How many G's in MS's crash?
Peter Sjöström
> Hi all,
>
> I'm still amazed by the relative luck MS had, to survive
> that crash with "only" a broken leg.
> Can anybody, who paid attention in physics1.1 calculate the g-force
> MS was exposed to when decelerating from 150-200kph in 3 - 3.5 m ?
> (my estimates, I might be off)
Well, let's assume speed was exactly 180 km/h.
We can't really calculate the progressive stopping power of a tyre
barrier, so let's assume he hits a barrier that stops the same all the
way to 0 km/h. Now we need to estimate the distance from when it starts
to slow him down until he is still.
When he gets in contact with the barrier the wing won't do much to slow
the car down, it's when the monocock hits the barrier that real slowdown
takes place. Looking at how far into the barrier the monocock went, and
I haven't checked it carefully, I'd say 1 meter, you say 3.5, so let's
agree on 2 meters.
Now 1 G = 9.81 m/s^2. 180 km/h = 180 / 3.6 = 50 m/s. Now the G force is
the deceleration, which is velocity ^ 2 / distance = 50 ^ 2 / 2 = 1250
m/s^2. Say G is about 10 and Schumacher experienced 125 G.
Any mistakes?
/Peter
Alain D
Peter Sjöström wrote:
>
> Now 1 G = 9.81 m/s^2. 180 km/h = 180 / 3.6 = 50 m/s. Now the G
force is
> the deceleration, which is velocity ^ 2 / distance = 50 ^ 2 / 2 =
1250
> m/s^2. Say G is about 10 and Schumacher experienced 125 G.
>
> Any mistakes?
The math looks great. Really. The only problem is that, well, at 125
times the earth gravity he would most certainly not have waved at
anyone ever again.
Alain D
Matt Manspeaker
>
> Hi all,
>
> I'm still amazed by the relative luck MS had, to survive
> that crash with "only" a broken leg.
> Can anybody, who paid attention in physics1.1 calculate the g-force
> MS was exposed to when decelerating from 150-200kph in 3 - 3.5 m ?
> (my estimates, I might be off)
While I won't make an estimate, I will offer this....
Without knowing how long the deceleration took and what the EXACT
distances and velocities were it is difficult to make a reliable
prediction.
There have been several documented cases of 100+ G's that were survived
but the forces were experienced for a VERY short time.
Doc.....any words of wisdom on this one from the medical standpoint of
how long it takes for a compound fracture to heal to the point that
would allow MS to return ??
--
Regards,
Matt Manspeaker
Penn State Aerospace Engineering (Aerodynamics) / ^ \
http://www.geocities.com/motorcity/6517 -(.)==<.>==(.)-
'88 Mazda 323GTX 'Habu' SR-71 Blackbird
Matt Manspeaker
> No doubt Fredrik is asleep!
> This is the first indication I have seen that the fracture (s) were
> compound, though clearly the Tib fracture is likely to be so.
> where is everyone getting this info ? All i can find is that he has
> both tib and fib fractures, no indication of shear or hammer- or
> possible damage to popliteal artery. realistically he must be looking
> at at least 8 - 10 weeks, although theoretically he would be able to
> drive long before he can walk, i think that present safety
> considerations would make this unlikely. (getting in and out of the
> car unassisted in X seconds).
> For a man of Scumachers age, it is rarely the bone itself that
> presents any problem, unless the fracture is a particularly unpleasant
> pilon.
OOPS....after reviewing the source of the info on the injury I MAY have
accidentally introduced the compound fracture hypothesis on my own.
The report that I had heard (Speedvision) said that MS had broken bones
in his lower right leg along with puncture wounds. I took that to mean
a compound fracture (without solid proof, but in the context presented
it seemed logical)
Sorry for the assumption/confusion
Thomas Hollunder
I'm still amazed by the relative luck MS had, to survive
that crash with "only" a broken leg.
