Vehicle mass: What effet does it have in an accident?

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by gtxb67

imola 89, tamburello curve - taken flat out at over 300kph. gerhard berger lost part of his front wing and instead of turning left to follow the track went straight on at virtually undiminished speed. it was virtually a head on with an immovable concrete wall.

Ive had a look at the berger video. Yes the vehicle went straight ahead, but I cant agree it hit the barrier virtually straight on, at best the barrier was at 30 degrees, 60 degrees from straight on and the car continued in a forwards direction some distance down the track

A speed change of 150km/h in a couple of ms, unlikely.

As I mentioned previously the least acceleration the body could experience in such a crash would be in the order of 250g, totally unsurvivable. Any crash where the driver survives, the acceleration has to be less than this.....much less..

In my limited search of recorded f1 crash data available, the most acceleration any driver survived was 75g, but please if anyone finds data that which exceeds this, please post.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by prydey

no, the ancap testing is offset.

indeed you are correct, thankyou.

[xy500]

Originally Posted by 302 XC

"Bottom line,if you hit something with sufficient speed or it has sufficient mass,or both,then no matter what the ANCAP rating,you have,youre likely to get seriously injured (or die)"

Not correct in all circumstances , unfortunately

I hit at 100Ks a cow (of mass wieght ???) head on in a car with no ancap rating
and walked away to tell the story
Speed hitting mass wieght
Big bull bar and 4x4 saved my life,oh and height of car


Physics are all good on paper but unfortunately life isnt so cut and dry
Im sure gecko could attest to that in his line of work
Pulling someone from a wreck and saying "oh but accordinging to physics he/she should be alive" wont wash
But a good thread all the same

duh, physics says you should be more than fine, the cow on the other hand...

exception is when the cow proceeds through the windscreen

[302 XC]

So a 2 odd tonne 4x4 hitting a cow,well maybe i should be fine
BUT if it was hit with a lesser wieght car (commondore or falcon ???)
Or even a corolla or echo ???
It was the big bull bar that took the major impact,and the fact the car was a lot higher
(wieght ,height is relevant to crash scenarios isnt it ???)
IF the car was any lower i definately would have had a cow as a passenger
Even the cops couldnt beleive seeing the size of the beast , the speed and car damage that we didnt get even a scratch
My point being,
Not all accidents are as cut and dry as a safety test by some desk jockie bofan
You can have 2 identical accidents and you wont get 100% identical results

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Ive had a look at the berger video. Yes the vehicle went straight ahead, but I cant agree it hit the barrier virtually straight on, at best the barrier was at 30 degrees, 60 degrees from straight on and the car continued in a forwards direction some distance down the track

A speed change of 150km/h in a couple of ms, unlikely.

As I mentioned previously the least acceleration the body could experience in such a crash would be in the order of 250g, totally unsurvivable. Any crash where the driver survives, the acceleration has to be less than this.....much less..

In my limited search of recorded f1 crash data available, the most acceleration any driver survived was 75g, but please if anyone finds data that which exceeds this, please post.

Getting a bit off topic but interesting none the less.

As far as I know, John Stapp experienced the highest recorded deceleration forces in USAF harness testing. He experienced a 46.2g stop which involved being braked on a sled from 673.6 km/h to 0 in just 14 m.

A similar force, based on my crude calculations, from 150 km/h would require a stopping distance of 3.12 m. Not unbelievable in racing when you consider almost no crash is at a true right angle to the wall, therefore the sudden stop is not experienced in that distance. Please excuse my calculations if the maths is off, night shift last night but it paints a picture.

Considering John Stapp came out of that testing with limb fractures, rib fractures and detached retinas, I doubt there is a recorded survival of a peak force of 75g (John Stapp's was just 46.2g).

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Ive had a look at the berger video. Yes the vehicle went straight ahead, but I cant agree it hit the barrier virtually straight on, at best the barrier was at 30 degrees, 60 degrees from straight on and the car continued in a forwards direction some distance down the track

A speed change of 150km/h in a couple of ms, unlikely.

As I mentioned previously the least acceleration the body could experience in such a crash would be in the order of 250g, totally unsurvivable. Any crash where the driver survives, the acceleration has to be less than this.....much less..

In my limited search of recorded f1 crash data available, the most acceleration any driver survived was 75g, but please if anyone finds data that which exceeds this, please post.

using your criteria, there would be so precious few accidents (either on the track or road) that meet your criteria of a 90 degree head on impact with a solid wall, and the car coming to a virtual sudden stop that your point is meaningless

Originally Posted by sudszy

Im guessing the best thing we could take from F1 and other motor sport would be for people to be wearing full harness and helmet, but, reality says that isnt going to happen.

are you seriously suggesting that if a road car was equipped with a full harness, hans device and the driver wore a helmet and fireproof clothing, that the said driver would be as safe as if in an f1 or other racing car

indy cars are made to hit concrete walls at over 300 kph, f1 cars are made to hit them at very high speeds (if i give a figure, i am sure it would be contradicted). all forms of top level motorsport engineer their cars to withstand forces a road car would not. obvious really, when considering that the highest legal speed a road car can do in australia is almost the slowest that any vehicle in the top level of world motorsport achieve

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Getting a bit off topic but interesting none the less.

