McDowell's G-force readings

Truth & Rumors > Auto Racing

Views: 126
Comments: 0

11:14 AM ET 04.12
Share
Print It
My T&R

G-force readings from Michael McDowell's grinding crash at Texas Motor Speedway last weekend were lower than other major wrecks in NASCAR, but Sprint Cup Series Director John Darby said the nature of severe crashes in the new car has changed so much that G-force readings don't mean as much as they once did. NASCAR has begun the process of thoroughly examining McDowell's battered Michael Waltrip Racing Toyota in its Research & Development Center, Darby said, adding that the G-force numbers were "pretty low." But that wasn't totally unexpected, because the design of the new car and the SAFER barrier has changed crash dynamics. "G-forces overall have been reduced," Darby said. "But when you look at the big picture, the G-force is the least significant number anyway." The significant number is the change in velocity, which Darby said was "substantial" with McDowell's car.

SceneDaily.com

Michael McDowell's car, AP

Comments (10) Add A Comment

April 12, 2008 11:55 AM ET

Report Abuse | QUOTE

Toyota sucks.

Slouch

Total Comments (342)

April 12, 2008 12:42 PM ET

Report Abuse | QUOTE

Acceleration = rate of change of velocity with respect to time

Force = product of mass and acceleration

G-force = ratio of force to gravitational force

Therefore, if the change of velocity is substantial, then the G-force must also be substantial.

The Jerk

Tupelo, MS

Total Comments (23)

April 12, 2008 12:49 PM ET

Report Abuse | QUOTE

TOYOTA SUCKS Ya right
Daytona 3rd and 4th
Calif 4th and 7th
Vegas 9th and 11th
Atlanta 1st and 2nd and 9th
Bristol 6th
M-Ville 1st and 5th
Texas 3rd 5th and 7th
Not bad for the first year in the bigs,Nationwide results are great also.
Get used to it,they are here to stay.

JKINDELRAY

Total Comments (2779)

April 12, 2008 01:54 PM ET

Report Abuse | QUOTE

JAP JUNK = compair it to chevy - or even ford %&^%%&^$ junk

Hawkman.

Total Comments (51)

April 12, 2008 04:42 PM ET

Report Abuse | QUOTE

Regardless of the lesser G force and substantial velocity, it is such a good thing they have progressed as far as they have in driver safety.
I will always wish it had happened sooner, like before Feb 18, 2001.

LittleE~BigM fan

Total Comments (3097)

April 12, 2008 04:43 PM ET

Report Abuse | QUOTE

Actually make that before May 12/2000.

LittleE~BigM fan

Total Comments (3097)

April 12, 2008 05:07 PM ET

Report Abuse | QUOTE

Would the G-Force have been different if it had been a Chevy or a Dodge??? Just curious.

NASCARQueen

Las Vegas , NV

Total Comments (77)

April 12, 2008 05:07 PM ET

Report Abuse | QUOTE

toyota is so bad that Kyle lead the most laps this season?

Seaside Park, NJ

Total Comments (18890)

April 12, 2008 06:07 PM ET

Report Abuse | QUOTE

At first I thought the article was about the G Spot, my bad!

Hillary Clinton

Rockford , IL

Total Comments (645)

April 12, 2008 06:19 PM ET

Report Abuse | QUOTE

Hey NASCARQUEEN,
If all things are equal and true in terms of what they write and say about the COT, the answer to your question is that there should NOT have been any difference between the Toyota and other makes on the track. I have been not been all that thrilled with the COT up until now, but after seeing what it did for McDowell, I have to admit the drivers are far better off in this car and would even have to go as far as saying I'd wish Dale Sr would have been in a COT that horrible day when he hit the wall for the last time.