This is why you don't buy the cheapest safety gear.

[Suck fumes]

http://www.trackjunkies.org/topic/3755-tim-bell-crash-at-cota/#entry59380

[Supercharged111]

Moments like that make me think adult diapers might be something worth bringing to the track.

[Rob Liebbe]

Having problems with brake, but staying at full throttle approaching a turn at very high speed might not have been the smartest move. And yes, I did read Tim's personal comments in the linked thread.

[BryanL]

Started watching the last Continental Tire Race I had recorded especially since it was at COTA. First lap all of the sudden this 350Z loses it's brakes. I didn't know this video was from that race. Man the camera's on the broadcast really made this look a lot scarier than the in car. Really got a feel for the speed which one commentator estimated at 130. Showed lots of different angles. What really impressed me is how well the safe/impact barrier cushioned the hit.

Nice post Aaron. I agree 1000% on not skimping on safety gear. I'm glad my new car has a halo seat now.

?? So what is better for the human body in a wreck like this. Is it better to hit it head on or pitch the car sideways for the impact? Rob-can you answer that one?

[AllZWay]

I just watched the race over the weekend too. That was a scary wreck for sure.

Pitching it sideways could have terrible consequences if it were to stick and start tumbling sideways over and over.

But having been in this exact situation, I was attempting to pitch the car sideways to slow it down before impact... which it did slow it down some.

[ShadowBolt]

So what is the best thing to do? I thought trying to pitch it sideways but maybe not?

JJ

[BlueFirePony]

So what is the best thing to do? I thought trying to pitch it sideways but maybe not?

JJ
Best thing to do? Avoid all the other cars if you can and take a glancing blow vs a head on if you can. The very short time you have to make your decision may not be enough to get it quite right though so I'll add pray before the session, during and after.

At Hallet (not a brake issue, but I clipped the grass and wound up going for a ride) I cranked the wheel as soon as I hit the grass which did exactly as I wanted - rotated the car quickly so I hit brushed the wall sideways instead of hitting the wall straight on.
Though if I had travelled 20 more feet, the rotation of the car would have made the impact worse, but still not as bad as T-boning the tire wall ?

At ECR I was offset passenger side by a decent amount heading into T1 so I tried to exit Stage Right miss the car in front and take a wild ride through the big grassy area. That did not quite work out :/

Safety equipment did it's job in both cases.

[marshall_mosty]

Brian has it right about a glancing blow. Going from 130-80 is only a 50mph deceleration if you can have a glancing blow. 130-0 is, well, you get the point on which is easier on equipment and body. However if you are going to go from full tilt to zero, there are a few things to consider.

1. The kinematics on the body.
2. Effectiveness of the safety equipment.

During a crash, your car and body are subject to a deceleration event. The force transmitted to the body is one of Newton's laws. F=ma. The force can be reduced by making the acceleration (or deceleration in this case) as long as possible. That is why the crash barriers act like a pillow to slow the car down gradually. The accelearation is the change in velocity over the change in time. The longer the time event, the lower the acceleration, the lower the force which has to the absorbed by the body at any moment in time.s

Most of us in high school physics had to build a rig that would protect an egg when dropped from a ladder, the school roof, etc. The protection really just slowed down the egg's deceleration event (much like a car's airbag).

So, now that we know we want the slowest deceleration event, let's look at the safety equipment. Carmakers have used crumple zones for a long time to absorb impacts. When a driver pitches the car sideways and hits a barrier (soft or otherwise), he effectively takes all the crumple zone out of the equation. Your time change from full speed to zero is pretty much nil at that point (if you hit a concrete wall, for example).

From the safety equipment standpoint, the majority of the equipment in the car was designed to mainly restrain fore/aft motion of the driver. The seat has a narrow side to side span, but a longer fore/aft attachment span to the floor. Hence, the seat reacts better in a head-on impact. The 5-point belts are meant to stretch under load (increasing the deceleration time). The effect is less when loaded from the side since the lap belts are shorter than the should harnesses (think of stretching a rubber band 1" long vs. 5" long with the same amount of force and measuring the stretch). Also, the head and neck restraint system is not designed to work in a side collision. Really the only thing you have is a window net (really far away), right side net (closer, but still not super close), and a halo seat (the add on "wings" are pointless and the only robust system is really a full containment seat.

Verdict:
1. Glancing blow is ideal
2. Hit the wall head on would be preferred over sideways
3. Hit the wall sideways if you have no other option

[BlueFirePony]

Verdict:
1. Glancing blow is ideal
2. Hit the wall head on would be preferred over sideways
3. Hit the wall sideways if you have no other option
The Hallet hit was rather severe on my body but it saved the car - not exactly how the safety equation is meant to play out and not what I would generally recommend. I had that image of the Mustang that flipped over the wall in my head at the time and my brain said "hell no"! Given the speed I was going and the fact I ended up on top of the tire wall a flip seemed possible and damn scary.
The other thing to consider in the case of a side impact, you are now very likely going to be a bigger target if another car comes into play. That car can potentially send you spinning if it clips the front or back putting more strain on your body and perhaps putting you into more traffic to take yet another hit - racing footage is full of those types of incidents.
If it hits you square on, well those side bars only help so much.

[Rob Liebbe]

Very good post Marshall. Just remember, full frontal is preferred, but only after full avoidance. A good example is the crash between Glenn and I. I took the force full frontal, and Glenn took it from 90 degrees to his right. Immediately afterwards, Glenn was a bit woozy for a few minutes, I did not have any of those affects.

[marshall_mosty]

Immediately afterwards, Glenn was a bit woozy for a few minutes...
I would attribute most of that to Glenn's big head sloshing around in his helmet.. :)

[GlennCMC70]

I would attribute most of that to Glenn's big head sloshing around in his helmet.. :)

Still too soon man, still too soon......

[BryanL]

full frontal is preferred.

I knew it was a matter of time before it all unraveled out of Mustang Ranch!

[Rob Liebbe]

There is of course the qualifier of gender preference and it is not male - sorry Bryan.