Can anybody, who paid attention in physics1.1 calculate the g-force
MS was exposed to when decelerating from 150-200kph in 3 - 3.5 m ?
(my estimates, I might be off)
--
Thomas Hollunder
Vienna, Austria
(random....@teleweb.at)
Jon Van Ginneken
Actually there are usually one or two 100+ G accidents with Indycars on
ovals (IRL or CART) each year. I believe Mark Blundell had one in Rio
before they installed the tire barrier walls on the oval.
Also I read that he hit around reported 230 kph, not 180...that ups it
to 210G...those tire barriers which is a little more comforting then a
concrete wall though.
--
Jon Van Ginneken
"I try to do my best every day. If, at the end of the day
I know I did the best job I could do, I am satisfied."
--Alex Zanardi
Alan O
wrote:
>Alain D wrote:
>
>> Peter Sjöström wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Now 1 G = 9.81 m/s^2. 180 km/h = 180 / 3.6 = 50 m/s. Now the G
>> force is
>> > the deceleration, which is velocity ^ 2 / distance = 50 ^ 2 / 2 =
>> 1250
>> > m/s^2. Say G is about 10 and Schumacher experienced 125 G.
>> >
>> > Any mistakes?
>>
>> The math looks great. Really. The only problem is that, well, at 125
>> times the earth gravity he would most certainly not have waved at
>> anyone ever again.
>>
>> Alain D
>
>Actually there are usually one or two 100+ G accidents with Indycars on
>ovals (IRL or CART) each year. I believe Mark Blundell had one in Rio
>before they installed the tire barrier walls on the oval.
>Also I read that he hit around reported 230 kph, not 180...that ups it
>to 210G...those tire barriers which is a little more comforting then a
>concrete wall though.
>
Didn't Martin Brundle mention 30 to 40g's....?
>--
>
>Jon Van Ginneken
>
>
>"I try to do my best every day. If, at the end of the day
>I know I did the best job I could do, I am satisfied."
>
> --Alex Zanardi
>
>
--
Alan O.
The Group B rally cars http://www.stormloader.com/groupb
What's another word for a thesaurus?
Onno Hovers
> We can't really calculate the progressive stopping power of a tyre
> barrier, so let's assume he hits a barrier that stops the same all the
> way to 0 km/h. Now we need to estimate the distance from when it starts
> to slow him down until he is still.
> When he gets in contact with the barrier the wing won't do much to slow
> the car down, it's when the monocock hits the barrier that real slowdown
> takes place. Looking at how far into the barrier the monocock went, and
> I haven't checked it carefully, I'd say 1 meter, you say 3.5, so let's
> agree on 2 meters.
> Now 1 G = 9.81 m/s^2. 180 km/h = 180 / 3.6 = 50 m/s. Now the G force is
> the deceleration, which is velocity ^ 2 / distance = 50 ^ 2 / 2 = 1250
> m/s^2. Say G is about 10 and Schumacher experienced 125 G.
> Any mistakes?
Yep. You forgot the factor 1/2 since the actual speed ranges from 0 to
the given speed when accelerating/decelerating.
s=1/2 at^2 AND v=at SO a=1/2 v^2/s
^^^ ^^^
Which would be 62.5 G in your example.
--
Onno Hovers, MS/Ir Physics, e-mail: on...@surfer.xs4all.nl
"We'd better jump under the bandwagon before the train leaves the station."
-- Dilbert's Boss
alex
Peter Sjöström <pj...@ludd.luth.se> wrote in article
<378928CB...@ludd.luth.se>...
> Thomas Hollunder wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'm still amazed by the relative luck MS had, to survive
> > that crash with "only" a broken leg.
> > Can anybody, who paid attention in physics1.1 calculate the g-force
> > MS was exposed to when decelerating from 150-200kph in 3 - 3.5 m ?
> > (my estimates, I might be off)
>
> Well, let's assume speed was exactly 180 km/h.
