Re: Let teams build their cars.

#1

On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 08:44:32 -0400, steve davis wrote:

Quote:

NASCAR should let the teams build the cars and the safety, by default, will
get built into the car out of their own concerns for driver safety and
stability of the car at high speed. Keep the silly body template if you must
and regulate the fuel cell size but, let the teams build the cars the way the
know how. The COT is a piece of junk and the accident at Dega is the result
of the COT design flaws, of which there are many.

use real stock cars, not spec cars.

#2

On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 08:44:32 -0400, "steve davis"
<stevenjds (AT) aol (DOT) com>,stevenjws (AT) aol (DOT) com wrote:

Quote:

NASCAR should let the teams build the cars and the safety, by default, will
get built into the car out of their own concerns for driver safety and
stability of the car at high speed. Keep the silly body template if you must
and regulate the fuel cell size but, let the teams build the cars the way the
know how. The COT is a piece of junk and the accident at Dega is the result
of the COT design flaws, of which there are many.

Just how many weeks have you been following the sport? The teams do
build their own cars - and have since the beginning of NASCAR time.

The accident at Dega was a freak deal. Carl's piece of junk CoT was
going to land wheels down just fine until Newman's piece of junk CoT
got into him.

Besides, I saw a non-CoT piece of junk get airborne on Saturday at the
same track. And I've seen plenty of NCWTS trucks get airborne too. Has
nothing to do with the car's design - only speed and being bunched
into packs - with aggressive racer-types behind the wheels...you know,
the ingredients that actually make it exciting to watch? Sure I wish
they could eliminate the big, possibly life-threatening wrecks. When
you come up with a better fix than incorrectly assigning the blame to
the cars, call NASCAR with your idea. I'd bet they love to hear it.

#3

YeeHaw Sim--Back in Sim form again we all recognize & appreciate!!
--
Crusader

"SimRacer" <simracer68NO (AT) yahoo (DOT) comSPAM> wrote

Quote:

On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 08:44:32 -0400, "steve davis"
stevenjds (AT) aol (DOT) com>,steven... aol (DOT) com wrote:

NASCAR should let the teams build the cars and the safety, by default, will
get built into the car out of their own concerns for driver safety and
stability of the car at high speed. Keep the silly body template if you must
and regulate the fuel cell size but, let the teams build the cars the way the
know how. The COT is a piece of junk and the accident at Dega is the result
of the COT design flaws, of which there are many.

Just how many weeks have you been following the sport? The teams do
build their own cars - and have since the beginning of NASCAR time.

The accident at Dega was a freak deal. Carl's piece of junk CoT was
going to land wheels down just fine until Newman's piece of junk CoT
got into him.

Besides, I saw a non-CoT piece of junk get airborne on Saturday at the
same track. And I've seen plenty of NCWTS trucks get airborne too. Has
nothing to do with the car's design - only speed and being bunched
into packs - with aggressive racer-types behind the wheels...you know,
the ingredients that actually make it exciting to watch? Sure I wish
they could eliminate the big, possibly life-threatening wrecks. When
you come up with a better fix than incorrectly assigning the blame to
the cars, call NASCAR with your idea. I'd bet they love to hear it.

#4

"SimRacer" <simracer68NO (AT) yahoo (DOT) comSPAM> wrote

Quote:

On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 08:44:32 -0400, "steve davis"
stevenjds (AT) aol (DOT) com>,steven... aol (DOT) com wrote:

NASCAR should let the teams build the cars and the safety, by default,
will
get built into the car out of their own concerns for driver safety and
stability of the car at high speed. Keep the silly body template if you
must
and regulate the fuel cell size but, let the teams build the cars the way
the
know how. The COT is a piece of junk and the accident at Dega is the
result
of the COT design flaws, of which there are many.

Just how many weeks have you been following the sport?

Since his first post under that moniker showed up on my server Apr 27 @
10:18pm, I figger not too many! Comes off purty fiesty fer a noob, huh?

--
Tom in Bristol...yer reply was all spot on, per usual.

#5

On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 16:08:18 -0400, "Crusader" <cru357 (AT) sbcglobal (DOT) net>
wrote:

Quote:

YeeHaw Sim--Back in Sim form again we all recognize & appreciate!!

lol

This is sorta why I disagreed with David Poole's "mandate" that Dega
be torn down and flattened. He was HIGH UP on that horse Monday and
Tuesday prior to his passing...but he argued it, literally, until the
end. The man was passionate, about that no one can argue.

I just ask if somthing 'just has to be done', then move the fans back
(eliminate those lower/crappy anyway lower seating areas) to assure
their safety until NASCAR can figure out a way to keep the competition
exciting without slowing the cars down to 165mph. This would just kill
the excitement there among other things: make the packs BIGGER, and
make big wrecks just as likely, and make passing more of a pit
strategy than ever...all IMHO of course.

