motor

nthfinity · 11-14-2008, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by pagani

I don't like to dig up old news

it wont be old news when somebody dies in a year or two.

dutchmasterflex · 11-14-2008, 02:29 PM

Pussies. This is what racing was all about in the good old days. Having balls. Sheesh.

RC45 · 11-14-2008, 02:58 PM

Originally Posted by dutchmasterflex

Pussies. This is what racing was all about in the good old days. Having balls. Sheesh.

Thats all very well to thnk that way, btu the problem is when the rest of use folks tyr enter such an event after an big accident then we will get turned down if we dont bring a million dollar liability policy with us.

That's the problem.

Or like is now happening at track days all over the US - no passangers unless they are an instructor etc etc.

Don't blame us common sense folks.. blame the litigation happy Kalifornikators

pagani · 11-14-2008, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by nthfinity

it wont be old news when somebody dies in a year or two.

That was about the sunroof of the porsche

nthfinity · 11-14-2008, 04:06 PM

Originally Posted by dutchmasterflex

Pussies. This is what racing was all about in the good old days. Having balls. Sheesh.

in the good ol' days, the mortality rate was extremely high; so much higher than even top echelon stunt pilots (2% mortality rate per year, of which there are about 50 in the world).

So many of my great grandfather's friends died over the years racing. They had balls, and they died. If not wanting to die; but rather do things the safe way, does this mean I'm a pussy? Hence why it's retarded to go 240 mph in a car that was never intended to go faster then 160 mph.

pagani · 11-14-2008, 04:40 PM

Originally Posted by nthfinity

in the good ol' days, the mortality rate was extremely high; so much higher than even top echelon stunt pilots (2% mortality rate per year, of which there are about 50 in the world).

So many of my great grandfather's friends died over the years racing. They had balls, and they died. If not wanting to die; but rather do things the safe way, does this mean I'm a pussy? Hence why it's retarded to go 240 mph in a car that was never intended to go faster then 160 mph.

The fastest supra has a proper rollcage

CarlZ · 11-14-2008, 04:48 PM

actually, i think it wont matter what car u drive, if ur having an accident @ 240 or so miles per hour, ur done anyway...

nthfinity · 11-14-2008, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by CarlZ

actually, i think it wont matter what car u drive, if ur having an accident @ 240 or so miles per hour, ur done anyway...

some cars are far more inherently stable at such speeds. Does everybody remember the RX7 wreak at 200 mph at Bonneville?

I'm definitely not talking safety cages alone here. Tire stability, mechanical stability, aerodynamic stability. A cage is nice, but if the car is poor in any of those areas, you are pretty much screwed.

pagani · 11-14-2008, 05:27 PM

Originally Posted by nthfinity

some cars are far more inherently stable at such speeds. Does everybody remember the RX7 wreak at 200 mph at Bonneville?

I'm definitely not talking safety cages alone here. Tire stability, mechanical stability, aerodynamic stability. A cage is nice, but if the car is poor in any of those areas, you are pretty much screwed.

I guess a supra is pretty stable jun auto did 401 km/h whit one at the bonneville saltfalts some years ago

10000rpmlover · 11-14-2008, 09:43 PM

Originally Posted by nthfinity

some cars are far more inherently stable at such speeds. Does everybody remember the RX7 wreak at 200 mph at Bonneville?.

yes I do, it is one of my greatest eye openers, RX-7 becomes an airplane at 230+ mph, matter of fact I don't think without some extra weight at the front, the RX-7 is in any way stable at over 150mph, I did take mine to 156 once and began to feel a bit of non contact, but then again I don't have after market body panels, that may make a difference in arodynamics, not willing to test that theory ever again, my brakes were melting after that little stunt

they melted and it cost me 1300 bucks to get the car to be ok again

nthfinity · 11-15-2008, 03:01 PM

YouTube

very sobering. I am expecting something like this happening at the Texas Mile before long.... but with worse consequences

RC45 · 11-15-2008, 03:07 PM

Well, remember the differenc ebetwwen a flying mile and a standing mile is that cars are rapidly accelerating and than hard braking - a little less chance this type of behaviour that can be induced by the distances travelled in the flying mile.

Blown tyre roll overs are more likely I think than full aero disasters.

pagani · 11-15-2008, 03:33 PM

I think a car whit a heavy front engine like supra viper or gtr is pretty stable compared to a mid engined car like a ferrari.
So that means that such a car would be better for the really high speed stuff.

nthfinity · 11-15-2008, 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by pagani

I think a car whit a heavy front engine like supra viper or gtr is pretty stable compared to a mid engined car like a ferrari

The amount of lift due to the way the radiator/ engine placement in many cars is drastic; and perhaps surprising.

For example...

100% stock Front engined v8 at about 156 mph

Compared to a mid engined car designed with aerodynamics involved, and mid engined. Both cars are 100% stock suspension geometry. The GT literally is sucked to the ground with these high speeds, and it's ride height is greatly reduced.

This z06 was running approx 187 mph, and slight front end lift is visible... again, the aero makes more of a difference at speed than the weight distribution...

this mid engine Ferrari even has some front end lift.

Basically, cars designed for 200 + mph are far better for doing these ridiculous standing mile tests

RC45 · 11-15-2008, 04:04 PM

I do believe the C6 shown is displaying more the results of the slight rear downforce (negative lift) the stock body has inherently designed in, combined with the almost neutral behaviour of the front vs actual lift generated.

From my recollction, the C6 has a close to 0 front lift number and a slightly negative lift (downforce) in the rear.

C5's and C6's have been doing 200+mph runs since 1997 and it was apparent from day 1 that the car is relatively neutral and responds really well to researched aero additions.

Remember even that F355 while appearing aerodynamicly unstable has a flat underbody that helps in preventing such disastrous aerodynamic events. And another thing, in order to flip the car over, the positive lift will need to overcome the weight of the car - so lift would need to be in the +1000lb range to yank the car over.

Of course these lift number will be dynamic of a panel begs to rip off or the car veers left or right and suddenly the body may take on a aerofoil profile as it rushes through the air resulting in really chaotic behaviour - but I dont think the standing mile even at 240mph is enough to induce the funky behaviour we saw in that video - or not