ENZO CRASH THREAD @@@@@ ENZO CRASH THREAD @@@@@ ENZO CRASH THREAD @@@@@

Whenver the split in half comes up I usually try not to comment, but it's no magical flaw or conspiracy by Ferrari. It's simple physics. A relatively heavy engine is behind the centerline of the car, as such, it's trying as hard as possible to come around front. Any time the impact occurs in front, or at the front, of the engine (which basically means, any time it occurs in front of the rear wheels) this is going to be the case. Think of a whip snapping.

The only thing that keeps the whip from snapping, and the rear-end coming around, all the time (like when you turn) is those 4 little pieces of rubber. The handling benefits of a mid-engined car are irrefutable, but there's no free lunch...

And for the "you have no idea what you're talking about, I watch F1, ALMS, etc. and the engine never comes around." Yes, this is largely true, but keep in mind the strength of the fasteners employed in F1, ALMS, etc. in relation to the overall weight of the engine/trans combo it is securing. It dwarfs the same ratio for any street car simply because the force will increase exponentially with weight of the drivetrain.

I don't like commenting in these macabre threads, regardless of his not heeding to common sense, RIP to the driver, and thankfully no one else was involved. It's been said, but I agree in that I'd rather go out like this than many other ways, or even as opposed to working in a dead end job my whole life, etc. I'm only commenting because the breaking in half has come up so often lately and if you've ever picked up a barbell or a curl bar in your life, this should be pretty easy to understand why it happens.

 

A racetrack?

Sorry, but as far as I am concerned, no road other than a racetrack is engineered for those speeds. Frankly, some racetracks are even questionable.

Just because the speed limit is unposted, does not mean it is unlimited. Furthermore, if you are sharing these public roads with "unlimited" speed limits with the rest of the public (trucks, minivans, sedans driven by soccer moms, etc) you are not only endangering your life but the lives of other innocent bystanders.

 

There are some roads in Australia that have no speed limit at all.
So it is unlitmited.
They are indeed open to public, for sure, but actually there aren't so many people on there or around there....

 

157.83 mph

Here's what I still don't understand. My MK-IV has a massive engine and in a huge spin crash Andretti hit the wall at Le Mans at 145 mph in one and walked away. The car did not split.

My Lola has a heavy mid engine as well and I've seen Lola's subjected to massive flips/hits/ and even direct t bone's without splitting. Hall's Chaparalls which had composite tubs as well.

Is it the extra 1000 lbs? Are these 48 year old structures relatively stronger?
Would a tied together roll cage have kept the car in tact? Without a race seat and hans device would it matter?

 

SAD

 

This makes sense, why would these cars not have an inner cage like a race car? After all thats what these cars are. If they split at least the cockpit would be intact and the driver inside belted(provided they were wearing there belt) Good point.

 

A while ago I had posted something just like this. A roll-cage will add another 250lbs to the car, but we worth the penalty IMHO.

 

Perhaps you should get your facts straight before hitting the 'post reply' button:

FYI, Scud recorded that speed in the Northern Territory, Australia (i.e. the outback). The road IS unlimited and NOT simply unposted. It is dead straight for miles and miles, and you can see ahead for miles, and there's nothing to hit on either side. You're in the middle of the desert/outback! Also, you ain't going to run in any 'soccer mums' I can assure you! No brainer; you can go for broke on that kind of road, but definitely not on the road the Enzo crashed on (from what I can tell from the pictures).

 

Correct.

 

This was essentially what I was getting at with my question. Most of us understand that the energy increases as the square of velocity and that things will break *somewhere*. I would expect that with Ferrari's race experience that they've intentionally designed their structures to break and shed energy as much as possible at the same time that there is serious effort to engineer the cabin to protect the occupants. Granted as the speeds get up to 100, 150, 200 MPH then more and more damage will occur, and organic damage will increase, but the *last* thing I would want to break at whatever speed as a structural engineer is the cabin (having said that, I should point out I'm not one).

These cars are built and sold on the basis of their performance and race heritage. We all know that if you do race/track your car, that a roll cage is either highly recommended or required in some venues. Up to this point I had assumed that it increased the integrity of the cabin (i.e. additional safety on top of normal safety). I had not thought of the possibility that it was *required* to maintain cabin integrity. Now it's possible that the engineering is such that cabin integrity *is* maintained in the sub-100 MPH range but since these accidents occurred at 150+ a roll cage was required. Was a roll cage an option in the Enzo (I believe it is in the CS)?

