The Tale Of Two Crashes

[Mike Kellner]

It is interesting to compare what happened in Milwaukee & Indy. They showed the footage of Bruno's crash, and because I taped Milwaukee, I could play it back slow. You could clearly see that the transaxle survived intact on Bruno's car. You could also see that the one in RHR's car was flattened. Bruno broke his back, Ryan did not, despite hitting hard enough to be knocked out.

Coincidence? I don't think so. It seems to me that the killer nature of the IRL transaxle has been a topic of discussion on racing fora for about 8 years now. I cannot believe that the people who run the IRL have not considered that the transaxle might have a part to play in all the broken backs.

I really hope that if there is a reunification, that the IRL transaxle is one of the things that does not make it into the new spec.

Also, notice that Bruno hit the "Safer" wall, and his car went into a violent spin after contact which ripped the nose off, exposing his feet. Only luck saved him from severe leg injuries as well. RHR hit, and the car slid along the wall in the attitude it was in when it hit, as the concrete did not catch the back of the car on impact, converting forward motion into rotational motion. I am still not convinced that the "Safer" barrier really is.

mk

[RaceGrrl]

I was thinking along the same lines, about how two similar crashes had two very different outcomes. Still made me ill to see RHR sitting there so still after that hit.

I don't get it either. It's criminal.

[FRANKY]

You could see Bruno's feet?

What was the speed difference?

"I really hope that if there is a reunification" I think's that's the first time I heard you say that. :eek:

[nrc]

Somewhere along the line Tony George got the notion that cheap trannies that didn't explode from a minor brush with the wall was more important than something to dissipate the energy of a crash.

It seems to me that part of the problem may be the logitudinal orientation of the the IRL gearbox. Think of the gears as a roll of coins. Will the roll dissipate more energy if you hit it on the end, or lay it flat and hit it on the side?

[RTKar]

I was thinking along the same lines, about how two similar crashes had two very different outcomes. Still made me ill to see RHR sitting there so still after that hit.

I don't get it either. It's criminal.

It is criminal and don't forget the early CW's didn't have the attenuator if I recall. What the scenario would be without the Safer Barrier at Indy I'd rather not imagine. Milwaukee's wide enough that it should be permanently installed by the way.

[rabbit]

What the scenario would be without the Safer Barrier at Indy I'd rather not imagine. Milwaukee's wide enough that it should be permanently installed by the way.
I'm with Mike. The SAFER would have thrown RHR into a spin, putting additional strain on his body and creating a greater chance for a secondary impact. I am also still not convinced.

[RTKar]

I'm with Mike. The SAFER would have thrown RHR into a spin, putting additional strain on his body and creating a greater chance for a secondary impact. I am also still not convinced.

I haven't watched the tape. It is possible on a shorter track with more traffic, a multi car incident could evolve as well. :confused: At Milwaukee, the corners could be extended though providing something like a run off...

[spinner26]

With all of that I believe it was asked earlier, do you think the difference in speed is a factor? Me thinks so.

Still believe the crapwagon is a back breaker.

[nrc]

With all of that I believe it was asked earlier, do you think the difference in speed is a factor? Me thinks so.

Still believe the crapwagon is a back breaker.He's specifically observing the affect of the impact on the transmission. His observation is that the Champ car gearbox compressed more than the crapwagon anvil. Given the difference in speed, the opposite should have been true if the two were anywhere close in their ability to absorb energy.

[Mike Kellner]

What matters is not the speed of the vehicle, but the velocity vector perpendicular to the wall. Ryan's impact was quite hard, enough to knock him unconscious.

Two things stand out, in many IRL rear first crashes, there are spinal column injuries, in CART/CCWS there are few. The IRL transmission is too strongly built to collapse upon impact, the CART/CCWS transmission is not. Is there a connection? I think so. Am I the only person who says this? Not at all. This correlation has been observed by many on racing fora since 1997.

mk

[Methanolandbrats]

What matters is not the speed of the vehicle, but the velocity vector perpendicular to the wall. Ryan's impact was quite hard, enough to knock him unconscious.

Two things stand out, in many IRL rear first crashes, there are spinal column injuries, in CART/CCWS there are few. The IRL transmission is too strongly built to collapse upon impact, the CART/CCWS transmission is not. Is there a connection? I think so. Am I the only person who says this? Not at all. This correlation has been observed by many on racing fora since 1997.

mk Chrissy Fittipaldi punching a hole the wall at Milwaukee and Nigel punching a hole at Phoenix are all the proof needed for this theory.

