The official Indycar report on Dan Wheldon’s death was released today.  The conclusions:  Wheldon died when his head/helmet hit a fencepost, but it took a combination of factors to bring about this awful tragedy.  They also noted that it wouldn’t have made any difference if the fenceposts were on the inside of the fence or the outside of the fence.  I pretty much said the same thing in my analysis of the incident.  Indycar, much to their credit, has released the entire 49 page report to the public, which comes to you here via pressdog.

The obvious question is “what do we do now”?

When I last spoke with Dean Sicking (the inventor of the SAFER barrier), I asked him who the primary groups were in the world who are doing motorsports safety research in the area of track barriers and fences.  There are a few, but most of them focus on human mechanics or medicine.  If you want to be specific, there is exactly one group in the country doing intensive research into motorsports track safety and that’s at the University of Nebraska.  Yes, I know that some sanctioning bodies have their own R&D divisions; however, they have limited staff and they also have the responsibility for doing things like certifying new products for use in their series.

Most research at Universities is funded by grants (usually from federal or state agencies, sometimes from private foundations) or contracts (usually from private industry and designed to accomplish a very specific objective, with deliverables.)

One of the primary issues with the catchfence is the vertical poles that support the wire mesh.  Initial reports argued that, if the poles had been outside the mesh, there wouldn’t have been a fatal accident.  This is not right.  Inside or outside, hitting one at high speed is going to be fatal.  I suggested before that a possible solution would be to somehow cantilever the fence so that the posts would be a few feet away from the mesh.  You’d need quite the system of wires, but I know it’s possible.

Let’s give Sicking and his group a grant to design a better catchfence.

Do you have  any idea how much money you would need to test such a catchfence?  When designing the SAFER barriers, Sicking told me that getting a driverless car to hit the barrier at a precise speed and angle was actually the most technically challenging part of the research.  Now we not only have to have a high-speed racecar hit the new catchfence, but we also have to have it in the air when it does so.

I suggest that the industry needs a Center for Motorsports Safety Research.  It would be a non-profit center operating independently of any sanctioning body, but it would work with the sanctioning bodies to prioritize research needs.   Representatives from the various sanctioning bodies, along with motorsports researchers, would form an advisory board that would try to anticipate safety issues, as opposed to how we deal with them now, which is reactively.

I think it’s important that this be an independent body and not beholden to NASCAR or IndyCar.  There would be a small research staff, with room for visiting researchers who can contribute particular specialization to specific problems.  I would (of course) put Dean Sicking in charge of it because he is one of the best engineers and most honorable persons I have even known.  He’s shown his ability to design for two very different cars at the same track already.   I’d also charge them with preparing educational materials for drivers at all levels to make them aware of state-of-the-art safety concerns and the equipment they need to be as safe as possible.

Who should fund this center?  The sanctioning bodies, the media who make money from broadcasting motorsports, the track owners, and you and me:  the race fans.

From Jayski’s track seating and attendance page, 3.6 million people attended NASCAR races last year.  Let’s add a safety surcharge of $2.00 per ticket is added on — and frankly, if you begrudge paying less than the cost of a beer to facilitate your part of this research, you shouldn’t call yourself a race fan.  That would be $7.2 million dollars right there for motorsports safety research.  Add on contributions from the media partners who broadcast motorsports, the occasional generous driver, and you have the start of a center.

As I said in my previous article, motorsports will never be entirely safe.   But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do everything we can to try to ensure that we never lose another driver again.

Kudos, Indycar for your transparency and commitment to learn as much as you can from this tragedy.

 

 

The NASCAR pundits have again simplified a complex situation.  Incorrectly.

(Of course, at least they got the network right!  I got FOX and ESPN confused.  This is the problem with a 60-hour a week job and trying to blog about something utterly unrelated in the meantime.  My excuse is that I have a $3.5 million proposal due this week.  The same math holds, regardless of whether it is FOX or ESPN. Thank you Michael!)

The NASCAR Net is a-twitter since FOX floated a trial balloon about moving races from ESPN FOX to SPEED.  I’ve heard the argument over and over, in print and on radio that this is a bad idea because EPSN FOX is in 100 million homes and SPEED is in “only” 78 million homes.  They argue this would be a decline of 22 million potential viewers.  The question not being asked how many of those 22 million ESPN FOX watchers are actually potential viewers?

Point number 1:  Diehard NASCAR fans are going to find the race on television wherever it is.  Rabid fans are going to get whatever cable package they need in order to watch races, or they’re going to find a local sportsbar that carries the race.  Casual and incidental viewers are the ones that will make a difference in numbers.

Point number 2:  A very small fraction of households receiving a network watch it.  The highest rated race of 2010 on ESPN was August Pocono, with 6.3 million viewers.  Let’s assume an average of 2 people per household, so if ESPN is in 100 million households, that corresponds to roughly 200 million viewers.  ESPN pulled in 3.2% of the viewers who had the option of watching the August race at Pocono.

