V8 Supercar safety

[Racenut]

Bathurst was another big event for accidents and major damage to the cars (thankfully without driver injuries). Maybe its time to start working on the strength, safety and repair-ability of COTF 2.0.

Do the cars have any form of crushable structure behind the rear axle? They seem to collapse pretty easily.

[Umai Naa]

It begs the question as to whether a more modular contruction concept could be used? Such as being able to simply unbolt things like chassis rails, shotgun rails, etc from the front and rear bulkheads.

[GTRMagic]

No point having bolt-on/unbolt capability when the time you need to use it, gemerally everything is crushed to a pulp

[Racenut]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

No point having bolt-on/unbolt capability when the time you need to use it, gemerally everything is crushed to a pulp

I would disagree with that. If the cars had a bolt on crushable structure and bolt on rear chassis it would be a lot quicker to unbolt the damage components and bolt on new ones than the current arrangement of cutting off and welding on. Cutting and welding limits how many people can be working in the same area at once.

[johnh875]

It should be designed so that the bit that gets crushed (rear structure) unbolts from the bit that doesn't (main chassis/survival cell). It is incredible that car 2 wasn't able to be repaired to make the race given some of the feats that have been performed in the past, eg Gardner's NSX.

Perhaps there is room to make the rear structure a bit stiffer, while still crumpling in a progressive manner. Sort of 2 stages of crash structure? The LMP's would be interesting to study in this regard, they seem to be highly repairable after contact.

Edit, wrote this while Racenut was writing too.

[Umai Naa]

Seems to me that the middle of the chassis could do with a bit improvement.

They reckon the rear subframe for the transaxle and rear suspension moves too easily in a rear hit anyway.

[Average Punter]

Looked OK to me.
When Zukanovic smacked the wall in an old spec V8 over the weekend, the entire fuel assembly parted company with the car and leaked all over the place.
Lucky Marcus doesn't smoke........

[Racenut]

Originally Posted by Umai Naa

Seems to me that the middle of the chassis could do with a bit improvement.

They reckon the rear subframe for the transaxle and rear suspension moves too easily in a rear hit anyway.

Yes it would appear that the middle could be stronger but it might be less susceptible to damage if the rear subframe (and the area behind it) collapsed progressively and absorbed some load.

The reason I asked about whether they have a crushable structure is that from my observations the transmssion and its frame are the first thing to take any load in a rear in impact.

[ford71]

Having the lights held firmly on the roof of the safety car would be a good start

[one five five]

Originally Posted by ford71

Having the lights held firmly on the roof of the safety car would be a good start

Followed by a close look at driving standards

Some woeful display's on Sunday from some so-called "professionals"

[STEALTHY]

Originally Posted by one five five

Followed by a close look at driving standards

Some woeful display's on Sunday from some so-called "professionals"

Whilst it was stupid, the Wood crash is just part and parcel of how this series uses 'safety' cars. Until they get into line with real motorsport series and use slow zones or code60, there'll always be incidents like this.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by ford71

Having the lights held firmly on the roof of the safety car would be a good start

The safety car's lights are in the cabin - you'll see they're at the top of the windows.

The medical cars however.......

[Woolley]

Originally Posted by johnh875

It should be designed so that the bit that gets crushed (rear structure) unbolts from the bit that doesn't (main chassis/survival cell). It is incredible that car 2 wasn't able to be repaired to make the race given some of the feats that have been performed in the past, eg Gardner's NSX.

Perhaps there is room to make the rear structure a bit stiffer, while still crumpling in a progressive manner. Sort of 2 stages of crash structure? The LMP's would be interesting to study in this regard, they seem to be highly repairable after contact.

Edit, wrote this while Racenut was writing too.

I'm no expert on race car construction but:

1) Introducing bolt on sections increases the risk of failure at the joints. Bolts are weaker and rely on a hole to connect it, whereas welded structures effectively become a single piece. Witness how single seaters can break at the engine mounting.
2) Space frame and roll cage structures work differently from road cars.

In a road car the driver is comparatively unrestrained and unprotected. The car is designed to fold up in a progressive way, thus absorbing the impact. If the impact is reasonably big, it's done it's job and is thrown away.