So perhaps a more direct question, than what I said earlier, is if anyone knew Ferrari's engineering philosophy in the structural design of these cars?

 

I'm not a mechanical engineer, but the "problem" Ferrari faces is specific to newer designs, not them as a manufacturer in particular. Your cars (from my understanding, nice MK-IV btw, remember seeing it at WWoC), like my 308, have a one-piece tube frame which would take forces incalcuable by me to split in half. Steel bends a lot before it breaks, simple as that. It'll pretzel into a hanover sourdough, the engine will tear from the mounts, etc. before the frame itself suffers a total disintegration like we see in some of the newer models. There are those that can elaborate better than I can, but the three main problems they seem to face as they're moving forward are:

1) Sub-frame cars such as the 355, 360, and Enzo have an obvious weakness where the frame is split. IIRC, it's secured by 12mm bolts on the 355. They simply can't cope with an impact and that much weight being whipped (think of a sinker on the end of a piece of fishing line). I also doubt Ferrari had any real information to calculate such an impact going into 355 production, I would imagine they dealt more with torsional stiffness and normal loads that they have mountains of information to study from their years of manufacturing/testing.

2) Cars with CF tubs have even more trouble because as brought up already, it shatters, delaminates, studs pull out, etc. It is incredibly strong, but when it goes, IT GOES.

3) Aluminum doesn't bend as much as steel. Not as bad as CF of course, but it tears/breaks sooner.

Going back to point 1, even if they now do have enough information available to calculate the types of loads in such an impact, it might be unfeasible for them to account for such loads. ie, the necessary weight to reinforce the frame is impractical.
And, even if they can calculate the loads, at a certain point they become high enough that it's pointless to account for them. The impact would be so severe that they could be essentially certain a human would perish. Hitting something sideways at 150mph would seem to be beyond this threshold. What point is there in making a car that can hold together (at the detriment of performance, the whole point of said car) if the occupant will surely be dead inside?

With the MK-IV and Lola, I think the reduced weight would help a great deal because they have a much larger rearward bias I would imagine. Using the barbell example, cut one of the weights off the end and throw it sideways against a pole. The barbell wont bend in on itself, it'll just spin off the pole (at an insanely high rate). I would venture to guess if the Lola slid sideways into a poll, the frame would bend instead of snapping, and it would spin off as a result of a heavy rear bias with all the American steel in back.

Both ends of the barbell need to be heavy enough, and the middle has to be incapable of bending far enough to deal with the forces.

Remember, all speculation on my part, I'm by no means the DOT here. I think the bottom line is, don't crash... it worked for Fangio. The frame breaking is an interesting point though, it's a shame it only comes up under this context.

 

Yeah, I'm sure 330kph in a passenger car was exactly what the engineers who built the road had in mind when they built it...

Excuse my semantics. I realize the difference between unposted and unlimited. There's an event held yearly in Nevada where a stretch of road is blocked off and a race is held and "unlimited" speeds are allowed. People still manage to "f" up and wad themselves. And that's in a somewhat controlled environment with safety vehicles and safety personnel around. I would think that in this remote area in the Northern Territory that when Scud unofficially posted his 330kph speed that there were no safety personnel or emergency vehicles around. Just a guess....

Sorry, I have never been to AU so my in-depth knowledge of your country is limited. Unfortunately, my knowledge is limited to "Mad-Max" and "Crocodile Dundee" movies. Regardless, whether I am familiar with the lay of the land or not, 330kph in a street car on public roads isn't safe.

Period.

 

Hi
Thanks for your thoughts. (The MK-IV is a composite tub alum sandwiching honeycomb CF)
Best

 

I've been reading through this thread and must say my condolences to the family of the driver. It is a terrible tragedy to see what can happen in a violent accident. What I'm surprised by is the questions people have about why the gentleman didn't walk away.

I've spent the last year taking ACR (accident reconstruction) classes and the answer is simple...Physics. All accidents are different but the basics of the accident is, delta V (the change in velocity...160 mph to 0 mph) and the acceleration or deceleration in this case. There are many other factors that come into play here, but we can simplify the equations here.

g= (delta V)2
2 sg

where s is the displacement(distance) in ft and g is acceleration (1g = 32.2ft/sec2). Velocity must be in ft/sec (multiply by 1.47). In an accident like this the occupants head will likely strike something, eg. the windshield or the windshield frame. The amount of give when striking an object is known so that a windshield will bow about 5” (.42ft) and the harder windshield frame has only .5” of give (.042ft). Due to this the deceleration is of greater magnitude.