[RacinM3]

My feeble recollection has the initial and majority impact in Bruno's crash as nearly head-on. RHR's was gearbox-first. Was there a secondary impact in Bruno's crash that impacted directly on the gearbox? If so, are you assuming that his injury took place there and not in the head-on impact? Also, I don't understand how speed can be discounted.

I agree that IRL cars are woefully unprotective of the driver, especially when it comes to back injuries. All you have to do is look at the record. I just don't see the correlation between these two incidents. I'm going to guess that credit should at least be given to the IRL chassis in that it took a direct head-on impact at speed and Bruno had no foot injuries. That's a good departure from the past, at least. Question is, did the IRL's car ability to withstand a frontal impact like that actually contribute to his back injuries? The energy has to go somewhere.

[rabbit]

Perhaps a more apples-to-apples comparo would be Larry Foyt's high-speed, rear-end-first, into-the-SAFER-Barrier, back-breaker vs. RHR's (relatively)-lower-speed, rear-end-first, into-the-concrete, non-back-breaker.

[JoeBob]

Or Buddy Rice's, or Paul Dana's.

And those are just from May.

[swift]

just some ballparks guesses for the speed:
indy 225 (flat out in the corners)
milwaukee 160? (lift & down a gear?)

better comparison to RHR's crash would be jaques lazier's IRL crash @ phoenix in '02. both flat one-milers, iirc jaques backed the rear end into the concrete.

jaques: broken back, misses season
RHR: bruised lung.

[JLMannin]

A steel I-beam sticking out of the back of a crapwagon would be a more deformable structure that that gear box.

[oddlycalm]

For anyone that has watched for the last 20yrs there's simply no room for debate. How many broken backs in champcars over all those years and all those races? Now, how many in the EARL in just half that many years? :shakehead

oc

[Steve99]

It is interesting to compare what happened in Milwaukee & Indy. They showed the footage of Bruno's crash, and because I taped Milwaukee, I could play it back slow. You could clearly see that the transaxle survived intact on Bruno's car. You could also see that the one in RHR's car was flattened. Bruno broke his back, Ryan did not, despite hitting hard enough to be knocked out.
The question I had after watching the Indy replay is how the heck did Foyt IV turn into Bruno when Bruno's car was ALREADY IN FRONT OF HIM! :mad: It looked like he did in on purpose.

[Sean O'Gorman]

The question I had after watching the Indy replay is how the heck did Foyt IV turn into Bruno when Bruno's car was ALREADY IN FRONT OF HIM! :mad: It looked like he did in on purpose.

But haven't you read about it on TF? It was obviously Bruno's fault since he pulled a Champ Car-style road racing move on A.J. :gomer:

[Racing Truth]

But haven't you read about it on TF? It was obviously Bruno's fault since he pulled a Champ Car-style road racing move on A.J. :gomer:

:laugh: Clearly. Nevermind that IV was 5 laps off the pace. Nope, that has no bearing. :gomer:

[indyfan31]

:laugh: Clearly. Nevermind that IV was 5 laps off the pace. Nope, that has no bearing. :gomer:

Well, the last I heard was that it wasn't IV's fault because Bruno came up "too fast" and spooked him. ;)

[NismoZ]

I hope none of you take issue with the "rear nose" in the new open-wheel concept outlined in RACER this month. "Attenuator" may be a dirty word for most of us but any design feature intended to solve a long-standing safety issue should get a serious look, if not be applauded. I hope the '07 concept doesn't "assume" a longitudinal box. Cutting costs is big, but not at an obvious, unacceptable risk to our drivers!

[Ziggy]

Bruno's injuries were indeed caused by the second impact, on the rear of the car. My source is Terry Trammel by the way........

Chalk one up for the hans device on the frontal impact, along with the safer barrier I would suspect. His car did punch a hole in the wall, and it did rotate around faster than greased lightning to slap the gearbox a mighty blow. It was airborn as well........

Thanks for the post Mike, I know how hard it is for you to say anything bad about the "League" :D

[Mike Kellner]

I hope none of you take issue with the "rear nose" in the new open-wheel concept outlined in RACER this month.

I have no problems with that. It makes sense; more crushable material is more crashworthyness. As you said, I hope they do not think that can substitute that for a crushable transaxle, both is better. Didn't I read somewhere that CCWS already mandates a rear crush structure on transaxles? Or is that F1?

I have a post building in my mind on the new cars shown in RACER, but it is not yet ripe, and would go in the CCWS forum.

Ziggy, I guess my need to speak the truth overcame my adoration for Formula Tony. :laugh:

mk