Page 1 of 2

Pete's accident

Posted: Mon May 11, 09 9:02 am
by Anonymous
Pete,

Have you drawn any conclusions as to what caused the crash ?

Now that there is a photo of the car 'on the wall' I didn't realise that you were so far down the track through the 'spill'. :shock:

I recall that you had posted about concerns with the car's stability some weeks earlier.

I have watched the YouTube videos of the car, earlier in the year and on the fateful weekend.

I am by no means an expert, but it looks as though the car was very keen to pick its front wheels up (possibly due to the heavy rake caused by the large rear tyres). It then tended to carry them but, at least on one video, drop them quite heavily causing a 'bounce' which seemed to unsettled it.

Any idea if the wheel drop was at a gear shift ?

The bounce then could have coincided with re-application of torque, further unsettling the car.

Plus, if as has been posted, there was a crosswind, especially from the left, you are out of the windbreak caused by the stands.

I think some serious analysis of your accident, perhaps based on your recollections (if you can recall any before the wild ride :) ) could help folk.

More and more cars are getting faster and faster.

A 12 second quarter is fast.

By the time you have hit 10s, you really are in a racing car not a street car, and as such, it would be beneficial to move drivers more on to a race car mindset, where such safety equipment as you had in the Dart; cage, good helmet, good suit, probably some form of fire protection, should be almost mandatory.

Perhaps peer pressure from within MMA would ensure that members do take measures to ensure their safety. And not just for cars that could be considered race cars.

While the actual day, or the actual event, may not require the wearing of a helmet, common sense should make it mandatory, even for street cars. These old heaps don't have air bags, so even a bimble at 60-70-80 is going to involve a bit of bouncing about inside the car.

The much derided 'sleeves rolled down' rules are also thrown into some sort of perspective as well.

As the MoPar Nats are highly associated with MMA, it may be worthwhile asking the Nats organisers to make helmet use compulsory.

While it may be painful to do, I think a serious analysis (with photos) of your car would be useful, showing what damage it accrued, and/or how well it held up, along with a mention of what you think is salveable or requiring work to reinstate for future use.

Your crash has come as a bit of a shock to members (certainly me) and from the postings in the Santa Pod thread engendered a great deal of positive comment.

I think it is worth pursuing this to ensure all members safety while racing.

Racing has always been an MMA 'thing'. Many can take it just a bit for granted. But it is worth serious reflection.

All the best, and hopefully see you back on the track some time again.

Re: Pete's accident

Posted: Mon May 11, 09 9:42 am
by Jeff
Sandy wrote:While the actual day, or the actual event, may not require the wearing of a helmet, common sense should make it mandatory, even for street cars. These old heaps don't have air bags, so even a bimble at 60-70-80 is going to involve a bit of bouncing about inside the car.
Is that right Sandy? You don't have to wear a helmet at the Pod? That is mad!

Posted: Mon May 11, 09 9:53 am
by Anonymous
Jeff,

I started to doubt myself, so checked some photos from 2007/2008.

Yes, drivers racing without helmets.

'Street cars' but still probably doing 80-90-100 mph where Pete was on the wall.

ATB

Posted: Mon May 11, 09 9:58 am
by Jeff
Well, that is daft! Should wear a helmet at least!

Posted: Mon May 11, 09 10:06 am
by Pete
Helmet if terminal is over 100mph from memory.

Thanks for your comments Sandy, I am sure they will provoke a wide variety of responses from "too true"; to "I am an adult, and I will do what I choose to do, and nobody will tell me otherwise".

The car was unstable after launch, but even the superstock cars shimmy the fronts when they land, and I think that will happen on any car that does not have front struts.

I got so used to opposite-locking by the 330ft marker that I almost took it for granted. We fixed that by INCREASING front damping, not lessening it to the commonly held 90/10 ratio.

We also softened the launch on the ladder bar, which got rid of the crowd-pleasing high wheel-stands but enabled me to get more power down.

I was still shifting at 6400rpm for the 9.7 second run. However, I never made a full power pass, and am disappointed that the car never reached its full potential. I had planned the car to run 9.6 at 139mph. It ran 9.7 at 136mph.

The killer (poor choice of words) was the fact that as the car "evolved" from a "Gasser" style fun car to quite a fast track (but still road legal) car.
This resulted in the car being built too high, despite my attempts to lower it.

I think the causes were :

1) Too much power for 10.5" wide tyres, given the...

2) High stance of the car, coupled with...

3) Strong cross winds on the day.

I am sure a big debate will follow on how you can run 6's on 10.5" tyres, blah blah, blah..and frankly I don't care.

