• Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.

The candle that burns twice as bright lasts 1/2 as long

Ouch!

I'm glad you made it out okay, look liek the car took all of the impact, thankfully!

I noticed you live in SD and I was wondering, if you don't mind sharing, what highway this took place on? I had a friend that was in a similar situation a couple of weeks ago and almost lost it in his MR2, sprinkler system had watered the road and he slid right to the edge and was able to get it back going before heading off...

------------------
-Mike
1994 Pearl Yellow Dodge Stealth R/T Twin Turbo
1970 Dodge Challenger 383 Magnum
 
Speed is always a issue in a good way and in a bad way.

When I got my NSX I wanted to test it when it will start loosing traction. One Sunday morning 6am I went on a parking lot and just took it to the limit. After a while I was able to predict when my NSX will loose it and get out before.

I throw in some poland spring water on asphalt and fun was all over. I think to me ONLY NSX on wet surface looses 90% of its traction. I had traction off because I didn't want to rely on some TCS. I wanted to develop some skills from it. This is do to the rear wheels pointing inwards I think. With TCS on it was not so bad but still driving on alert. I have soft tires that might be a problem too. I think as long as you learned something from this and you are fine then it is OK. Just I’m sure a lot hassle with insurance now.
 
Nxstacy - No appology necessary. I was just a little confused by some of the statements. You are correct, and I'm probably just as guilty, we both should have assumed no bad intension. No big deal.

Jagdstealth - El Camino Real, Carlsbad.

A while ago I too took my 300ZXTT out for some "testing" in a wet parking lot, and learned alot of the vehicle's capabilities. I however, have never taken the NSX out. I can assure you I will with the next one. Good tip, thanks.

Gene
 
No offense Lud, but if you're going to delete posts, especially for a "first-time offender", you should send them an e-mail along with their post and tell them what it is that was objectionable so they don't waste their time (and yours) by making similar posts in the future.
 
Originally posted by emvanderpol:

A while ago I too took my 300ZXTT out for some "testing" in a wet parking lot, and learned alot of the vehicle's capabilities. I however, have never taken the NSX out. I can assure you I will with the next one. Good tip, thanks.

Gene

Gene,

while testing in a wet parking lot help, I think going to driving school and get track experience help as well. It is crap load of fun too.
 
Originally posted by emvanderpol:
JSecrest

In regard to the structural integrity of the NSX, what you want for occupant safety is NOT a strong car, but a linearly malable car. A strong car will not deform, and therefore impart all/most of the impacts energy on the occupant, i.e. greater "damage" to the occupant, but less damage to the vehicle. If your in a malable vehicle, then the structure will deform (therefore absorbing the energy) and there will be less available to injure the occupant; more vehicle damage, but less injury. Its the same concept behind crumple zones. Notably, take a look at the first picture showing the seat's head-rest and how close it came to the rooflines indentation where the tree struck.

Hope this sheds a little light on the subject.

I think this might be a bit of an oversimplification. I believe that a safe vehicle structure is a combination of strong and crushable areas, in effect deliberately non-linear, with changeover points around the passenger compartment.

The passenger compartment should be protected by being as strong and rigid a structure as possible, so as not to crush the occupants or even make contact with them. Similarly, it should prevent other parts of the car (such as the engine if the impact is from the back) from entering the passenger compartment.

At the same time, the entire rest of the car should be made to sacrifice itself and absorb impact as much as possible. That means crushing to absorb energy. A perfect car involved in a multiple car pileup would have a passenger compartment which is visually unchanged, with accordian-like structures front and back of it.

I believe this rigid passenger compartment (with crushable areas around it) is the way that Formula One cars are able to go through such horrifying accidents such as during qualifying and have the driver hop out and race the next day. And that is even without airbags, just relying on 4-point seatbelts to keep the driver from hitting the steering wheel, etc.

For side or roof impacts, there is unfortunately much less space to crush before encroaching on the passenger compartment, so I would think that rigid would be a better way to go than crushing for those surfaces, or at least not crushing more than a few inches. I believe that is why I-beams in doors are now federally mandated.

Chip

------------------
Chip Alexander
'97 Blue over Tan NSX-T
'92 Lexus SC400 Coupe
'02 BMW 325iT Sportwagon
 
Originally posted by Lud:
If you want to discuss site operation, please do it in the appropriate place.

