Author Topic: BMW becomes airborne - 5 killed (Read 1133 times)

culero · « **Reply #30 on:** January 28, 2008, 08:02:08 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by kamilyun
snip
68 mph roughly, but assumed only 10m/s^2 and rounded the meters/feet conversion, so may as well say 70 mph.

Yeah, that's how I reckon what you're figuring, too. But that's not gonna be actual. They hit some kind of barrier and went over it, so you have to assume that they both slowed down as they hit the barrier, and lofted as they went over it. Their actual speed had to be greater than 70mph, we just have no way of knowing how much more without more info. Potentially, their initial speed could easily have been double that.

SFRT - Frenchy · « **Reply #31 on:** January 28, 2008, 11:06:02 AM »

500HP V10 + immature driver + unlighted runway = darwin award

Yknurd · « **Reply #32 on:** January 28, 2008, 12:17:17 PM »

Quote

Help! I've fallen down and died!

sunfan1121 · « **Reply #33 on:** January 28, 2008, 12:34:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by kamilyun
With a flat launch, drop of 80 feet, distance of 200 feet, I come up with only 60 mph.

d (vert) = 1/2 at^2 = 80 ft = 26 meters = 1/2 10 m/s^2 x t^2

5.2 = t^2

t = 2.3 s

d (horiz) = vt, v = d/t = 200 feet/2.3s x 60 s/m x 60 m/h / 5280 ft/mile is about 60 mph

I think adding the ramp would only increase the time they were in the air b/c you'd have to add a v x t x tangent (angle) factor to the original equation:

d (vert) = v (horiz) x t x tangent(angle) - 1/2 at^2

This would increase the amount of time spent in the air, which would effectively decrease the overall speed since a larger t = smaller velocity from the 2nd equation.

So I'm pretty sure that if my math is correct, then 60 mph was the max speed they were doing.

Just read that they hit 15 feet above the ground, so that changes it slightly...

68 mph roughly, but assumed only 10m/s^2 and rounded the meters/feet conversion, so may as well say 70 mph.

Treize69 · « **Reply #34 on:** January 28, 2008, 12:36:40 PM »

Every time I start reading that, within two lines all I can hear is "bweeeeeEEEEEEooooOOOOOoooopp. ...."

FBplmmr · « **Reply #35 on:** January 28, 2008, 03:37:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by eskimo2
HOLY COW!

Please do scan and post!

Sorry about the quality. The pictures were not in an album and spent some time in the glove box of my Jeep.

older picture about 1983 I think.. aluminum slots all the way around.

probably 1984 or 1985.. replaced the rear wheels.

The dreaded 'after' picture -October or November 1985... not as bad as it looks, the salvage yard piled some parts on the roof.

I thought I still had another front end photo of the wreck, I'll look around a bit.

culero · « **Reply #36 on:** January 28, 2008, 08:32:19 PM »

Well, the speed estimate sure went up, based on what the picture Frenchy posted shows. Looks like a helluva high loft, after a pretty sudden and drastic speed reduction. Wow, just wow.

Cypher · « **Reply #37 on:** January 28, 2008, 11:28:32 PM »

Call me heartless but i have as little sympathy as i did with the teen that was killed after taunting the tiger. Some may truly be too stupid to live.

BiGBMAW · « **Reply #38 on:** January 29, 2008, 10:51:28 PM »

its amazing how much road you need to slow down from 120mph plus..I think that really screws Young folks up when they first haull ***

Its much diff slamming on breaks at 60 mph then slamming them at 120mph...seems like it takes for ever to slow down..

I 'borrowed " my moms 560 sl when she was out of town...had a real close call one night drag racn down a 1/ 2mile stretch that went to a T intersection..I couldn't stop at the stop sign and had to make a hard left turn through the intersection..luckily it wads late night an no one was there...