The second test was probably invalid. When you take a 1200 pound race car and attach it to a 2000+ pound sled and then crash it into an immovable object, the force generated by that sled and race car combined is much much greater than a race car by itself.
The first crash the chassis performed just the way one would hope it to respond. Most of the energy was absorbed by the front section of the car and the drivers compartment sustained very little damage.
Now I have seen cars flip so violently that the engine goes one way the fuel tank goes the other and the shocks and other parts fly off like shrapnel all around the race track and grand stands.
True Dad, but don't you think that this gives builders and designers just a little bit of insight to possibly some of the weaker points in a frame that could get some improving. Would not call it completely invalid. JMO
It is a start in design change and I am sure John studied it very closely. It was done several years ago. The way I see it was test #1 was a success. Test #2 with an already compromised frame and the extra Mass of the sled was just a way to finish the poor car off. More testing needs to be done, however testing is very very expensive. Possibly just studying other crashes more closely would be of great benefit. Have you ever noticed that the majority of driver mortality usually occurs in very mundane and ordinary looking crashes while the spectacular crash only show up in a movie and is titled "And they Walked Away"??
Probably the biggest safety improvement for the racer in years has been the "safer barrier wall" It can lay it roots back to Indiana, Rose Hulman Institute of Technology, and Tony George. It started out as a simple university experiment and study and went on to become something great for racing.
