Killed Enzo # 4 (totalled- driver with serious injuries)

[RC45]

so its not well suited to b-roads - more suited to flat F1 tracks?

[ZfrkS62]

^ as if it wasn't painfully obvious already. How many Enzos have done the NS? Could you imagine the car getting light at the end of the big straight? Not the light kink, but the 3rd gear complex right before the start/finish. yeah..and you thought the Malibu wreck scattered the car :shock:

[RC45]

Well, the right left sweeper on the way into downtown Houston is very much like that complex on the NS, and the Enzo that tried to take that at speed oversteered backwards into a tree and burst into flames... so if the bad aero doesn't get you, then the snap oversteer will

[ZfrkS62]

^^ wasn't that a lack of driver's skills though?

[RC45]

Originally Posted by ZfrkS62 ^^ wasn't that a lack of driver's skills though?

Isn't every car carsh?

If you could have saved it, then there would be not wreck.

The car snap oevrsteered and smashed into a tree and burst into flames.

Then a car got airborne on an undualting italin freeway feeder and hit some mile poosts/pole and exploded into bits.

Then a car got airborne on anundualting smooth US multi lane freeway

and now a car gets airborne while slowing down on an undulating open road...

-- I guess it could be argued that the cars presented the drivers with uncontrollable situaitons and blame the drivers... but what if the cars have a propensity for unpredictable behaviour when presented with unnatural attitudes and angles of attack?

[ZfrkS62]

Originally Posted by RC45 Originally Posted by ZfrkS62 ^^ wasn't that a lack of driver's skills though? Isn't every car carsh? If you could have saved it, then there would be not wreck. The car snap oevrsteered and smashed into a tree and burst into flames. Then a car got airborne on an undualting italin freeway feeder and hit some mile poosts/pole and exploded into bits. Then a car got airborne on anundualting smooth US multi lane freeway and now a car gets airborne while slowing down on an undulating open road... -- I guess it could be argued that the cars presented the drivers with uncontrollable situaitons and blame the drivers... but what if the cars have a propensity for unpredictable behaviour when presented with unnatural attitudes and angles of attack?

obviously the flatter the underside of a car, the more tendency it has to follow Bernouli's Principle and act like a wing. Look at the two Mercedes wrecks in LeMans (everyone know's the ones i mean. Where the cars suddenly lift off, flip multiple times and land oh so violently) Sure you've got 2 tons of downforce on the car, but if you throw a nice little pocket under the car, guess what. Houston we have a prob.....>crash<....lem.

I guess Ferrari forgot to check for this while driving ruts into Fiorano..or whatever their damn test track is.

[acmarttin]

Here's my stupid comment:

Driving in the triple digits is dangerous. If a car were built that could drive as safely at 180 as it could at 25, it would be boring. I think anyone who hops in a Ferrari that costs more than my soul and shoots it up to its max speed and thinks "Ferrari's excellence in engineering will keep me alive now" is being naive. So whether it's driver error, or the fact that hitting a bump at 200 mph. is deadly...at least the guy is okay.

P.S. I love Corvettes.

[nejcdolinsek]

Originally Posted by ZfrkS62 Originally Posted by RC45 Originally Posted by ZfrkS62 ^^ wasn't that a lack of driver's skills though? Isn't every car carsh? If you could have saved it, then there would be not wreck. The car snap oevrsteered and smashed into a tree and burst into flames. Then a car got airborne on an undualting italin freeway feeder and hit some mile poosts/pole and exploded into bits. Then a car got airborne on anundualting smooth US multi lane freeway and now a car gets airborne while slowing down on an undulating open road... -- I guess it could be argued that the cars presented the drivers with uncontrollable situaitons and blame the drivers... but what if the cars have a propensity for unpredictable behaviour when presented with unnatural attitudes and angles of attack? I guess Ferrari forgot to check for this while driving ruts into Fiorano..or whatever their damn test track is.

IMO, Ferrari didn't "forget" to chech anything. The Enzo is intended to be pushed to the limits on tracks, not on public roads. Hence, the aero, suspension, etc... setups are geared towards use on track.

Let the buyer beware....

[RC45]

Originally Posted by nejcdolinsek IMO, Ferrari didn't "forget" to chech anything. The Enzo is intended to be pushed to the limits on tracks, not on public roads. Hence, the aero, suspension, etc... setups are geared towards use on track. Let the buyer beware....

Uhm - how is that?

Ferrari will void your warranty if you run the car on a track and something breaks..

It's a road car - period.

And about race tracks - do you think the Nurburgring is any different to a public road? So we should conclude then that the Enzo is no good at the Northloop?

[nthfinity]

^^^^^
Walter Rohl said that the Enzo was "almost" as fast as the CGT around the Northloop... i take that as 2-4 seconds in somebody like WR's hands... and we know it lost 2 seconds because of the inability to take the Karosel on the bank... so about 6 seconds slower altogether then the CGT.

of course, he is a Driving God...

and here's this thought Zfrk...

Bernuli deals with the distance of air traveled over a opposing surfaces. While the enzo is optomized for several things....

1. Higher velocity air under the car then over the car
2. ground effect which accellerates the air under the car by limiting the volume of air travelling under the car.
- the high velocity of the air draws air in from the sides like a vacuume and maintains its high velocity, while increasing its mass, aiding in downforce
- ultimately, all this reduces the air pressure under the car, and with the Enzo; at least partially increases pressore on top of the car.

in a non ground effect situation, the distance the air travels over the top will be greater then the air traveling under the car; but does not have a traditional leading edge.

something called the angle of attack also has a great deal about the amount of downforce produced, or lack therof.

there will often be a minimum angle of attack for a wing to produce lift; fighter jets often have a 0 degree angle of attack. There is also something called a "critical angl ef attack" at which a stall occurs, and the aircraft literally drops... unless you have thrust to overcome the pressure equalization.

if the angle of attack is increased prior to the critical angle, lift will insue no matter what.

that is what I am nearly sure happened in Italy, PHC, and now Utah.


how this happened?
the Vector, or direction of motion, and velocity.... was changed by the nature of the specific roads in question. and this allowed a volume of air under the car, increasing the air pressure under the car, and immediately decreasing the velocity eradicating downforce all over the car, but at the nose first.

[nejcdolinsek]

Originally Posted by RC45 Originally Posted by nejcdolinsek IMO, Ferrari didn't "forget" to chech anything. The Enzo is intended to be pushed to the limits on tracks, not on public roads. Hence, the aero, suspension, etc... setups are geared towards use on track. Let the buyer beware.... Uhm - how is that? Ferrari will void your warranty if you run the car on a track and something breaks.. It's a road car - period. And about race tracks - do you think the Nurburgring is any different to a public road? So we should conclude then that the Enzo is no good at the Northloop?

1. I never mentioned "void warrantees" I'm only talking about the performance of the car.

2. Its a "road car" in the sence that its legal to use on public roads, but is clearly a car whos full performance is only exploitable on tracks.

3. I really don't know.... I've never driven a car around the 'ring, much less an Enzo around it.