As far as I know, John Stapp experienced the highest recorded deceleration forces in USAF harness testing. He experienced a 46.2g stop which involved being braked on a sled from 673.6 km/h to 0 in just 14 m.

A similar force, based on my crude calculations, from 150 km/h would require a stopping distance of 3.12 m.

Please excuse my calculations if the maths is off,
.

I believe there is truth to the fact that John Stapp survived testing to 46g, however, none of your numbers for intial speeds(including the f1 car) and stopping distance compute to that figure.

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Considering John Stapp came out of that testing with limb fractures, rib fractures and detached retinas, I doubt there is a recorded survival of a peak force of 75g (John Stapp's was just 46.2g).

I did provide this link for you:
http://www.forumula1.net/2007/f1/f1-...data-revealed/, you can argue the case against the crash data recorder if you wish, again it suggests 75g was survived by Kubicas.

[sudszy]

I realise I am on shaky ground questioning the wisdom of a moderator, however, you responded to my challenge to anyone to list where a car(s) had survived a 150km/h speed change with a solid barrier:http://www.fordforums.com.au/showpos...&postcount=147
and unfortunately the incidences you provided did not support that.

In defence, you have built up several strawmen to attack here:

Originally Posted by gtxb67

using your criteria, there would be so precious few accidents (either on the track or road) that meet your criteria of a 90 degree head on impact with a solid wall, and the car coming to a virtual sudden stop that your point is meaningless

I never made any claim that all accidents involve 90 degree head on with solid barriers, just that 150km/h head on into one as Gecko listed( in the context of the thread we were talking straight line collisons into solid barriers) wasnt survivable in an F1 or any type of car.

Originally Posted by gtxb67

are you seriously suggesting that if a road car was equipped with a full harness, hans device and the driver wore a helmet and fireproof clothing, that the said driver would be as safe as if in an f1 or other racing car

well here is what I said:

Originally Posted by sudszy

Im guessing the best thing we could take from F1 and other motor sport would be for people to be wearing full harness and helmet, but, reality says that isnt going to happen.

I think what I said is crystal clear, and your interpretation/question is fanciful at best.

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by sudszy

I think what I said is crystal clear, and your interpretation/question is fanciful at best.

I can only comment on what people write, not what they may be otherwise thinking

[geckoGT]

I was only trying to suggest that if we could take some of the tech developed in high level racing (such as F1) and apply it to road car, safety will improve.

Argue as much as you like about technicalities and figures to dispute that, the simple fact is that some of the key developments in road vehicle safety design grew from a competition basis, as did many other developments in vehicle performance and dynamics. That is one of the reasons beyond advertising that manufacturers pour so much of their corporate budget in to motorsport.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

I was only trying to suggest that if we could take some of the tech developed in high level racing (such as F1) and apply it to road car, safety will improve. .

Fair enough, and making the mistake of listing being able to survive 150km/h collisions with immovable objects, fair enough too. Carrying on with I only meant this, dont take me literally etc, rather than just saying " yeh, got that wrong", a waste of everyone's time.

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Argue as much as you like about technicalities and figures to dispute that, the simple fact is that some of the key developments in road vehicle safety design grew from a competition basis, as did many other developments in vehicle performance and dynamics. That is one of the reasons beyond advertising that manufacturers pour so much of their corporate budget in to motorsport.

I think you are perhaps underestimating how much development has gone into the safety of passenger cars and are perhaps dreaming of how things were 50 years ago

If you compare the regs for f1 cars with what is needed to achieve ratings in the ancap system, then the passenger car standards are generally higher than for F1, especially when you consider the f1 regs can only be achieved with full harness and helmet. There are of course other regs that F1 does better, but basically designing a safe family car and a souped up gokart are different kettles of fish.

What features of current f1 cars would you transfer to the family car? carbon fibre passenger cell(expensive), fire extinguishing system, yep good, and ?

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by sudszy

What features of current f1 cars would you transfer to the family car? carbon fibre passenger cell(expensive), fire extinguishing system, yep good, and ?

Improvements in passenger cell strength is where large improvements have been made but still a long way to go, not necessarily in the use of CF.

Some of the systems that have been used in F1, namely DSC improvements and active suspension. Increase in vehicle dynamics will help avoid crashes, avoidance of the incident is always better than management of the incident.

Fire systems, of the 1000's of crashes I have been to, one involved a vehicle fire and all occupants were out and fire service was on scene before it got out of control. I can see the safety budget would be better spent elsewhere.