Embodiments of the present invention relate generally to catch systems for vehicles leaving a road, highway, track, platform, or surface at an accelerated pace. For example, the catch systems and methods may be used on a racetrack to help prevent a car crash from becoming even more dangerous to the car driver, as well as to the spectators at the track. The catch system may be used to more safely decelerate the vehicle's motion than a hard wall, while also preventing the car from continuing on its course of travel into the stands or stadium. Additionally or alternatively, the catch systems and methods may be used on any motor sports facilities, motocross sidelines, motorcycle or car demonstrations, on circus sidelines, for boat or other water craft races or demonstrations, highways, or any other instance when fast moving or otherwise motorized vehicle may become a dangerous projectile.
There is a need for racetrack compliant fences. Fatal crashes, particularly for Indy car drivers, have brought this need to the forefront in recent years. Currently, race track walls are manufactured of cement, which does not cushion or absorb any kinetic energy of a moving object. The fences and fence posts that rise above track walls are similarly inflexible. Accordingly, the present inventors have sought to develop an energy absorbing fence.
Energy-absorbing barriers have been used in connection with airport runways, and these barriers are designed to stop an aircraft that is overrunning a runway, but to do so in a manner that safely halts the vehicle's movement while not injuring passengers and personnel. Examples of aircraft and other vehicle halting systems are described in many of the assignee's patents and patent applications, including U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,726,400; 6,971,817; 7,261,490; 7,467,909; 7,597,502; 7,837,409; 8,007,198; 8,021,074; 8,021,075; 8,224,507 and U.S. Patent Publication Nos. 2008/0014019; 2011/0020062; and 2011/0177933. For example, in addition to systems designed to stop overrun aircraft, other energy-absorbing walls have been considered for use in highway situations as well, in order to stop a car from leaving the highway at a dangerous pace, but to also stop the car without injuring its occupants. Further improvements to catch fences, however, are needed, particularly for high speed crashes, such as those occurring at speedways or racetracks.
Embodiments of the invention described herein thus provide vehicle catch fence systems and methods to be used at motorsports facilities and other venues where vehicle projectile safety is concerned. They are generally intended to be used in place of rigid fencing that is widely installed to contain airborne race cars or other vehicles and keep them from leaving the racetrack and endangering spectators behind the fences. Current fences are a hazard to drivers because of their rigidity and tendency to cause severe damage to the car if it strikes the fencing material.
Some of the embodiments described herein move the rigid poles and other unforgiving materials back from the outer edges of the race track and provide some cushioning and catching effect before the car encounters any fixed objects. The catch systems may be designed at various angles, they may be installed in multiple sections, they may be designed to catch and cushion multiple cars or vehicles, and may have various other features described below. The general intent was to develop a compliant fence system that offers better protection to the driver and the car in the event of an accident where the car becomes airborne and leaves the track.
Embodiments of the present invention provide various embodiments for catch fence systems and methods. Although the embodiments described herein may be used in various venues, they are described in connection with a race track for ease of explanation. However, it should be understood that the catch systems and methods described herein may be useful in any other circumstance when a motorized vehicle is to be stopped safely and effectively.
In one embodiment, the fence poles are moved back from the edge of the race track, and they support a catch net and energy absorbers to absorb the energy of cars that have left the racetrack and become airborne. An example of such a system is shown in
In the embodiment shown in
In improving upon this fence design, further considerations were to construct a simpler fence, which could render it easier to accept by the industry, as well as easier to install at a particular venue. Additionally, although safety is of particular concern, it is also desirable to not limit spectator sight lines, where possible. The space availability between the existing track wall and the grandstands is also different at every track, so it is desirable that the catch solution be modular and adjustable. Further, rapid system reset after an accident is an additional important consideration. Although not wishing to be bound to the following data, the following table provides the estimated magnitude of the forces involved in typical racetrack crashes and indicates the power that the catch systems are designed to contain. (Note that these are energies involved with straight-line impacts, and could be considered worst-case scenarios.) The magnitudes of force to be contained and thus designed around are shown below.
C-Fence.