>
> We can't really calculate the progressive stopping power of a tyre
> barrier, so let's assume he hits a barrier that stops the same all the
> way to 0 km/h. Now we need to estimate the distance from when it starts
> to slow him down until he is still.
>
> When he gets in contact with the barrier the wing won't do much to slow
> the car down, it's when the monocock hits the barrier that real slowdown
> takes place. Looking at how far into the barrier the monocock went, and
> I haven't checked it carefully, I'd say 1 meter, you say 3.5, so let's
> agree on 2 meters.
>
> Now 1 G = 9.81 m/s^2. 180 km/h = 180 / 3.6 = 50 m/s. Now the G force is
> the deceleration, which is velocity ^ 2 / distance = 50 ^ 2 / 2 = 1250
> m/s^2. Say G is about 10 and Schumacher experienced 125 G.
>
> Any mistakes?
x - distance, v- velocity, a - acceleration
Two equations:
x+vt+at^2/2=0
v+at=0
=>
x+v(-v/a)+a(-v/a)^2/2=x-v^2/a+v^2/a/2=x-v^2/a/2=0
t=-v/a
=>
a=v^2/2x (twice less)
That's a good news.
A bad news.
Earth gravity wasn't disabled during his crash,
so actual value was sqrt(a^2+G^2) and it was directed a
little bit downward:)
Actually seeing relatively light injuries I would guess
deceleration was less.
Alex.
Tim Eichman
<Ala...@unforgettable.com> wrote:
> The math looks great. Really. The only problem is that, well, at 125
> times the earth gravity he would most certainly not have waved at
> anyone ever again.
In 1996, Emerson Fittipaldi crashed into the turn 2 wall of the
Michigan 500. The g-loading on that crash (which did break his neck,
but didn't kill/paralize him) was well over 100 gs. Again, he did
have a "broken" neck, but he lived (and later crashed an ultra-light
aircraft re-injuring his back).
It's amazing what the human body can withstand in short bursts.
-Tim
IM : "Ike KtownU"
ICQ#: 1597673 (Work); 5372284 (Home)
Home: i...@fast.net (remove the "nospam_" to send email)
http://www.users.fast.net/~ike
Tim Cunnings
drivers hitting walls on high speed ovals frequently experiece impacts of
this magnitude.
Jon Van Ginneken
> >Actually there are usually one or two 100+ G accidents with Indycars on
> >ovals (IRL or CART) each year. I believe Mark Blundell had one in Rio
> >before they installed the tire barrier walls on the oval.
> >Also I read that he hit around reported 230 kph, not 180...that ups it
> >to 210G...those tire barriers which is a little more comforting then a
> >concrete wall though.
> >
>
> Didn't Martin Brundle mention 30 to 40g's....?
I live in US so I wouldn't know what Brundle says, but Blundell's crash at
the CART race in Rio in 1996 or 1997 ( I forget) was nasty. The throttle
hung open with 900hp pushing him at the wall with an impact angle of about
60 degrees, and that was before that track installed the energy absorbing
walls.
The first race weekend of the IRL's existence some driver smacked the wall
at Disney at 150G...he lived...may have even been Buddy Lazier (th guy who
won the 1996 Indy 500 with a spinal cord that was apparently
chipped/fractured in many many places).
Emma (#1)
>Does *anyone* know where these fractures are, precisely?
>Are they mid-shaft? (don't giggle, Emma)
I won't giggle - or titter even...
--
Emma (#1)
"I'm very happy. On the very first day, I managed to overtake
Michael Schumacher in the Ferrari... I thought: Wow - that's
easy. However, he was on a warm up lap." - Ricardo Zonta, BAR
Alain D
<snip>
> The first race weekend of the IRL's existence some driver smacked
the wall
> at Disney at 150G...he lived...