And where might that be ? I don't see any "forum" called "site operation".
 
You are a lucky,man!From the look of it I would not have thought you walked away.After this you probably look at things a little differently with a family and all,I am happy you will hop back up on the horse,from what I read it will be the same steed!
 
Originally posted by emvanderpol:
Calexand

Very well spoken/written. You are absolutely correct. I was trying to give the cliff-note version. Are you an engineer by chance?


Thank you :)

No, actually a software user interface designer (more design and understanding of human behavior than engineering). But automobile safety is definitely of interest for me... especially after seeing a pretty horrifying accident happen right in front of me once that convinced me simply being a good driver in a manuverable car cannot save you ALL situations.

In that case, the car in front of me just suddenly inexplicably went up the side of a hill on the other side of the road and then came down into the hapless oncoming traffic who could only guess where she would come down to try and avoid her. Noone was killed fortunately, but the surreal crash resulting sure increased my interest in having my wife and I drive safe cars, and knowing what makes a car safe to make that choice.

I actually had to make a bit of a tradeoff on the NSX, though. Despite other safety strengths, its very low height relative to some of the Sport Futility Vehicles out there is somewhat of a safety concern as they can conceivably slide right over most of your crushable area into the base of the windshield. But I like the NSX so much that it pretty easily outweighed that concern.

Chip

------------------
Chip Alexander
'97 Blue over Tan NSX-T
'92 Lexus SC400 Coupe
'02 BMW 325iT Sportwagon
 
i've noticed a common theme with nsx's in accidents: the nsx has a tendency to lose its tail while making turns on wet roads with some banking on it, even at slow to moderate speed. this article i was reading on the impression of the nsx by professional drivers seem to confirm this http://www.roadandtrack.com/reviews/roadtests/ArticleDisplay.asp?ArticleID=55&page=1

could it be the combination of rear-wheel drive and toe-in toe-out alignment that is the cause ?
 
Originally posted by Spider:
could it be the combination of rear-wheel drive and toe-in toe-out alignment that is the cause ?

Nah, more likely it's the mid-engine layout and its low polar moment of inertia. The same weight distribution that makes it easy to turn and flick around a racetrack makes it easy to spin when you lose traction. Of course, the answer is, don't lose traction - and be especially careful on wet roads.
wink.gif


Remember, in Gene's case, he didn't know he was going to be driving on "wet roads" until it was too late. That's not normally the case; when it's raining, you have a chance to slow down.

I've heard a very apt observation: When people are driving on dry roads, they generally drive their cars slower than they are actually capable of. But when people are driving on wet roads, they generally drive their cars faster than they are actually capable of. In other words, slowing down by 5-10 mph due to wet roads, as many people do, isn't anywhere near enough.

[This message has been edited by nsxtasy (edited 03 November 2002).]
 
Originally posted by kgb_agent:
Forensics and ultra-high-tech accident reconstructing aside, did I miss the answer to this question?



Could you please repeat the question......Oh, yes I was traveling at a speed that was "Safe & Prudent" for "prevailing road conditions."
 
Originally posted by nsxtasy:
Nah, more likely it's the mid-engine layout and its low polar moment of inertia. The same weight distribution that makes it easy to turn and flick around a racetrack makes it easy to spin when you lose traction. Of course, the answer is, don't lose traction - and be especially careful on wet roads.
wink.gif


Remember, in Gene's case, he didn't know he was going to be driving on "wet roads" until it was too late. That's not normally the case; when it's raining, you have a chance to slow down.

I've heard a very apt observation: When people are driving on dry roads, they generally drive their cars slower than they are actually capable of. But when people are driving on wet roads, they generally drive their cars faster than they are actually capable of. In other words, slowing down by 5-10 mph due to wet roads, as many people do, isn't anywhere near enough.

[This message has been edited by nsxtasy (edited 03 November 2002).]


NSXTASY:

You must be kidding, right?


------------------
NSXY
95 NSX-T, 5 sp, Red/Tan, Tubi exhaust, Dali street anti-sway bars, Dunlop SP9000s
 
Originally posted by emvanderpol:
Could you please repeat the question......Oh, yes I was traveling at a speed that was "Safe & Prudent" for "prevailing road conditions."

