I just recently watched this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rR28fH1J_do

First of all, do not turn this into an anti-American (or american motorsport) thread. I didn't create this thread to argue the merits of American Motorsports.

There...well I'm just mainly curious. Cause that video sounds like a whole lot of exaggeration. However, I do realize that open wheel racing in general (ovals or circuits) is very difficult on the body.

Did this really actually happen the way they said it did in C.A.R.T? Cause that sounds REALLY extreme but it would explain why they are trying to cap IndyCars at a certain speed (i think it's 240 mph). Also, why didn't this happen in F1? Is it because F1 G-forces are less consistent? (a lot of low speed corners and straights).

I was told by a friend that an F1 driver would experience more G-Force because of the heavy cornering but a IndyCar driver would experience a more consistent amount of G-Forces because of the centrifugal effect of oval racing.

Just would like to clarification on this.

Sounds like it, as you know Texas is very steeply banked and the reports coming from so many drivers makes it sound plausible, I remember it making the headlines in motorsports over here.

You can see from Adrian Fernandez's qualifying laps how much faster the CART cars will lap Texas than IRL, three 1.5 mile laps in 70 odd seconds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... v96Rk&feature=related

Quote from 5haz :

Sounds like it, as you know Texas is very steeply banked and the reports coming from so many drivers makes it sound plausible, I remember it making the headlines in motorsports over here.

Texas is always a wild one. But even the phrase that "race car drivers experience more G-Forces than shuttle astronauts at lift off" made me raise my eyebrows. But then again....race cars aren't pressurized. And pressurizing and that is what lowers the G-Forces?

Pressurised G suits don't reduce G forces though, they work by having air bags that inflate when the pilot pulls a turn and they squeeze your body so that blood can't drain to your feet so easily. Of course most of the time racing drivers experience lateral G forces but at Texas because of the steep banking they experience vertical G forces too which are the ones that make the blood drain out of your head and cause black outs.

They're lying on their backs in the Shuttle at launch, so they don't get affected by G forces so much.

Shuttle takeoff is 3 G until the main boosters quit. That's the same as an aircraft carrier launch.

The CARTs at Texas were pulling over 9 G combined. For long periods, that's a lot to take.

Quote from MadCat360 :

The CARTs at Texas were pulling over 9 G combined. For long periods, that's a lot to take.

Right

LOL, nobody can take 9G for more than a few seconds without blacking out (or redding out in negative Gs for that matter)

Taking into account information from both videos, and personal experiences with no professional insight, it does seem that it is possible for some drivers to experience some troubles with endurance, but like you said, it does seem a tad exaggerated.

With the second vid, I can say out right, I've NEVER seen such incredible speeds at TMS before. I can only imagine the forces involved, but as you can see, it is possible for drivers to tough it out.

Just throwin' 2 pennies into the hat for ya.

I thought the CARTs at Texas was taking about 7Gs consistently....9Gs sounds a bit much. But they did call the Texas race and CART (ChampCars) eventually stopped going to ovals in general.

This whole problems with the oval generating too much consistent Gs gives a good explanation as to why tho (and it also explains why IRL consistently caps the IndyCars or makes them heavier when they dont need to)

I might be wrong, but 5 lateral and 4 vertical Gs combined equals to 6.4G overall. That's a much more realistic figure than 9G but still 6.4 is A LOT.

Quote from marsaz :

I might be wrong, but 5 lateral and 4 vertical Gs combined equals to 6.4G overall. That's a much more realistic figure than 9G but still 6.4 is A LOT.

Yeah 9Gs is too farfetched. I thought around 6-7Gs. But imagine a consistent 6.4Gs for 2 hours

That is too funny, I just came here to post that 5g lateral + 4g down (or whatever it was) is not a possible way to come to 9g. The force needs to be normalized, which gives the value 6.4 (I think, I didn't check Marsaz's math and I was going to do it here until someone kinda beat me to it).

Though now I continue to watch the rest of the videos, as I am only partway through the first and had to correct people that it isn't 9g's because of 5g+4g, even if it seems so at first glance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_theorem

I used this equation
a and b are vertical and lateral forces and c is the overall force.

edit: i think this is not the actual physical formula to calculate forces. I can't find it. This one only aplies when the forces act at an angle of 90 degrees.

i seem to remember one of the major problems was drivers complaining that they were getting so disorientated that they couldn't find the pit entrance which really would have been an accident waiting to happen in a race.