Yes, but he was driving a truck, he wasn't driving an F1 car... ;o)
Seriously, CART and IRL cars are much heavier and are designed to
withstand smacking unprotected walls at over 200mph. Also, due to
the nature of the track, the angle of these cars hiting the wall is
practically never 90 degrees. They usually scrub the wall until they
come to a grinding halt or bounce off and slide down the banked
track to come to a halt on the inside. Mind you CART and IRL
drivers and spectators unfortunetaly do get killed occasionally...
Thank God it hasn't happened in F1 in a long time.
F1 cars are much lighter and rely on outside measures to slow them
down and reduce the force of impact. Such as run off areas,
(sometimes useless) gravel traps, and tire walls. F1 cars also have,
supposedly, more efficient carbon-carbon brakes however, with the
second serious accident this year involving brake failure maybe this
should be investigated further.
Really, what is the most dangerous in any formula series is not
mostly the number of Gs taken but, especially in those head first
crashes, suspension and direction parts pushed into the cockpit or
wheels and other parts throwed over the car and causing serious head
injuries to the driver. Just look at this year, a pretty bad one
IMO: Unser Jr. and Blundell in CART (am I forgetting anyone?),
Zonta, Frentzen and now Schumacher in F1.
Alain D
Alain D
Emma (#1) wrote:
> Dab wrote:
> >Does *anyone* know where these fractures are, precisely?
> >Are they mid-shaft? (don't giggle, Emma)
>
> I won't giggle - or titter even...
Nor even wiggle just a little?
~(;o)
Alain D
David Betts
>
> Seriously, CART and IRL cars are much heavier and are designed to
> withstand smacking unprotected walls at over 200mph. Also, due to
> the nature of the track, the angle of these cars hiting the wall is
> practically never 90 degrees. They usually scrub the wall until they
> come to a grinding halt or bounce off and slide down the banked
> track to come to a halt on the inside. Mind you CART and IRL
> drivers and spectators unfortunetaly do get killed occasionally...
> Thank God it hasn't happened in F1 in a long time.
Does anybody have the parameters for the relevant crash test
procedures in F1 and CART? I have heard it quoted many times that CART
cars are stronger, and it may well be true, but I have never seen the
supporting data.
> F1 cars are much lighter and rely on outside measures to slow them
> down and reduce the force of impact. Such as run off areas,
> (sometimes useless) gravel traps, and tire walls. F1 cars also have,
> supposedly, more efficient carbon-carbon brakes however, with the
> second serious accident this year involving brake failure maybe this
> should be investigated further.
Weight does not necessarily equate to strength. A given material may
be both lighter and stronger.
As for the brake failure, the latest quote I have seen from Todt seems
to backtrack a little. Something along the lines of they have yet to
find anything wrong, but Michael felt there was a problem with the
rear brakes. There is still no certainty that it was anything other
than driver error.
On the other hand, BBC Teletext is now quoting Max Moseley saying that
initial inquiries suggest that the accident was caused by mechanical
failure.
> Really, what is the most dangerous in any formula series is not
> mostly the number of Gs taken but, especially in those head first
> crashes, suspension and direction parts pushed into the cockpit or
> wheels and other parts throwed over the car and causing serious head
> injuries to the driver. Just look at this year, a pretty bad one
> IMO: Unser Jr. and Blundell in CART (am I forgetting anyone?),
> Zonta, Frentzen and now Schumacher in F1.
I would have thought that the fact that none of those accidents caused
injuries which were life or career-threatening (although Mark is
taking far longer to get back than hoped) was a testament to the
effort put into improving safety in recent years.
--
David Betts (dav...@motorsport.org.uk)
"Believe me, when you did well against Stirling, you knew you'd really
done something: he was the greatest I ever saw - by a long way" -
Richie Ginther
The Classic Car Gallery:
http://www.zing.com/album/ff/ff/c0/b/ffffc0bd.html
Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro
> F1 cars also have, supposedly, more efficient carbon-carbon brakes
Well, when the wheels are locked, the type of brakes doesn't make any
difference. And the advantage of the carbon-carbonis mostly their
endurance, not
> however, with the second serious accident this year involving
> brake failure maybe this should be investigated further.