So here is how it works out for the windshield:

g= (160x1.47)2 = 2045.21
2(.42)(32.2)

Here is what happens if he hits the frame

g= (160x1.47)2 = 20452.17
2(.042)(32.2)

Either way not survivable. What about a 25 mph accident and he strikes the windshield???

g= (25x1.47)2 = 49.9
2(.042)(32.2)

Of course at 25 mph and you hit the frame you don’t walk away.
Just the answer to the question of why the gentleman didn’t walk away from this crash.

This is also the explanation as to why a HANS device is so beneficial.

Rob

 

I agree with all these points, i posted them a few pages ago.

It is simply construction related, and in the end, there is nothing really bad with it.

For ages BMWs (and volvos), had their gas tank a few inches from the rear bumper.
But since there was no rear crash test (and non with gas in the tank...), nobody cared.
Same here, these are side crashes that do occur frequently because these cars get out of control and spin, ending up against a tree, a pole etc.
But again, it would bend any regular car as well, even if not breaking it into pieces.

 

These crash threads are always very sobering and my prayers go to the family and loved ones left behind.

After having read the whole thread, the posts that Big Red and Big Tex put up resonated the strongest with my own feelings and I applaud both you guys for your caring viewpoints.

It is also clear that with speed very bad things can happen. Fast cars amplify bad judgement and I doubt there is a person on this board or a Ferrari owner anywhere who has not made a driving mistake, misjudged an apex, or made an error of judegement that could have resulted in the same final outcome as this driver.

I hope the images help us ALL exercise a bit more control and better judegemnt with these great cars. Its always an interesting reminder to see the geometric increase in stopping distance as sppeds climb above 60mph.
John

 

Thanks, John......

Always proud to exchange views, with folks of the caliber we have on here.

Only a select few live it as you and Jim are able, and along with the keys travels a HUGE requirement of respect for the machinery, and it's fearsome capabilities....

Only with the experience of many miles travelled comes the wisdom of personal judgement, and sadly as this wisdom accumulates, the advancement of time can sometimes fade the lightning quick responses required.

I recall at the time this machine was introduced, Micheal stepping from the car and even with his personal skills, commenting that a wise man would never use the overide to turn the traction control system "off"......

It's just very saddening to read of this type event, along with the two other events in this country recently, where the enthusiasm for performance overtook the operator's common sense......CA = 2, IL = 3, this one = 1 more.

That's a lot of funerals, with chrome horses left behind littering the streets....

 

can u see where they coverd up body parts?


under the light blue cover...

so are enzos safe at top speeds?
or was this guy just going above limits?

does anyone know what he hit?

 

Micro analyze this all you want, their is a clear pattern with monocoque Ferraris that shows they split up like a beer can under severe stress from impacts in accidents, they just don't have the strength or protection, interesting it doesn't happen with 911s which are unibody as well.

I have never seen a 308, F40, Daytona, Boxer, 275 or other tube frame Ferrari split so easily as the unibody cars, and its not simply the newer cars have more hp so they are going faster when they crash, I would gladly take any weight penalty for the extra safety as it appears any accident in the unibody cars with impact at high speed causes the car to disintegrate, and you have no protection then, when you are in the process of a crash time seems to stand still and things last forever it seems, I could imagine watching your car fall apart in front of your eyes while knowing you've basically had it.

 

The F40 has a Carbon Fiber tub similar to the Enzo.

 

no they didn't

you guessed correctly

you should come down under then you can comment with more facts rather than speculation

you are right. a crosswind , bird , blown tyre and it's all over for me. we who took part in the excursion came away very lucky with no mishaps.

in summary if 330 kmh is unsafe , take it up with the manufacturer , not the guy holding the keys

 

Hello, I believe the F-40 has a tub with carbon fiber but that and the body panels are glued to steel tube chassis that runs through out the body. Nothing new or high tech about it, just that the car weighs around 2200lbs with 478hp. Old school perhaps, but seems safer than a CF tub by it self. Norm