A further embodiment of a catch fence system and method is referred to as the C-fence 30, and is shown in
Advantages of the C-fence include that the concrete wall at tracks is a consistent feature to build off of, so it is a stable solution. The C-fence also does not take up valuable real estate, and it is considered to have a potentially simple, inexpensive construction. It can also be installed without major construction changes to the facility, and it eliminates poles from impact area.
Leaf-Spring.
A further embodiment is the Leaf Spring fence 50, shown in
Potential advantages of the leaf spring concept are that is provides a relatively simple and elegant design, it is retrofittable, it can be implemented with a low cost, it can be designed to be self-resetting, it requires minimal changes to existing infrastructure such that it can work with existing fencing components.
Catch Net.
A further embodiment provides a catch net modification to the first embodiment shown above, but that provides a larger, less segmented system that addresses some of the issues identified with the first embodiment (such as net complexity, determining what happens between the net sections, post integrity, and runout distance issues). Examples of the catch net 80 are shown in
During a crash event, the Catch Net 80 system would flex and act like a web, deforming the most at the impact site. The energy absorbers 90 at each end of the main horizontal cables may be textile brakes, allowing for easy replacement in the event of a crash, although any appropriate form of energy absorber may be used. For example, the energy absorbers on the vertical cables may be smaller textile brakes or TZC units, depending on the energy absorber capacity required. In either case, replacement of the vertical energy absorbers may be made easy as well. Moreover, there may be enough flex in the main horizontal cables 82 that an energy absorber may not be required at each end 88, if at all.
Some benefits of this Catch Net 80 design are that it provides a relatively simple construction. There are not as many cables, pulleys and connection points as provided by the initial first embodiment. This solution also leverages a core competency of the developers by use of textile brakes or TZC (transition zone control) units. The cable system acts like a web, flexing most near impacts, but the system is also “active” at multiple points along the curve so that impacts from multiple cars could be absorbed. There are not any “mechanisms” or additional units required. The Catch Net deign also allows for built-in variability for different tracks and car sizes. The system could be mounted to the back of the SAFER barrier, or to the concrete retaining wall 92, or to both. (It should be understood that in an alternate embodiment, the system need not be mounted to the SAFER barrier, which could minimize the wall to pole distance.) (“SAFER” stands for Steel and Foam Energy Reduction, and such walls are installed along curves of automobile race tracks and are intended to absorb and reduce kinetic energy during the impact of an accident, and thus, lessen injuries sustained to drivers.) The net is also easy to reset between events—replacement of energy absorber packs or TZC units is all that is required, plus mesh repair, if needed.
In an alternate modification, it may be possible that only the bottom four or five horizontal cables are attached to an energy absorber 90. Additionally, the horizontal cable stretch may possibly be used as the energy absorber. It is also possible to adapt this solution so that it can also be installed on a straight section of track, as well if desired.
Alternate Cable Mount.
A fifth embodiment is an alternate cable mount. The alternate cable mount concept is an alternate method of connecting and aligning the horizontal safety cables of the system. It provides a method of spacing and holding the horizontal cables 82 that provides more clearance space between each cable and the mounting point. One benefit of this design is that the cable can be held away from its mounting structure somewhat, allowing space between cables for a car or driver to pass through in the event of an accident.
As shown in
Pillow Spring Mounting Concept.
A further alternate the above alternate cable mount is the pillow spring mounting concept. The spring mounting concept provides a compliant mount for the cable held a distance away from the support post. An example is shown in
Hydraulically Counteracted Pivoting Pole System.
A further embodiment is the Hydraulically Counteracted Pivoting Pole System 110, shown in
Attach Net/Fence to SAFER Barrier Concept.
This concept provides an alternate mounting orientation of the net involving mounting the bottom edge of the safety net/fence system to the inside top edge of the SAFER Barrier. One example is shown in
Large Textile Brake Concept.
In this concept, a large, horizontal textile brake 124 is fastened to the pole structure 112 at the top, and to the concrete wall or SAFER barrier 120 at the bottom. An example is shown in
Pivoting Top Pole Section with Leaf Spring Energy Absorber Concept.
The pivoting top pole with leaf spring concept absorbing energy in the pole structure by providing a pivoting or flexible top portion of the pole. As shown in
Large, Collapsible Airbag Concept.