The case of Frenzten is clear. The brakes were too thin (due to the
regulations) to withstand the wear and the efforts that they were
subjected to. The solution is simple: increase the minimum thickness
again or even remove that limitation (as the drivers asked recently).
Years ago, Patrick Head said in an interview that restricting brakes
was not a good idea, since that creates the potential for catastrophic
failures. Of course Mosley didn't listen.
What usually conditionates the brake distances is not the brake
technology but the tyre grip, since if the driver just applies more
force he can lock the wheels with (almost) any brake. But I am not
100% sure if this still applies to F1, since with high-downforce, no
power braking (due to rules) and "soft" calipers (since beryllium
was outlawed, but the designers have already circunvented that)
which deform ("open") during braking, a driver may press the pedal
all the way without managing to lock the wheels. If that is happening
the driver might not be able to explore the full grip of the tyres
and the brakes become the limiting factor instead of the tyres.
BTW, the latest French Sport-Auto has a beautiful illustration by
Georgio Piola showing how are the recent F1 brakes. The interesting
bits:
- a turbine on the inside of the disk to send the air flux through
and around the disk.
- a heat sensor (probably an infrared sensor, since it doesn't touch
the disk), to measure disk temperature.
- a sensor to measure the wear on the disk (In Imola 97, the Ferrari
mechanics checked the thickness of the front disk brake before
puting the new wheel on, now the engineers can control that
constantly). This is a little piece which is pressed (not much,
I assume) in contact with the disk.
BTW, I think Georgio Piola authored a recent book on F1 technology.
Anyone read that ?
--
http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/photos/ an ex-tifoso since 95/11/13
Mark Sandman - Morphine, RIP (July 3th, 1999, Italy)
.pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC)
Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94
Paul B
<Ala...@unforgettable.com> writes
--
Paul B
Go Johnny Go
Alain D
Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro wrote:
> Well, when the wheels are locked, the type of brakes doesn't make
any
> difference. And the advantage of the carbon-carbonis mostly their
> endurance, not
... not just endurance. One of the biggest differences in driving an
F1 car and a Champ car is braking. The F1 car allows you to brake
much later, litteraly throwing the car into the corner before
applying the brakes. This is, according to Villeneuve, what he had
the most trouble adapting to when he switched over. From what we can
see Zanardi is also having a very hard time with this...
> > however, with the second serious accident this year involving
> > brake failure maybe this should be investigated further.
>
> The case of Frenzten is clear. The brakes were too thin (due to
the
> regulations) to withstand the wear and the efforts that they were
> subjected to. The solution is simple: increase the minimum
thickness
> again or even remove that limitation (as the drivers asked
recently).
Frentzen has a reputation of being hard on brakes, ever since his
first year at Williams. Driving style I guess...
> Years ago, Patrick Head said in an interview that restricting
brakes
> was not a good idea, since that creates the potential for
catastrophic
> failures. Of course Mosley didn't listen.
>
> What usually conditionates the brake distances is not the brake
> technology but the tyre grip, since if the driver just applies
more
> force he can lock the wheels with (almost) any brake. But I am not
> 100% sure if this still applies to F1, since with high-downforce,
no
> power braking (due to rules) and "soft" calipers (since beryllium
> was outlawed, but the designers have already circunvented that)
> which deform ("open") during braking, a driver may press the pedal
> all the way without managing to lock the wheels. If that is
happening
> the driver might not be able to explore the full grip of the tyres
> and the brakes become the limiting factor instead of the tyres.
So, correct me if I'm wrong but according to what you're saying,
braking would be more efficient on a car wearing slicks, providing
more grip, than on a car wearing grooved tires?
Alain D
Shellfer
an impact is 1G?
I read somewhere that when an F1 driver brakes it's about 5Gs. Then I
heard in tv ads that's equivalent to lifting a tv set - with the neck.
Is that true?
Thanks.
Shellfer.
