at a stockcar race, roadrace, or dirt track, the ghouls you mention are not anywhere to be seen. They may see a race on TV, (or a bad movie trailer) hoping to see "action", but when the event doesnt deliver, they're off to the World Wrestling Federation for gratification.

I dont agree that it is fan demand for greater speeds and more "thrills" that makes the sport more dangerous. In fact the sport is safer now than it ever was, but hopefully not as safe as it will be tomorrow.

Liz · 21 Feb 2001, 02:59 (Ref:65829)

I understand that the rules were changed this year due to Daytona of last year resembling an F1 race, to make the cars drive closer together and at faster speeds, thus, according to some of the drivers at least, making the racing more dangerous and virtually encouraging the kind of 18 car fracas that happened just before Ernhardt was killed. Some of them said they saw that coming before the race ever started.

I don't know many people who go racing to see crashes, but I hear a lot of people say that they think this is the best part. And with all this talk of getting "butts in the seats" I wouldn't put it past some entrepreneurs to arrange things to appeal to that kind of person. I hope they don't. And I hope that anyone who used to think that way will think about it next time and think better of it.

Victor Broccoli · 21 Feb 2001, 03:03 (Ref:65831)

Here's the changes that I see that will happen:

A) HANS Device...whether or not the HANS could have prevented the death of Dale Earnhardt, people will inevitably point to it as a safety device that can save lives (as it does).

B) Aerodynamic Rules - Look for the return of the old rules. The new rules will end being somewhat of a scapegoat, despite the fact that they got through a Talladega race without any real problems.

C) Pointed underbody frame. This was suggested before, and I firmly believe that this will occur.

Hopefully NASCAR will not pull a Bernie and mess with the tracks. Daytona just isn't as attractive with the "Daytona Superstraight Chicane"

Jay · 21 Feb 2001, 04:05 (Ref:65834)

"B) Aerodynamic Rules - Look for the return of the old rules. The new rules will end being somewhat of a scapegoat, despite the fact that they got through a Talladega race without any real problems."

I would point out that 3 other NASCAR drivers died in similar accidents that didn't even involve these new aerodynamics.

NASCAR is about entertainment, even more so than the open wheel series. And, as such I would be very surprised to see them go back to the old regulations.

However, looking at the fatalities of the past year, NASCAR does need to take a serious look at the safety of its drivers.

Crash Test · 21 Feb 2001, 05:28 (Ref:65838)

I have many thoughts of this issue in my head at the moment, but perhaps the most simple, basic one is the one I will share will you know.

If, a full face helmet, the HANS device, airbag, and all of the other safety devices that are available today CANNOT prevent servere injury to the driver in an accident, perhaps it is the speed of the car that needs to change. If it is the sheer fact that a human cannot survive such impacts, why not eliminate them?

Would lopping 15/20mph off their speeds absolutely kill the spectacle?

Valve Bounce · 21 Feb 2001, 07:13 (Ref:65849)

I'VE BEEN HOLDING BACK HOPING SOMEONE WILL TELL US WHERE TO GET THE INFO., BUT I can't anymore. (Sorry for caps) What is a HAN device and where can we see oneThere must be an article on this. I have no idea what you guys are talking about.
Crash - slowing a car down is not that easy - how will they do that, and will that actually close the cars up even more? I suppose limiting engine size is one way.

Joe Fan · 21 Feb 2001, 09:35 (Ref:65857)

Crash Test, I don't really think speed is as big of an issue as you might think. Yeah, it they raced at a top speed of 80mph, you probably wouldn't see a death but then the sport wouldn't be as fun for the drivers or the fans.

The central problem is the concrete wall. These cars can roll and flip over repeatedly at 200mph and the drivers walk away. However, a crash into a concret wall at a much lower speed can cause death. The soft wall concept seems to me to be the main area of emphasis since it could potentially and universally, improve safety for open wheel and closed wheel cars on the same track.