SPEED is in 78 million households, so assuming the same two people on average per household, there are 156 million potential viewers.  If SPEED captured the same 3.2% of their possible viewers, that would be 5.0 million viewers.  The difference is 1.3 million viewers — if you are willing to ignore point 3.

The numbers for FOX – let’s leave out the Daytona 500, which was 13.3 million and I bet FOX isn’t going to move that – are similar.  The highest rated race was April Talladega, with 8.45 million viewers.  Out of the 200 million possible eyeballs, that’s 4.2%.  4.2% of SPEED’s viewing audience is 6.55 million viewers, so again, we need an increase of about 1% to match FOX’s numbers.

Point 3:  Consider the demographics of FOX viewers vs. SPEED viewers.  SPEED is a motorsports channel.  I would think you’d be more likely to get a motocross fan to watch NASCAR than an average television viewer.  Which network is more likely to promote the race during other shows?  Which network is more likely to have the schedule freedom to do extended pre- and post-race shows?  All SPEED would have to do to equal the viewership from ESPN would be to attract 0.86% of the remaining viewers and about 1% to equal the viewership from FOX.  We’re really talking more like a difference of 2 million than 22 million.

There are many factors besides numbers, but numbers aren’t as big a factor as some are trying to make them out to be.

Just for fun, here are some stats for ESPN and SPEED viewership. They are from 2006-2007, but that’s the latest I have easy access to.

Category ESPN SPEED
Men 69% 80%
Women 31% 20%
18-34 28% -
35-54 39% -
55+ 33 -
18-49 - 69%
25-54 - 63%
$75,000/year + 43% 38%
$50,000/year + 62% 61%
 

There was an interesting comment during practice this morning from Jeff Hammond (channeling Darryl Waltrip) about dark spots on the track, which indicate (he said) the cars were “knocking off” asphalt.  I received a number of questions about this and whether it might indicate that Atlanta could have the same problems we saw in the season opener at Daytona?

Atlanta was the first race at which I followed around the 19 team for my book.  It’s been about 13 years since the track was last paved.  Josh Browne took me out to the track and showed me how rough the track surface is.  Atlanta is one of the fastest and roughest tracks on the circuit and part of the reason for that is the composition of the track.

Most NASCAR tracks are made from asphalt – only a few are concrete.  Asphalt is a combination of aggregate (small rocks) and bitumen, the tarry black stuff that holds it all together.  Asphalt is type of composite – a material made of two things, but having properties superior to either.    Bitumen comes from the heaviest components of crude oil, with a consistency of molasses (which is why it has to be heated before being applied to anything).  We often refer to the viscous black stuff as ‘asphalt’, which irritates the heck out of the people who deal with roads for a living.

About 95 percent of the paved roads in the US have asphalt surfaces.  Most airports use asphalt for their runways because it stands up to heavy loads well.  Aggregate makes up 80-95% percent of the volume, with the remainder being the binder and air voids.  The picture at right shows voids, which were either there when the surface was originally laid, or represent places where there used to be a piece (or pieces) of aggregate.  I took the pictures, incidentally, at the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History, where they take the difference between asphalt and concrete very seriously.

The size of the aggregate used varies, depending on the requirements for the surface use and when the surface was laid.  As we’ve learned more and more about the long-term behavior of composite materials like asphalt, recipes have evolved.  Binders nowadays add some polymeric molecules that increase the adhesion of the rocks to each other, and the resiliency of the road.

As the track weathers — which means gets hotter and colder, wetter and dryer, loaded by racecars and sitting idle — it changes.

Some liquids have a high vapor pressure, which means they evaporate easily.  Acetone (like in nail polish remover) or toluene (paint thinner) disappear if you leave them out of their container because the molecules of the solvent gradually diffuse into the air.  Water evaporates much more slowly than volatile solvents like the ones I mentioned above.  Believe it or not, some of the oils in the bitumen also evaporate over time.  This happens on a time scale of months to years and it happens faster when the track gets warm.  The surface oils go first and the oils deeper in the surface start making their way up to the surface.  The force of the cars running along the track also wears the asphalt.  Binder, as well as small bits of aggregate, come loose during a race  and form ‘marbles’

The diagram at left illustrates how a track might change over time.  The top picture shows the track as it was laid down, with the second and third pictures showing later times.  The asphalt is gradually worn down.  You can imagine a gentle wear, like on a surface street, where speeds are rarely high and the surface doesn’t change temperature much.   You also can imagine that race cars might be a little tougher on the road.  The wear depends entirely on the type of bitumen (how sticky is it, how does it respond to heat) and the mix of rocks used for the aggregate.  The middle picture shows that some of the binder has worn down, exposing more of the rocks and making a bumpier surface.  The last picture shows the situation after a lot of the bitumen has worn off.  A lot of the rocks have come loose or are ready to do so.  The longer it’s been since a track has been resurfaced, the faster it is likely to wear.  The teams aren’t making it any easier on the track, either.  Aerodynamically, you want the splitter as low to the track as possible.  Every time a splitter bangs on the track, it knocks around the surface.  Cars on low tire pressure are lower to the ground and they can bottom out, scraping metal against the asphalt and essentially shaving the track.  Even the jackposts can bang on the track and knock the asphalt surface.

