3 ms·
Sure it's reasonably safe, not perfectly safe. In diesel engines, if there is a runaway and it isn't stopped the shaft can get overstressed and literally explo
by yread 12y ago
Sure it's reasonably safe, not perfectly safe.
In diesel engines, if there is a runaway and it isn't stopped the shaft can get overstressed and literally explode.
Jet engines are specially armored not to let any part of the turbine escape the casing in case things go wrong (yet it still happens
http://www.avherald.com/h?search_term=uncontained&opt=0&dosearch=1&search.x=0&search.y=0 http://www.avherald.com/h?search_term=uncontained&opt=0&dose...
quite a lot one might say). And quite a lot of R&D was put into it not happening.
Is there enough R&D being put into the flywheel not failing?
EDIT: my point is that stuff that is OK in a racing car might not necessarily be safe enough to put on a bus or a tram
- valarauca1 12y agoThe R&D for a race car (especially an F1) is often far more advanced then that of a buss. In F1 it literally pays to have the best testing equipment, the best labs, etc. F1 prides itself on being as close to the cutting edge as their rules lets them. The famous saying, "To earn a small fortune in F1 racing, you must first spend a large one." Is very telling of this. F1 isn't done to make F1 go fast, its done to make other cars go. :.:.: A standard durability cell for engine testing for a production engine component will typically have a ~20-30 year old sensors, and 15-20 year old data acquisition system. F1 all components will likely be <5 years.