## 40 not 180 ???

### 40 not 180 ???

i'm confused (not being a physics type person)

so if the DE was really going only 40 into the wall  and
was going 180+ prior to the accident...

where did the 140 go???? or am i missing something

considering the short distance traveled...the lack of braking (at least until
he headed up the track)....AND considering the distance that TS traveled after
the numerous hits to slow him.......

just curious Mr 40

bernie

### 40 not 180 ???

I think he was trying to say that he wasn't LITERALLY going 40, but that
would be the equivalent force of the head on collision he made with the
wall. The car was going 180, but it was also going sideways..so he did not
hit the wall head on with 180 MPH worth of force. I even watched the replay
over and over again today...he didn't even hit the wall head on. He hit it
at an angle.

Quote:
> i'm confused (not being a physics type person)

> so if the DE was really going only 40 into the wall  and
> was going 180+ prior to the accident...

> where did the 140 go???? or am i missing something

> considering the short distance traveled...the lack of braking (at least
until
> he headed up the track)....AND considering the distance that TS traveled
after
> the numerous hits to slow him.......

> just curious Mr 40

> bernie

### 40 not 180 ???

This is soo simple  its really sad no one can see it. There are TWO Speeds
involved. 180 mph DOWN  the track and the  Speed Up towards the wall .

If a car is going 180 and JUST BARELY TOUCHES the wall ,(  a simple tire
scrubbing  )his speed DoWN the track is still 180 mph but his speed moving
towards the wall would be  maybe 3 inches per second or .well less than 1
MPH  towards the wall .

Do you see that point ?
\
If you do then you will see this one.

If a Airplane is flying straight west  to LA from NYC  at 600 MPH , and Up
at 30,000 feet  the wind is moving south at 50 MPH , then the plane is
moving diagonally across the continent  as it is pushed 50 MPH south as it
flies 600 Mph west. It is tracking diagonally over the ground without
correcting for the wind.

Do you see that point ??

If you do then you will see this one.

DE's car was moving mostly around the turn , his greatest speed . BUT ALSO
was drifting UP into the wall ! This means he had a speed Around the track
AND Up towards the wall. A Diagonal movement if seen from the blimp straight
down . His speed UP INTO the wall was much less than his speed around the
track. After he hit the wall his speed towards the wall went to ZERO and his
speed around the track was still high  with him ending up hundreds of feet
away in the infield.  His speed was decreasing fast as his tires were
scrubbing sideways  but  still he was  moving after hitting the wall
towards the finish  line.
See its really easy , just read a physics book for the formulas on Vectors
and  equasions on speed & force .
Force = Mass X Accelleration   so only a little speed is needed to make a
lot of force with a MAss of 3500 Lbs.

If he hit the wall head on at 180 the car would stop in a mangled mess like
it came out of a auto crusher in a junk yard .
The Body would not have just a head injury but would be like a  hamburger
patty dropped off the empire state building . one  splattered mush ball.

Quote:
> i'm confused (not being a physics type person)

> so if the DE was really going only 40 into the wall  and
> was going 180+ prior to the accident...

> where did the 140 go???? or am i missing something

> considering the short distance traveled...the lack of braking (at least
until
> he headed up the track)....AND considering the distance that TS traveled
after
> the numerous hits to slow him.......

> just curious Mr 40

> bernie

### 40 not 180 ???

Quote:
> If he hit the wall head on at 180 the car would stop in a mangled mess like
> it came out of a auto crusher in a junk yard .
> The Body would not have just a head injury but would be like a  hamburger
> patty dropped off the empire state building . one  splattered mush ball.

That's physics. It seems the NASCAR fans want to think one of a couple things:

1. The great DE was killed at a speed that would kill anyone, and woe to
anyone who would suggest that someone else might have survived the crash
or that DE was killed at anything but a horrific speed.

or

2. NACSARs are plenty safe, and we don't need no pointy-car types with
their engineers, computers, and carbon fibre to come in here and change
our sport around.

It takes some weird thinking to disagree with physics, but we're seeing it here.

### 40 not 180 ???

The majority of the 180 mph was in the forward direction. A smaller rate of
speed was occuring in a lateral direction. It's like when you pass a car
going down a highway. You are still traveling 60 mph straight down the road,
but you may be traveling 2-3 mph in a sideways direction as you move from
one lane to the other.