Another major contributor to wear is freezing and thawing of water.  Water is one of the few liquids that expands when it gets colder.  Since asphalt is porous, water can get down into the voids between the rocks, freeze, and push outward, creating internal stresses.  Even when the water liquefies again, there is some residual damage.

You can see seams on the Atlanta track, almost line line markers.  When the asphalt is laid, it is laid by a machine with a finite width.  The lanes being laid down right now at Daytona are 21 feet wide.  The asphalt isn’t a continuous layer all the way across the track.  One of the reasons asphalt is so strong is that each piece of rock interlocks with the rocks surrounding it.  Not only is the binder keeping the rock together, the rock is interlocked like the old rock walls that dot the Northeastern farms, which makes it much stronger.  The tamping down of the rock (pushing very hard on it while vibrating) is designed to rotate the rocks so that they pack as closely as possible.   That’s not the case at the seams, which is why those areas are the ones where you often see cracks first.  As I’ve shown at right, even though the bitumen is essentially continuous (I left a thin line for emphasis), there is a big difference in how the rocks interlock on either side of the seam.

The Daytona pothole was a big deal because a big ol’ chunk of asphalt came off all at once, leaving a big hole.  It is much easier to patch a small area than a large one. Putting sealer over the seams is a precaution, as those areas are inherently weaker than the others.  There’s a big difference between gradual wearing and catastrophic failure.

The problem, of course, is that asphalt is entirely opaque.  Even though the track sends people out to inspect the surface before the race, after practices, etc., all they can see is the track surface.  They can’t see whether there’s a crack just below the surface waiting for a car to come around, bottom out and take a piece of the road surface with it.  Asphalt surfaces can sustain some amount of cracks, but there’s a point at which the structural integrity is compromised.  Reaching that point is like walking off a cliff you didn’t know was there:  there’s no warning and everyone will ask you afterward why you didn’t anticipate it.

This is one reason drivers are always so tentative about a track when a repaving is announced.  The chances that the track will change are about 100 percent.

The Federal Highway Administration statistics tell us that there are 2,734,102 miles of paved public roads in the U.S.  There are scientists and engineers who study how different types of roads stand up to traffic and weather.  Racing doesn’t have that advantage.  Add up the total miles of NASCAR racetracks in the country and even if you count the local tracks, there are only a few hundred miles of pavement.  Tracks are used irregularly, by very different types of vehicles.  We don’t have a comprehensive database of how different types of asphalt age.  I can’t imagine we even have two tracks in the country with identical banking, identical types of asphalt and identical weather.  The folks who work at racetracks have to be ready for virtually anything.

Aside

Come see me and a bunch of my friends on October 23rd and 24th in Washington DC.  We’re going to be part of the very first USA Science and Engineering Festival.  The National Mall (and surrounding areas) will be invaded by hundreds of scientists, engineers and educators.  You can hear talks from the rock-guitar-playing Director of the National Institutes of Health, astronauts, inventors and more.  Our booth (on the science of motorsports, of course!) will be located at 13th and Pennsylvania Avenue.  The Office Depot show car will be there, along with opportunities for you to learn firsthand how tires can handle tons of force, how a 3,600-lb racecar can put six and a half tons of force on a set of tires, and why physicists don’t believe in centrifugal force.  In addition, you can learn about green racing and how what happens on the track might eventually end up in your own passenger car.  More information can be found at http://www.usasciencefestival.org/.  Stop by and say hello!

 

Rain has more consequences than just delaying the race.  Track drying is really hard on the surface.  Most materials expand when they heat. (Water is a notable exception).  Asphalt is a mix of different types of rocks held together by an asphalt binder.  When you heat the asphalt with a track dryer, you are putting a lot of heat into the track.  Different materials expand at different rates, and the amount of heat that reaches the inner layers of track is different than the amount on the surface.  The rapid change in temperature creates a lot of stress in the asphalt.  Track surfaces, like people, tend to crack when under stress.

There are already a lot of cracks in the Daytona surface that are covered by sealer and other fixes (like epoxy).  Sealers also expand and contract at different rates, so thoses are high priority places to watch for new problems.  Given the age of the track, it is entirely possible that there are areas that are weak or cracked just under the surface that might be pushed to the brink with a little thermal cycling.  (Thermal cycling being repeated heating and warming.)  The Daytona track folks will walk the track, but all they can see is the surface.  Keep your fingers crossed not only that we don’t have rain delaying or canceling the race, but that we don’t have rain period!  I don’t envy the track personnel today – they are going to be really happy when the track reconstruction starts.

Take a look at my earlier post on the Daytona issue.

Questions:  email diandra(at)buildingspeed.org.  Will try to answer during the race, but there’s a possibility that I’m going to be at Best Buy asking them to “demonstrate” their 3D TV’s!

© 2012 Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha