EVOizmm

iTrader: (10)

His cage did do a good job, but with ANYTHING there are always improvements. Nothing good comes out of an accident, but we can at least make them less bad.

SamsonEvoX

Just out of curiosity, what is a "fuselodge"? You wouldn't by chance mean "fuselage" as in the monocoque construction of an airplane fuselage? If you are an engineer, I guess I am surprised by the rather obvious spelling error.

Now that you have posted, I am sure we can all see that all cars that go up the Peak will need a more comprehensive cage that utilizes the structural analysis comments that you gave to Kevin's cage. I would hope that the software you are using for compression and tension will become available to all competitors, or better yet, mandated by the organizers. I appreciate your own candor in saying that you are going to re-evaluate your own cars. It shows that from this terrible accident, we may be able to prevent any tragedies in the future.

sblvro

iTrader: (2)

props for kevinD for making a "good enough" car roll cage that allowed the two occupants to survive. to "other" builders, go back to your own drawing boards and make one yourself instead of critiquing the design.

URQaudiguy

I only recall taking one English class above University Requirements to get my engineering degree from a top 25 school in the nation... In fact, I don't recall doing a whole lot of paper writing on anything but the yellow stuff, and those were all numbers. The FE professional exam didn't have an english section, nor did the SME...

This cage was good enough for this particular wreck, everyone can agree on that. We are all happy that these two walked away unscathed. The horse that is being beaten is just the general consensus in the community that the passenger got extremely lucky, and it was nothing more than luck. The cage failed for the passenger. You can not expect other professionals to give the pat on the back for a job well done! Everyone keeps asking the critics to build a car and huck it off the same spot at the same speed. Put it this way, I would consider jumping into the drivers seat of that same EvoDynamics car and tumble down the same face. No amount of money would get me into the passenger seat for that tumble. This wreck was extremely wild for the camera angle, yet it really lacked a 70-0mph in zero seconds impact. A b-pillar passenger side impact could have been extremely ugly.

I feel like the critics of this wreck have been very humble, most of them pointing to their own cages as needing revisions. It was an eye opener for everybody in industry building cages, not just for Kevin and RaceDynamics. I admire the loyalty of the customers for EvoDYnamics, as this shows they have put out very solid products and customer service over the years. They will bounce back from this wreck and build another Pikes Peak monster. We are all excited, even those not directly involved in the Evolution community.

I guarantee that next year cage rules will change, and I wouldn't be surprised if the tire regulation gets a lot stiffer. Too many teams were gambling on tire selection on a very transient hill. 70 degree dry temps at the start were great for Rcomps, but 30 degree damp conditions up top made for dangerous charging of the hill.

Let see V2.0!

DaveK

iTrader: (21)

I would honestly expect more coming from a moderator in the motorsports forum. Many of these folks offering critiques of the cage are in fact folks involved with rallying (be it as crew, cage builders, drivers, or navvies). For the umteenth time, rally has crashes that are much more similar to crashes at Pikes Peak than any other form of racing - no crash barries, safer walls, or gravel traps - just the natural environment which starts as soon as the pavement ends.

I made some comments quite a few months back about adding extra bars for safety reasons (novice in a high powered car in a dangerous environment), though not from an engineering background, but from a I've run hillclimbs and been involved with 3 rally car builds as the owner. I was brushed aside over what seemed to be a 'lightweight is king' attitude and damn the consequences at any cost.

Now that the crash has happened, Kevin who designed the cage seems to be one of the more reasonable respondants to this thread saying he's learned valueable information from the crash and would build it stronger next time around. For anyone else reading the thread and jumping up and down to defend him...the takeaway here should be that minimum spec while its still allowed, just may not be the best course of action.

Be safe everyone, motorsports at the limit is serious business when **** goes bad. Glad once again that the guys in the car will race another day.