Valve, the HANS device stands for Head And Neck System. If you type in "HANS" or "Head And Neck System" over on http://www.yahoo.com, I am sure that you will find an article on it. It basically is a system that stabilizes the head and prevents it from being thrown too far forward in a violent crash.

Valve Bounce · 21 Feb 2001, 10:55 (Ref:65864)

Thank you Mr. Fan, but I don't think:
" At Vista Medical Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: VMTI) we develop, manufacture, and market products that provide information to doctors performing minimally invasive procedures in general surgery, heart surgery, gynecology, urology and selected other surgical specialties.
Our people and our technologies are dedicated to improving the performance and outcomes of surgery."

...is really what I'm after. Anyone else have any advice for me?

Joe Fan · 21 Feb 2001, 10:59 (Ref:65865)

Click here: http://google.yahoo.com/bin/query?p=...M%22&hc=0&hs=0

You may have to weed thru them but there are some articles on the device.

Here is a better search: http://google.yahoo.com/bin/query?p=...E%22&hc=0&hs=0

Crash Test · 21 Feb 2001, 12:15 (Ref:65881)

But there obviously is a problem with the cars going at the speeds they are at the moment. What was the fatality rate when the speeds were 10-15mph slower? Factor into that safety improvements since then, and you imagine it would be a whole lot safer. Personally, i don't think it would kill the spectacle.

But soft walls- if you still hit one head on, you are still hitting a wall head on, if you get my drift. What would solve this? A massive paddock on the outside of the track (oh god, i sound like Franklin, remember him??

) might help. The soft walls that have been tested to date would have done didly squat in Dale's accident.

Besides, how far away is a soft wall? Something obviously has to be done, i hope like hell that we don't have any more tragedies on the track...

Liz · 21 Feb 2001, 12:44 (Ref:65888)

The sad truth is that you can't take the death out of racing. However, MSN listed the drivers and pilots who had been killed over the last 20 years (just in the major series) and to my surprise there were fewer than 20. A sport involving the kidns of speed and equipment that our sport involves, and yet it loses fewer than one driver/pilot per year, is about as safe as any such sport can be made.

Everything should be done that can be done, without completley ruining the specacle, but we must remember that motor racing can never be perfectly safe.

R · 21 Feb 2001, 18:04 (Ref:65923)

Quote:

Originally posted by Joe Fan
The central problem is the concrete wall. These cars can roll and flip over repeatedly at 200mph and the drivers walk away. However, a crash into a concret wall at a much lower speed can cause death. The soft wall concept seems to me to be the main area of emphasis since it could potentially and universally, improve safety for open wheel and closed wheel cars on the same track.

Yes. I've been holding back on this on purpose, because I'm no expert on NASCAR, and am in no position to be an advocate on what they should and shouldn't do to achieve our common goal - to improve safety.

The problem with the concrete wall is that is does not move one millimetre. A soft wall system that allows the deceleration to take place slower - anything is better than an instant stop - can be the difference between life and death.

Valve Bounce · 21 Feb 2001, 22:01 (Ref:65976)

Just by chance while I taped Law and Order the other night, there was a news film clip of the incident. I watched it on freeze frame, and there were a few things that become clearer. The two cars, Dale's and car #36 hit the wall stuck together side by side. The two cars were moving at almost the same speed as the other cars on the track at the moment of impact, and the angle of impact with the wall was actually 45 degrees. The front of car #36 appeard to crumple more, and the car was able to change direction back along the track. However, the front of car#36 was bearing against the side of Dale's car and this prevented Dale's car from bouncing back to a direction along the track. From first impressions, car#36 appeared to be worse off in the crash because the front probably crumpled more. It is a miracle that he did not suffer the same injuries as Dale. Using my Trig formulae, Dale's accident would have been equivalent to hitting something front on at around 120 MPH. The actual impact force can be calculated by specialists who will be able to work out the time the car stopped moving in the direction against the wall, but from my tape, there was very little crumple on the front of the car at impact, so this time of impact would have been very small, thus greatly increasing the impact force. In fact the car was so rigid that the front left side wheel did not appear to have been pushed back at all by the impact and was still turning. The only way anyone can analyse this incident and try to minimise future injuries is to determine how the driver of car #36 avoided suffering these injuries - that will be the key to any investigation.
Yes!! I am becoming convinced that a properly constructed "soft" wall could be the answer. Such a wall would need to be around two metres deep, perferably more, so that a car crashing into it at around 120 MPH front on would almost fully compress the wall. This would greatly increase the time of impact and thus decrease the decelleration of the car. Sorry about the complicated explanation but engineers have the knack of explaning things in a manner that nobody can understand.