Barry Posner
Shellfer wrote:
> I read somewhere that when an F1 driver brakes it's about 5Gs. Then I
> heard in tv ads that's equivalent to lifting a tv set - with the neck.
> Is that true?
Lean forward at the waist. Your neck is supporting your head at 1G.
IIRC, the average head weighs 15 lbs, or 7 kg, so your neck has to
supply a resisting force of about 70 N to stop your head from flopping
down (actually, a resisting moment of about 10.5 N-m and a resisitve
shear force of 70 N, but why complicate matters?) At 5G, or an
acceleration of 49m/s^2, the resisting shear force would be 350 N, or an
apparent mass of 35 kg/75 lbs. Is that how much a TV weighs?
bp/ed/ab/ca/eh?
Tuomo O. Vuolteenaho
> Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro wrote:
> > Well, when the wheels are locked, the type of brakes doesn't make
> any
> > difference. And the advantage of the carbon-carbonis mostly their
> > endurance, not
>
> ... not just endurance. One of the biggest differences in driving an
> F1 car and a Champ car is braking. The F1 car allows you to brake
> much later, litteraly throwing the car into the corner before
> applying the brakes. This is, according to Villeneuve, what he had
> the most trouble adapting to when he switched over. From what we can
> see Zanardi is also having a very hard time with this...
Brakes do not equal braking ability. The shorter stopping distances have
probably most to do with downforce, and perhaps a little with the chassis.
I think these two reasons cause the main difference in braking ability
between CART/INDY/CHAMP and F1.
Peter Sjöström
> The math looks great. Really. The only problem is that, well, at 125
> times the earth gravity he would most certainly not have waved at
> anyone ever again.
Why not? People survive the most strange crashes, like falling out of
airplanes at 10 km height (it happened!), 300 km/h accidents, plane
crashes etc. 125 g is NOT as strange as it sounds. Fighter pilots
experience 9 g with full control and MUCH more when catapulting out of
the plane.
/Peter
Peter Sjöström
> track to come to a halt on the inside. Mind you CART and IRL
> drivers and spectators unfortunetaly do get killed occasionally...
> Thank God it hasn't happened in F1 in a long time.
5 years isn't that long (drivers).
/Peter
Peter Sjöström
> Doc.....any words of wisdom on this one from the medical standpoint of
> how long it takes for a compound fracture to heal to the point that
> would allow MS to return ??
The doctor at the hospital said the injury MS has normally heals in 12-15
weeks, although MS is a trained athlete and will heal faster, maybe even up
to twice as fast.
/Peter
Peter Sjöström
> x - distance, v- velocity, a - acceleration
>
> Two equations:
> x+vt+at^2/2=0
> v+at=0
>
> =>
>
> x+v(-v/a)+a(-v/a)^2/2=x-v^2/a+v^2/a/2=x-v^2/a/2=0
> t=-v/a
>
> =>
>
> a=v^2/2x (twice less)
>
> That's a good news.
>
> A bad news.
> Earth gravity wasn't disabled during his crash,
> so actual value was sqrt(a^2+G^2) and it was directed a
> little bit downward:)
>
> Actually seeing relatively light injuries I would guess
> deceleration was less.
Thanks, I had no book or calculator etc. I do find it very amusing to dig into
problems like this, especially with all those little extra factors. Of course,
a real calculation can't really be done... anyone with some FEM software,
crash simulation etc? :-)
/Peter
Peter Sjöström
> Don't know much about G-Force (though I know g-spot <grin>), how great
> an impact is 1G?
1 g is earth gravity, so basically you have been exposed to a 1 g impact
all your life.(except when jumping etc, but then you get > 1 g when you
land)
/Peter
RPP
<random....@teleweb.at> wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>I'm still amazed by the relative luck MS had, to survive
>that crash with "only" a broken leg.
>Can anybody, who paid attention in physics1.1 calculate the g-force
>MS was exposed to when decelerating from 150-200kph in 3 - 3.5 m ?