OK, now this thread makes sense. You wrecked because you were haulin' ass. No more questions, Your Honor.
 
If "safe and prudent for prevailing road conditions" is determined by the speed at which you can drive down a road without having an accident, well...
wink.gif
 
Originally posted by kgb_agent:
OK, now this thread makes sense. You wrecked because you were haulin' ass. No more questions, Your Honor.

According to the police report I was going a little faster than the 55 posted speed, which seem about right.

An interesting story:
I was working with an Attorney in Montana a few years ago (when there was no speed limit). About 5-10 years prior for one of Mercedes' (MBZ) marketing ploys, they flew over a few of their AMG and souped up MBZs to try/test them out on Montana's open highways. It turned out that these MBZ's were running at up to 190 mph. Anyway, the Montana State Police caught wind of this, and of couse shut them down. A lawsuit against MBZ was persued (mind you no injuries & no crashes). Although Montana had no speed limit, motorist were still bound by the Safe & Prudent prevailing condition stuff. One of MBZ's arguments were that these cars were designed to travel at such speeds, couple this with professional drivers, and probably the best "prevailing conditions" you can get (barring other slower motorist) it was morz zen safe' (can't really type in a German accent).

Not really sure how it turned out, but the NSX was more than capable of handling this curve, "but-for" the improper maintanance of the sprinkler/irrigation system, i.e. water.

Blah, Blah, Blah....

[This message has been edited by emvanderpol (edited 05 November 2002).]
 
Originally posted by emvanderpol:
Not really sure how it turned out, but the NSX was more than capable of handling this curve, "but-for" the improper maintanance of the sprinkler/irrigation system, i.e. water. Blah, Blah, Blah....

Too bad the city didn’t have the corner flagstand staffed so that the corner worker could have given you a waiving yellow warning you of the road hazard. :;

As we know, public roads are not controlled racetracks staffed with professional corner workers so we drivers have no idea what to expect around the bend and should therefore not be surprised when we find school busses, potholes, joggers, bicyclists, work crews, standing water…etc, in our racing line. When driving under these circumstances (on public roads), the only logical way to approach blind corners is with enough of a safety margin to adjust our line and speed (lift or hit the brakes to slow down without losing control of the vehicle) to avoid the obstacle safely. In my book, this is reasonable common sense.

To drive over the posted speed limit on public roads around blind corners requires that the driver know the limits of his/her car well and is driving with enough traction in the bank to slow and maneuver around common obstacles. To be comfortable and safe driving in this manner takes a lot of practice at the racetrack under various road conditions and takes a calm, cool driver.

In my opinion, a driver who is driving marginally close to the traction limits of their car around blind corners on a public road is a hazard, putting an innocent and unsuspecting public at risk not unlike a gunman shooting randomly around blind corners. If anyone on this list has lost a loved one due to a reckless driver then you know from where I talk.

Now, I love to drive fast and take corners really fast just like everyone else on this list, but I’ll take the risk to do so only when I bare the sole responsibly for my actions. The only place to drive the NSX like a madman and not put the public at risk is at a controlled racetrack.

I’m glad that this accident didn’t seriously injure the driver and I’m even gladder that this accident didn’t hurt anyone else who happed to be passing by that day. I’m not suggesting that the driver in this case was intending to drive “recklessly” but I don’t understand how a change in road surface conditions could cause a total loss of vehicle control unless the vehicle was already approaching its limits AND there was absolutely no room left on the road to increase the radius of the turn to reduce the traction requirements. My guess is that there were many drivers that day who managed to navigate their cars through the turn without ending up balled up on the sidewalk across the street.

Man, the above paragraphs seem pretty harsh but I don’t intend them to be. I’d just know that there are a lot of us out there on the public roads going a little faster than we should be to safely negotiate the “unexpected”. Most likely, the driver in this case was doing what we all do on a nice open traffic-free corner and just ran into an unlucky situation. I guess my point is that these “unlucky” road conditions are quite common and that we should all remember how fast things can change on the roads and the consequences of losing control of our 3000lb vehicles.

Drive safely and keep some traction in the bank!

DanO
 
"...we should all remember how fast things can change on the roads and the consequences of losing control of our 3000lb vehicles.

Drive safely and keep some traction in the bank!

DanO"

Speaking from experience, you are 100% correct.
 
Back
Top