While Dale's car was spinning, pointing the front end towards the wall, most
of the momentem was still in a direction moving down the track with the
other cars.

Quote:

>i'm confused (not being a physics type person)

>so if the DE was really going only 40 into the wall  and
>was going 180+ prior to the accident...

>where did the 140 go???? or am i missing something

>considering the short distance traveled...the lack of braking (at least
until
>he headed up the track)....AND considering the distance that TS traveled
after
>the numerous hits to slow him.......

>just curious Mr 40

>bernie

### 40 not 180 ???

Quote:
> > If he hit the wall head on at 180 the car would stop in a mangled mess like
> > it came out of a auto crusher in a junk yard .
> > The Body would not have just a head injury but would be like a  hamburger
> > patty dropped off the empire state building . one  splattered mush ball.

> That's physics. It seems the NASCAR fans want to think one of a couple things:

> 1. The great DE was killed at a speed that would kill anyone, and woe to
> anyone who would suggest that someone else might have survived the crash
> or that DE was killed at anything but a horrific speed.

> or

> 2. NACSARs are plenty safe, and we don't need no pointy-car types with
> their engineers, computers, and carbon fibre to come in here and change
> our sport around.

> It takes some weird thinking to disagree with physics, but we're seeing it here.

Yeah - I think you're absolutely right. Unfortunately the media
encourage these myths - in every single death in an oval track accident
the impact is described as "head on" and the speed is described as the
maximum attained by the car round the circuit.

Then you get the stick and ball fans saying "Those crazy sons-of-
***es, someone ought to stop them!".

- MP

### 40 not 180 ???

Quote:
> angular momentum, the cars speed perpendicular to the wall was 40MPH
> although the speed parallel to the wall was well over 100MPH
> The car slid up and along the track.
>                                    ^  40MPH (approx
>           _____________|________
>                                       \      ___
>                                         \    \ __\
>                                           \    \ 3  \
>                               100+     \    \ ---\
>                          <-------        \

> see photo courtesy AP

And that photo makes it look more head on than the impact was - the car
had rotated clockwise after the initial right-hand-front-corner impact.

- MP

### 40 not 180 ???

: I think he was trying to say that he wasn't LITERALLY going 40, but that
: would be the equivalent force of the head on collision he made with the
: wall. The car was going 180, but it was also going sideways..so he did not
: hit the wall head on with 180 MPH worth of force. I even watched the replay
: over and over again today...he didn't even hit the wall head on. He hit it
: at an angle.

Well, it depends.  If the car stops when it hits the wall, it is the
equivalent of doing 180 mph into it, as all the kinetic energy is
dissipated immediately.  Law of Conservation of Energy.

If the car slides along the wall or bounces off, then it's the equivalent
of hitting the wall at a lower speed.

### 40 not 180 ???

While thinking about how I would calculate the closure rate towards the wall
and the g-force of the collision,  I failed to think that I could probably
work backward, calculating energy lost by calculating energy maintained
after the impact.   Of course, we would need his forward speed immediately
after impact.
Quote:

>Well, it depends.  If the car stops when it hits the wall, it is the
>equivalent of doing 180 mph into it, as all the kinetic energy is
>dissipated immediately.  Law of Conservation of Energy.

>If the car slides along the wall or bounces off, then it's the equivalent
>of hitting the wall at a lower speed.

### 40 not 180 ???

me again....and i don't even play a physicist on t.v.

i understand the concept of differing speeds (180 straight and x against the
wall)...which is exactly what happen to TS...but TS hit a flat wall
perpendicual (sic) to his direction....and the 180/40 makes a world of
sense....esp because he then played pinball for several seconds...

but if i turn my car, at some point, at any speed, i'm carrying the speed in a
different direction....

now DE shot straight up the track and did NOT "drift", therefore he was
carrying a speed (much greater than 40) up and not towards the finish line,
then hit a curved section of the wall, reducing the "scrubbing
effect"....obvousily the KS hit slowed him and moved some of the speed back
toward the finish line....but the curved wall basically absorbed all the
speed....because he didn't travel very far towards the finish line for a car
going "100" after the wall impact...

bernie