Dave

05VIII

iTrader: (17)

i dont know why you assume comments like sblvro's are meaning "the cage was good enough, keep doing it the same way".

which is totally wrong. the people defending him are defending the original cage that has been attacked by all you "pros with experience". it was obviously strong enough to have saved both lives. but yes, for the future, im sure a stronger cage will be built and everything learned from this accident will be put towards future cages.

quit assuming we are saying he needs to stick with the first design.

jerdeitzel

iTrader: (9)

You did one of these things. Upset your competitors.

That is the big problem! The idea is for novices to come and learn and not make a negative impact on an event. This is not what pikes peak needed.

URQaudiguy

There you go again. It was lucky enough to have saved the passenger's life. I would bet the passenger lives 1 out of 5 times if tossed off the same corner at +/- 10mph the same speed. This cage would be a kickbutt cage for track days, DEs and SCCA/NASA events, but it was a huge gamble at Pikes. Reading this thread in it's entirety shows the builders knew this and took a calculated risk at Pikes in the name of speed. That is fine! I am good with that! Just take ownership of the calculated risk!! Reading the PPIHC specs, it begs for Darwin to ****** minimalistic cages. The rules need to change as to not let shady ish like the Darkhorse Camaro to run RWD in snow conditions up top!

Building to the minimum worked when we were playing with FSAE cars in school and the speeds were sub 70mph in autocross setups. Hell, our winning FSAE car's carbon a-arms would deflect 2 degrees of camber and 1 degrees of castor on the front inside tire at 70mph turn in! Fortunately, that competition is about power:weight ratios more than suspension design!

SamsonEvoX

Umm, we are not talking about rocket science here. You mean to tell me that an engineer does not know how to spell fuselage? C'mon, that is as basic a word as car or engine or tire. Your comment rings hollow because anyone that is a professional and who has undergone a university education should at least be able to write a basic sentence and spell correctly. I suppose the same could be said for doctors who do not have to take nutrition classes while teachers do. Go figure. How do I know? Because I have been a teacher for 33 years.

Meathooker

iTrader: (2)

Come on, your embarrassing us engineers!

SamsonEvoX

The issue here is not whether the cage would work 5 out of 5 times. It is about the fact that in this instance the cage worked plain and simple. Kevin D. has made it clear that if he competes in the future, he will re-evaluate the design of his cage and make improvements. I think you need to learn to read. You blamed me for saying that guardrails should be put up on certain turns and you come back to me with some moronic analogy about bulls at Pamplona. In fact, I was responding to a guy who said that guardrails can be catastrophic to bike riders, so I mentioned that maybe bikes should run the Peak. Either you have guardrails for the cars or not have guardrails for the bikes. Either way, somebody loses. Based on the number of posts you have, it would seem you are a troll that came here to make trouble. Why don't you go back to your Audi site and stir the waters there? Thanks.

SamsonEvoX

Good grief. That would be "you're", not your.

URQaudiguy

That just explained so much. And yes, just a technical writing course is needed in most engineering undergraduate courses.

This wreck caused our supported/friend's cars to run a shorten course in the rain. A lot of wasted resources for only one stage with unmeasurable results. Friends that did get to run the full course did so in winter conditions up top, resulting in another scary wreck. Foley's wreck impacted other teams as well!! I don't blame EvolutionDynamics, as they were allowed to come in such a powerful car. The PPIHC is the one at fault. But geeesh, show some respect for others!

Thanks!! I'll go back into lurk mode!!! I frequent many forums as a motorsports nerd. Just so happens that I have the URQ at the moment. I spend a lot of time on this forum.

Kickass car Kevin. Really was an incredible effort in such a short time table. Best of luck next year!

ratt_finkel

And now we know where your true motives lie. Wow. I didn't realize someone could be this selfish and verbal about it also. You do realize that Yuri and I could be dead? Sorry if our accident inconvenienced you. I assure you that was not at all the plan. As a matter of fact, you can ask the 1st responders (Tony Peak to be included) that I expressed my guilt in delaying the event. Maybe you should show some respect and keep your thoughts to yourself.

Thank you

ratt_finkel

I'm sorry. It sounds like you are the only who is upset here. Can you explain to me exactly what I did wrong here?