For track installations with large catch fence areas that do not have spectator bleachers behind them, large, collapsible airbags 134 may be used to cushion the impact of cars leaving the track. Large, quick-deflating airbags could be installed above the SAFER barrier 120 that have flaps 136 that would break open upon impact and absorb the energy of a car hitting the bag 134. One example of such a configuration (prior to deployment of an airbag) is shown in
Although multiple embodiments are described and provided above, it should be understood that other options may be designed that are considered within the scope of this invention. For example:
Changes and modifications, additions and deletions may be made to the structures and methods recited above and shown in the drawings without departing from the scope or spirit of the invention and the following claims.
This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 61/563,343, filed Nov. 23, 2011, titled “Vehicle Catch Fence,” the entire contents of which are hereby incorporated by reference.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
1449518 | Lawson | Mar 1923 | A |
2189974 | Buford | Feb 1940 | A |
2518004 | Greenwell | Aug 1950 | A |
3367608 | Charno | Feb 1968 | A |
4673166 | MacDougall | Jun 1987 | A |
4685656 | Lee | Aug 1987 | A |
4743015 | Marshall | May 1988 | A |
4824282 | Waldecker | Apr 1989 | A |
6726400 | Angley et al. | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6766607 | Castaldo | Jul 2004 | B2 |
6971817 | Allen et al. | Dec 2005 | B2 |
7261490 | Allen et al. | Aug 2007 | B2 |
7347147 | Bar | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7410320 | Faller | Aug 2008 | B2 |
7467909 | Orner, Jr. et al. | Dec 2008 | B2 |
7597502 | Allen et al. | Oct 2009 | B2 |
7815392 | Kwasny | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7837409 | Mahal et al. | Nov 2010 | B2 |
7942602 | Bunk | May 2011 | B2 |
8007198 | La Valley et al. | Aug 2011 | B1 |
8021074 | Valentini et al. | Sep 2011 | B2 |
8021075 | Valentini et al. | Sep 2011 | B2 |
8172707 | Cox | May 2012 | B2 |
8224507 | Edwards et al. | Jul 2012 | B2 |
20050116481 | Blahut | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20080014019 | Allen et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20100143033 | Metzger | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100202829 | Gelfand | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20110020062 | Mahal et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110177933 | Valentini et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110305530 | Hunt | Dec 2011 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
WO 2006089321 | Aug 2006 | AT |
2406361 | Apr 2004 | CA |
1643221 | Jul 2005 | CN |
201033863 | Mar 2008 | CN |
2457929 | Jun 1976 | DE |
29600444 | Feb 1996 | DE |
20119635 | Mar 2002 | DE |
20218419 | Feb 2003 | DE |
WO 2011101157 | Aug 2011 | DE |
S37-027135 | Jan 1962 | JP |
S52-021166 | Sep 1978 | JP |
S60-242876 | Dec 1985 | JP |
H02-016208 | Jan 1990 | JP |
07172312 | Jul 1995 | JP |
2006089321 | Aug 2006 | WO |
Entry |
---|
China Patent Application No. 201280057548.9, Office Action (and English translation) dated Jun. 30, 2015. |
Singapore Patent Application No. 11201402552T, Written Opinion and Search Report dated May 18, 2015. |
Europe Patent Application No. 12787191.1, Examination Report dated Sep. 17, 2015. |
International Preliminary Report on Patentability dated Jun. 5, 2014 in Application No. PCT/US2012/059269. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Feb. 13, 2013 in Application No. PCT/US2012/059269. |
Singapore Patent Application No. 11201402552T, Written Opinion dated Mar. 21, 2016. |
Japan Patent Application No. 2014-543472, Examination Report (and English translation) mailed Jul. 5, 2016. |
Australia Patent Application No. 2012341051, Examination Report mailed Aug. 8, 2016. |
Europe Patent Application No. 12787191.1, Examination Report mailed Aug. 25, 2016. |
Singapore Patent Application No. 11201402552T, Written Opinion dated Oct. 26, 2016. |
Japan Patent Application No. 2014-543472, Decision to Grant a Patent (and English translation) dated Dec. 6, 2016. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20130126810 A1 | May 2013 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61563343 | Nov 2011 | US |