We need to strike a better balance between the excitement/competition
and fan/driver safety than knocking the track down to flat. We already
have 2 mile basically-flat tracks - and the racing at them tends to
suck more than just occasionally. No, we just need to look at fan
safety a little harder there. Driver's sign up for the danger, the
fans don't. I don't want to lose any drivers, certainly, but Talladega
isn't the only track that ever killed a guy either - in fact, I think
more drivers have died at Loudon in recent years than Talladega. More
fans have died at Charlotte in recent times than at Dega too...so
let's be realistic about it when we address the "safety concerns" of
*just* Talladega.

Notice how I didn't sway back into any argument with the poster whose
hands were typing without any obvious benefit of intellect?

#6

SimRacer <simracer68NO (AT) yahoo (DOT) comSPAM> wrote in
news:dkfsv4pfbjug4kgs4lrufqmhdm30f4i0v5 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com:

Quote:

Driver's sign up for the danger, the
fans don't.

That's the key point. When you see a car get up in the fence like
Edwards did, then you have to ask the question "what if next time
the fence fails?".

The other thing that has to be kept in mind is the scale of the
possible consequences. If the net fails in baseball, or the glass
at a hockey game (which I've seen happen), you might get one fan
injured or killed by the ball/puck. If the fence fails, you could
easily reach 100 killed/injured. So NASCAR can't take the chance
that it happens once in a very rare while - the consequences of
just once are too great.

John

#7

In article , John McCoy <igopogo (AT) ix (DOT) netcom.com> wrote:

Quote:

The other thing that has to be kept in mind is the scale of the
possible consequences. If the net fails in baseball, or the glass
at a hockey game (which I've seen happen), you might get one fan
injured or killed by the ball/puck. If the fence fails, you could
easily reach 100 killed/injured. So NASCAR can't take the chance
that it happens once in a very rare while - the consequences of
just once are too great.

John

I know you were responding to something that SIM said,
and I don't know exactly what it was..
But we don't have any reason to believe that the fence
will not contain a car do we?
I mean, it's happened several times,
and they continue to be contained...
The fact that it is a dramatic and scarey event,
and we see deflection... that is what we are supposed to see.
Of course, I'm one that wants to see a car go into the stands
and kill a few people... accordiong to one guy!!

Dan
****************************************
What's the difference between roast beef and pea soup?
Anyone can roast beef.

#8

chuck_steak (AT) nospam (DOT) com (Chuck Steak) wrote in news:aTGLl.2383$fy.783
@nwrddc01.gnilink.net:

Quote:

But we don't have any reason to believe that the fence
will not contain a car do we?

I don't know. But if I was the track owner, that is the question
I'd be asking. What if the car hit at a different angle? What if
it was a couple of feet higher? What if we had one of those everyone
gets into everyone else accidents, and two cars hit the fence? What
if it happens on lap 3, can I fix it to be just as strong, or do I
have to cancel the race, or can I race with a fence that's maybe
not quite as strong?

All these are questions ISC and NASCAR should be asking themselves,
because the consequence of getting it wrong is so high. If baseball
gets the fence wrong behind home plate, and a fan is killed by a
foul ball, they say what a terrible tragedy, pay off the family with
a couple million $, and maybe wear an "in memory" patch for a couple
of games. If a Cup car gets in the stands, and there's 30 killed
and 100 injured, not only will there be hundreds of millions in
lawsuits, but there'll be congressional investigations, and
grandstanding politicians proposing to outlaw motor racing, and
all manner of problems.

So it's important that NASCAR be sure the fence won't ever fail.
Not just, "well it worked last time, didn't it", but certain to a
99.999% confidence (*). And, of course, it'd be a lot easier to
be certain if the cars were moving slower.

John

("5 nines", a common engineering standard)

#9

In article John McCoy <igopogo (AT) ix (DOT) netcom.com> wrote:

Quote:

I don't know. But if I was the track owner, that is the question
I'd be asking. What if the car hit at a different angle? What if
it was a couple of feet higher? What if we had one of those everyone
gets into everyone else accidents, and two cars hit the fence? What
if it happens on lap 3, can I fix it to be just as strong, or do I
have to cancel the race, or can I race with a fence that's maybe
not quite as strong?

All these are questions ISC and NASCAR should be asking themselves,
because the consequence of getting it wrong is so high

So it's important that NASCAR be sure the fence won't ever fail.
Not just, "well it worked last time, didn't it", but certain to a
99.999% confidence (*). And, of course, it'd be a lot easier to
be certain if the cars were moving slower.

John

No arguing these points, but to be fair,
we don't know that NASCAR "isn't" pondering these questions either....
They may be a lot of things to a lot of people,
but stupid they aren't... And we don't know what they are actually doing.
They don't have to tell us their day to day stuff.
But because they don't... doesn't mean they don't have meetings...

#10

The fence was designed by engineers who know how heavy the car is and
how fast it is going.

That is precisely why the car has not got through the fence.

Give it break already.

Go cluck about some other piece of sky that is supposedly falling

(I head Al Gore is hiring)