>(my estimates, I might be off)
>
Not enough.
Shellfer
#shear force of 70 N, but why complicate matters?) At 5G, or an
#acceleration of 49m/s^2, the resisting shear force would be 350 N, or
an
#apparent mass of 35 kg/75 lbs. Is that how much a TV weighs?
I guess it depends on the size of the tv. :) Thanks for the
explanation!
Regards,
Shellfer.
Geoff Schuler
>Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro wrote:
>> Well, when the wheels are locked, the type of brakes doesn't make
>any
>> difference. And the advantage of the carbon-carbonis mostly their
>> endurance, not
>
>... not just endurance. One of the biggest differences in driving an
>F1 car and a Champ car is braking. The F1 car allows you to brake
>much later, litteraly throwing the car into the corner before
>applying the brakes. This is, according to Villeneuve, what he had
>the most trouble adapting to when he switched over. From what we can
>see Zanardi is also having a very hard time with this...
While this is true, it is also misleading to claim it is due to the
use of carbon/carbon brakes. The biggest factor is the weight
difference. CART cars use similar size brakes to F1, but are some 30%
heavier, so naturally they will need longer braking distances. The
semi-auto gearboxes also contribute to the shorter braking distances
by allowing the gearbox to downshift through the gears about 50%
quicker than even the sequential CART boxes.
>So, correct me if I'm wrong but according to what you're saying,
>braking would be more efficient on a car wearing slicks, providing
>more grip, than on a car wearing grooved tires?
Yes, that's true, but the other side of the coin is that slicks also
allow higher corner entry speeds, and later braking points, so the
impact speed may well have been higher.
--
Geoff Schuler
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Remove REMOVE. to send me e-mail.
------------------------------------------------
Fight Spam! Join CAUBE
(Coalition Against Unsolicited Bulk Email)
http://www.caube.org.au/
Martin Lindsay
William Burrow <aa...@DELETE.fan.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:slrn7ope1m...@fan1.fan.nb.ca...
> On Tue, 13 Jul 1999 21:03:39 GMT,
> Peter Sjöström <pj...@ludd.luth.se> wrote:
> >> The math looks great. Really. The only problem is that, well, at 125
> >> times the earth gravity he would most certainly not have waved at
> >> anyone ever again.
consider the length of time that the body is exposed to the G force. If a
fighter pilot pulls high G for long enough he will pass out. it is perfectly
possible to remain conscious at very high G levels if the duration is short
enough.
Marcel de Groot
news:378928CB...@ludd.luth.se...
> Thomas Hollunder wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'm still amazed by the relative luck MS had, to survive
> > that crash with "only" a broken leg.
> > Can anybody, who paid attention in physics1.1 calculate the g-force
> > MS was exposed to when decelerating from 150-200kph in 3 - 3.5 m ?
> > (my estimates, I might be off)
>
>
According to the FIA- site http://www.fia.com/presse/f1-a/13-07-99.htm he
hit the wal with 107 km/h not 180 km/h
> Now 1 G = 9.81 m/s^2. 180 km/h = 180 / 3.6 = 50 m/s. Now the G force is
> the deceleration, which is velocity ^ 2 / distance = 50 ^ 2 / 2 = 1250
> m/s^2. Say G is about 10 and Schumacher experienced 125 G.
>
> Any mistakes?
>
> /Peter
>
With the 107 in stead of 180 the force would come out at...
107 / 3.6 = 29.72 m/s
29.72 ^2 / 2 = 441 m/s^2 which would put the impact at roughly 45 G opposed
to 125 G....
Which makes quite a difference (he said, not speaking from experience...)
Marcel
Ferdinand Trauttmansdorff
>With the 107 in stead of 180 the force would come out at...
>
>107 / 3.6 = 29.72 m/s
>29.72 ^2 / 2 = 441 m/s^2 which would put the impact at roughly 45 G opposed
>to 125 G....