sprinter · 22 Feb 2001, 00:29 (Ref:66008)

Nascar drivers say the HANS device restricts movement too much. Just heard today that Simpson Race Products has been working on a new head restraint system (I think it's called SEARS) which allows more movement than the HANS device.
This is set up for testing at Wayne State on their crash sled Wednesday February 22, 2001. If everything goes well a number of these devices will be available for this weekend Nascar race.

Valve Bounce · 23 Feb 2001, 01:46 (Ref:66187)

Does anyone know how many of the drivers at Daytona last weekend wore the HANS device, and more importantly, was the driver of car #36 wearing one?

Joe Fan · 23 Feb 2001, 11:05 (Ref:66215)

Valve, they said six or seven drivers were wearing the HANS device last Sunday. These drivers were Dale Jarrett, Jeff Burton, Brett Bodine, Matt Kennseth, Kyle Petty with other possibly Kenny Wallace but it is not know for sure.

As far as Schrader wearing a HANS, no he wasn't. I have heard that he may announce his retirement. He was the one who first had a look into the cockpit of Dale's car. And I have heard that it was pretty apparent from looking at him that he was in very bad shape and more than likely dead.

massifheed · 23 Feb 2001, 11:45 (Ref:66218)

I read a report on the net from one of the guys who was first on the scene, and it didn't sound pretty. There was also a quote from one of the guys on the scene at Gonzalo Rodriguez' crash and that was even more horific. You have to spare a thought for the race officials who have to see the aftermath first hand. It's not a job that I could do. I know that many people (including myself) say that dying while racing is the way many drivers would like to go, and to a certain extent it does seem to be quick and over with straight away, but some of the things that race officials must have seen I can even begin to imagine. Especially if the drivers are well known to the guys who are trying to bring them back to life.

For those interested the link to the HANS website is:
http://www.hansdevice.com

Hans.ca · 23 Feb 2001, 21:05 (Ref:66301)

If you look back to the time just after WW2 you will find that drivers of sprint cars 1/2, 3/4 mile and Indy style died at a very much higher rate then today. Why did they die? It was the design of the cars. The old style roadster, front engine with a solid rail frame and solid rear axle. When a roadster like that hit a stationary object the only easely movable item was the driver. The roadster did not have any crushable areas.
Slowly the rail frame was replaced by a space frame, further changes came after Lotus with Jim Clark at the wheel appeared at Indy in 1961. Not only did the Lotus have a rear engine it also had a space frame and independent suspension all around. Now when a car like that hit,it would shed wheels,crush the space frame and sometimes the driver would get out with minimal or no injuries.
As the design progressed we went from space frame to tub style chassies. Injuries to leg and feet became more prevelant, but at least the driver lived. New rules called for crush zone in front of the feet, better head support, roll bars high enough to do some good in case of a rollover.
Now in a crash, the wheels are sheared off first, scrubbing off speed. Then the crushable zone in front of the feet absorbs more speed as it gets demolished and so on and so on.
Now look at a NASCAR type chassie. A fully triangulated cage around the driver and very stiff construction right up to the supports of the front wheels. Solid rear axle, no crush zones. In case of a crash, the car is able to withstand tremendous impact, much higher then the driver can absorb. There are no wheels to be pulled off and only a very thin body shell and then a very rigid frame, just like the old style roadsters.
I'm not sure if the above makes sense. But look at the safety record comparing NASCAR to single seater racing in F1 and CART.