If we could only figure out a gravity machine so I could experience some of these forces whilst driving in LFS

Nevermind, Marsaz is right, just basic trigonometry. Makes more sense, if you visualize a force vector.

Relevant for the state of blackout are only the Gs pulling downwards -> sucking the blood out of the head.

As stated in the report high banking and high speed are the causes.

Gs pulling sideways have afaik no effects on blackouts.

Stunt pilots are able the counter high G-forces by tense up but only for a short amount of time.

Quote from yankman :

Relevant for the state of blackout are only the Gs pulling downwards -> sucking the blood out of the head.

As stated in the report high banking and high speed are the causes.

Gs pulling sideways have afaik no effects on blackouts.

Stunt pilots are able the counter high G-forces by tense up but only for a short amount of time.

People can tolerate much higher lateral G forces than vertical ones. I guess that's mainly because of blood getting out of or in your head.

Quote from marsaz :

People can tolerate much higher lateral G forces than vertical ones. I guess that's mainly because of blood getting out of or in your head.

And negative vertical gees affect you the most- between 2 and 3 G you'll get red out.

Quote from marsaz :

People can tolerate much higher lateral G forces than vertical ones. I guess that's mainly because of blood getting out of or in your head.

Right, thats what I meant.
For the discussion about blackouts on ovals the lateral forces are not relevant.
So point is not the add vertical and lateral Gs.

Question is how long ppl can withstand 5 Gs.

I could only watch 45 seconds of the video before it annoyed me. MAybe it was enlightening to a moron, but when he started describing speed, mass and track length as forces I gave up...

F1 tends to have fewer high-g corners per track than Indy/Champ/Cart. And F1 uses a lot less track camber (banking) so that lateral G is pretty much the overall G, rather than combining it with vertical G relative to the chassis. Even at 'just' 160mph an F1 car will easily pull 5G purely laterally.

Quote from tristancliffe :

I could only watch 45 seconds of the video before it annoyed me. MAybe it was enlightening to a moron, but when he started describing speed, mass and track length as forces I gave up...

A lot of the video was kinda retarded when it exaggerates quite a lot on the extent of how the variables surrounding a race car affects the driver. Martin Brundle's F1 insight was a more intelligent look at how a race car is very physical. But hey...this video's american entertainment...you'll bound to have some exaggeration

But what personally (and the only thing that) surprised me is how much consistent G-Force ovals can generate. I had no idea that Texas basically generated 6-7 Gs consistently with ChampCar. I also had no idea that the oval had a history of generating too much Gs in which ChampCar had to actually stop going to the track.

Texas is really tame compared to some of the massive superspeedways though...what would have happened if they went to Talladega or Daytona? I hear even the Dover oval's banking is 3 stories high.

Quote from tristancliffe :

F1 tends to have fewer high-g corners per track than Indy/Champ/Cart. And F1 uses a lot less track camber (banking) so that lateral G is pretty much the overall G, rather than combining it with vertical G relative to the chassis. Even at 'just' 160mph an F1 car will easily pull 5G purely laterally.

I think Spa is an example of 5Gs in which Eau Rouge generates about that much including negative Gs when you go down the corner.

Autosport had an interview with Kenny Brack where he talked about this race and how he and a few others voted to race

EDIT: Why couldn't they run the race with competition cautions every five minutes a la Brickyard 400 or have the drivers wear G-suits?

More info on that race:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firestone_Firehawk_600

Quote from lizardfolk :

Texas is really tame compared to some of the massive superspeedways though...what would have happened if they went to Talladega or Daytona? I hear even the Dover oval's banking is 3 stories high.

I think Dover would be OK because its a smaller track, they would have to slow down more in the turns. Daytona/Talladega are also a different beast as the turns are not as sharp. Rusty Wallace has done 230-240 mph there in a stock car(not sure how many laps though) and didn't say anything about the forces affecting him.

The cookie cutter 1.5 milers are some of the fastest tracks on the Nascar schedule, so it makes sense that if open wheel cars had trouble, it would be at that type of track.

Quote from yankman :

Right, thats what I meant.
For the discussion about blackouts on ovals the lateral forces are not relevant.
So point is not the add vertical and lateral Gs.

Question is how long ppl can withstand 5 Gs.

It's completely relevant, at least in theory, in a high bank oval where you could achieve a vector sufficient to black you out. At 9Gs, which is the absurd figure I commented on, even a full lateral acceleration can take you out since having even half of your brain starving for oxygen isn't exactly good for you either last time I heard.