>
>Which makes quite a difference (he said, not speaking from experience...)
Which would make it roughly equivalent to what a road car would
achieve in a typical frontal impact test into a concrete wall at
half that speed (30 mph).
So why the shattered foot well and broken leg?
-Ferdinand-
Marcel de Groot
Ferdinand Trauttmansdorff <tra...@globalserve.net> wrote in message
news:378fe2e6...@news.globalserve.net...
> Marcel de Groot wrote:
>
> >29.72 ^2 / 2 = 441 m/s^2 which would put the impact at roughly 45 G
opposed
> >to 125 G....
> >
> >Which makes quite a difference (he said, not speaking from experience...)
>
> Which would make it roughly equivalent to what a road car would
> achieve in a typical frontal impact test into a concrete wall at
> half that speed (30 mph).
>
> So why the shattered foot well and broken leg?
>
> -Ferdinand-
Maybe because a roadcar usually has an engine before the driver and a lot of
crumpel-zones (sp?) in front of you....
And I don't think the nose of a F1-car acts as a good crumpelzone...
Also the feet of the driver of an F1-driver are extended forward to
somewhere roughly between the front wheels ??
If anyone else has a better explanation, please share it with us!
Marcel
Anastasios Tsitlakidis
> Maybe because a roadcar usually has an engine before the driver and a lot of
> crumpel-zones (sp?) in front of you....
>
> And I don't think the nose of a F1-car acts as a good crumpelzone...
>
> Also the feet of the driver of an F1-driver are extended forward to
> somewhere roughly between the front wheels ??
>
> If anyone else has a better explanation, please share it with us!
A F1 car consists of composites with high strengths. Material with high
strengths aren't very good in absorbing the crash energy. At speeds over 120 kph
it's nearly impossible to build good crumpel-zones. Therefore F1 cars are using
those composite materials for avoiding a monocoque burst. I don't think that the
nose of an F1-car acts as an crumpelzone, it would make no sense. The hardest
car crashes simulated happen with 60 kph, an F1 car has to absolve harder
crashes, that means that it would need very long crumpelzones to achieve the
same safety as in a roadcar.
Anas
Andrew Whittle
the equation I remember from school is:-
v^2=u^2 + 2aS
therefore if final velocity v =0
a = -u^2/2S
Andy
Marcel de Groot wrote in message <7mns4a$fq0$1...@weber.a2000.nl>...
>Peter Sjöström <pj...@ludd.luth.se> wrote in message
>news:378928CB...@ludd.luth.se...
>> Thomas Hollunder wrote:
>>
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > I'm still amazed by the relative luck MS had, to survive
>> > that crash with "only" a broken leg.
>> > Can anybody, who paid attention in physics1.1 calculate the g-force
>> > MS was exposed to when decelerating from 150-200kph in 3 - 3.5 m ?
>> > (my estimates, I might be off)
>>
>> Well, let's assume speed was exactly 180 km/h.
>>
>
>According to the FIA- site http://www.fia.com/presse/f1-a/13-07-99.htm he
>hit the wal with 107 km/h not 180 km/h
>
>
>> Now 1 G = 9.81 m/s^2. 180 km/h = 180 / 3.6 = 50 m/s. Now the G force is
>> the deceleration, which is velocity ^ 2 / distance = 50 ^ 2 / 2 = 1250
>> m/s^2. Say G is about 10 and Schumacher experienced 125 G.
>>
>> Any mistakes?
>>
>> /Peter
>>
>
>With the 107 in stead of 180 the force would come out at...
>
>107 / 3.6 = 29.72 m/s
>29.72 ^2 / 2 = 441 m/s^2 which would put the impact at roughly 45 G opposed
>to 125 G....
>
>Which makes quite a difference (he said, not speaking from experience...)
>
>Marcel
>
>
>
Tony Lake
(v=u+at).
Tony
Andrew Whittle <and...@whittle66.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7o53vp$hs9$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...