My point is that most "accidents" are a result of a combination of factors or sequences of events; and it is not usually down to just one thing.

Posted: Mon May 11, 09 10:58 am
by db
Good comments Sandy.
I'm not the most safety-minded person but racing is racing. You're pushing yourself and your car to the limits and occasionally beyond (if you don't- you ain't trying hard enough!)

My bimble down the track in my Truk in '05 was to an earth shattering 65mph and i wore a helmet. Apart from anything else- it makes you 'feel' like you're racing, even at that snails pace.

Perhaps with certain exemptions for Nostalgia type stuff, i can't believe helmets aren't compulsory.

Pete- all accidents are avoidable in hindsight, take no notice if anyone's being 'clever' after the event :P

Posted: Mon May 11, 09 11:13 am
by Cannonball
Pete wrote:Helmet if terminal is over 100mph from memory.

Thanks for your comments Sandy, I am sure they will provoke a wide variety of responses from "too true"; to "I am an adult, and I will do what I choose to do, and nobody will tell me otherwise".

The car was unstable after launch, but even the superstock cars shimmy the fronts when they land, and I think that will happen on any car that does not have front struts.

I got so used to opposite-locking by the 330ft marker that I almost took it for granted. We fixed that by INCREASING front damping, not lessening it to the commonly held 90/10 ratio.

We also softened the launch on the ladder bar, which got rid of the crowd-pleasing high wheel-stands but enabled me to get more power down.

I was still shifting at 6400rpm for the 9.7 second run. However, I never made a full power pass, and am disappointed that the car never reached its full potential. I had planned the car to run 9.6 at 139mph. It ran 9.7 at 136mph.

The killer (poor choice of words) was the fact that as the car "evolved" from a "Gasser" style fun car to quite a fast track (but still road legal) car.
This resulted in the car being built too high, despite my attempts to lower it.

I think the causes were :

1) Too much power for 10.5" wide tyres, given the...

2) High stance of the car, coupled with...

3) Strong cross winds on the day.

I am sure a big debate will follow on how you can run 6's on 10.5" tyres, blah blah, blah..and frankly I don't care.

My point is that most "accidents" are a result of a combination of factors or sequences of events; and it is not usually down to just one thing.
something i thought about pete mags bailey had a very similar setup rear end to your car in his 69 barracuda mini tubs and ladder bars he put that 451 indy head mtr in it and got it down to a 10.0 but it gave him the 5hits and he never raced it again till he had a back half job done he reckoned it was just to powerfull and was dangerous, i just thought he was bein a pussy because these powerfull cars do move around a lot, makes you think after your spill, backhalf car for me i think

Posted: Mon May 11, 09 3:12 pm
by Pete
Duncan, I totally agree.

Other people have commented that as I was so far down the track when it slid, there was little protection normally provided by the banking and stands from the gusts and cross-winds; by which time I have picked up a lot of speed, as the rest of the run had gone without a problem. I would estimate I hit the wall at about 125mph (not the 150mph the commentator apparently claimed!!!).

It is all conjecture now; but the lessons hard learned are "build 'em low, and build 'em with lots of tyre at the rear".

I think weight distribution is another factor; but the main thing to avoid is a "pendulum effect" of a tall car.

Posted: Mon May 11, 09 3:19 pm
by Ivor
...and I'm building a gasser, what a top idea that is then! :shock:

Posted: Mon May 11, 09 3:21 pm
by Pete
Yeah, but it will be a SLOW gasser ;)

Instability in the car started to show on poor condition tracks at about 10.2 second quarters.......

Posted: Mon May 11, 09 3:30 pm
by GTXJim
Even low and big tyred cars can step out of line. mine did at the hot rod drags and you cannot believe how quick it happens, I was lucky and didn't touch the wall, you can't be complacent with any of these cars :shock:

Posted: Mon May 11, 09 3:36 pm
by Ivor
Pete wrote:Yeah, but it will be a SLOW gasser ;)

Instability in the car started to show on poor condition tracks at about 10.2 second quarters.......
Yeah, cheers Pete, you know you can really go off people!

Anyway, if by some fluke it turns out to be quick, I'm putting in a 12 point cage, belts and I'm wearing a lid! ;)

Posted: Mon May 11, 09 3:41 pm
by Jeff
Ivor walking towards the new racecar!

Posted: Mon May 11, 09 3:43 pm
by Anonymous
Very good Jeff :lol: :lol:

Posted: Mon May 11, 09 4:03 pm
by Ivor
Brilliant Jeff! :D