A cage is designed to distribute the forces differently which allows them to deal with much higher speed impacts than a road car would accept, and they retain a greater deal of structural integrity during and after the impact. The driver is held in much more securely and PPE - helmet, seat design, harnesses and HANS - give additional protection. So there is some kind of crumple system built in but it doesn't work in quite the same way as on your little runabout.

And having said that, it can be seen from the race just how well all that worked with drivers emerging undamaged from some fairly sizeable impacts. You wouldn't want to risk that in order to make the car a little easier to rebuild. After all, the driver takes longer to rebuild if damaged.

[ford71]

Originally Posted by Tourer

The safety car's lights are in the cabin - you'll see they're at the top of the windows.

The medical cars however.......

Oh sorry, that was the medical car losing its mounted lights was it? Apologies.
Still a safety issue of course.

Besides the racing to the back of the train and Dale Woods accident (which should cost the team points at least) the most idiotic move was Ingall punting Holdsworth I would suggest. Was never gonna happen successfully and this is from the most experienced bloke out there. Says a lot.

[johnh875]

I understand what you are saying Woolley, and I'm not referring to the actual safety cage or suspension mounts, just looking at how to build in controlled weaker or stronger sections to the peripheral parts such as the rear end now the fuel cell is not there. Similar to how they neck down a section of the steering tie rods to control how they deform. As for bolt on - the front end of an F1 car would show that it can be done successfully.

[GTRMagic]

Stop crashing the bloody things would be a good way to ensure that you dont have to repair them so regularly...

[PVDA]

Originally Posted by ford71

Oh sorry, that was the medical car losing its mounted lights was it? Apologies.
Still a safety issue of course.

You'll probably find someone removed the lightbar at some stage and reinstalled it

1. Not tight enough &

2. Too far back on the roof.

If you mount it too far back the rear ends up lower than the front allowing the air going under it can push it up and rip it off the car.

I always install them with the front lower than the rear so the wind passing over it pushes it downwards onto the roof of the car.

[Woolley]

Originally Posted by johnh875

I understand what you are saying Woolley, and I'm not referring to the actual safety cage or suspension mounts, just looking at how to build in controlled weaker or stronger sections to the peripheral parts such as the rear end now the fuel cell is not there. Similar to how they neck down a section of the steering tie rods to control how they deform. As for bolt on - the front end of an F1 car would show that it can be done successfully.

No worries, I wasn't criticising, just adding detail based on my experience of clearing up the mess and being constantly astonished at what people step out of!

As for F1, like most carbon fibre single seaters, they're intended to shed bits in order to remove energy from the accident, if necessary reducing the car to just the basic survival cell.

[ford71]

Originally Posted by PVDA

You'll probably find someone removed the lightbar at some stage and reinstalled it

1. Not tight enough &

2. Too far back on the roof.

If you mount it too far back the rear ends up lower than the front allowing the air going under it can push it up and rip it off the car.

I always install them with the front lower than the rear so the wind passing over it pushes it downwards onto the roof of the car.

Makes sense.
Not the sort of thing you want flying over the fence is it.

Was odd to see a football on the track Sunday too

[velly4]

I recall hearing the current Porsche Cup cars have exactly as the original poster described for ease of rebuilds and cost.

[davester]

Spare cars...simples.

They've all got em, why not allow them!!!

Use it prior to race and start from the back.

This way drivers and teams are relieved from the stress of hurried and compromised repairs.

[Mixer]

If you bolt things in instead of welding things will break more easily and what do you do when something is bent and the bolt holes don't line up... You have to cut and weld, sound familiar?

It isn't a simple suggestion, its just stupid and unrealistic.

[peckstar]

it was raised on the ontrack commentary about having a Kangaroo on track flag at Bathurst.

Apparently this is something that happens at Morgan Park

Would this provide some benefit. It seems roo issues are becoming more and more part of the track experience

[Woolley]

Originally Posted by Mixer

It isn't a simple suggestion, its just stupid and unrealistic.

That's harsh and unnecessary. No harm in asking questions, it's how we learn, and what you think is stupid someone else will have found informative.

[coln72]

At this level of engineering, bolts are not used as a locating device. Other methods are used eg. dowels and bolts are only used to clamp the joint.