Talk:David Purley

Untitled

Purley survived a deceleration rate 173 to 0 km/h in 660 mm in a crash during pre-qualifying for the 1977 British Grand Prix at Silverstone. This is equal to 179.8 g. He suffered 29 fractures, 3 dislocations and 6 heart-stoppages. (Guinness World Records.) Do we have a reference for this?

Erm, reread what you posted.203.218.86.162 02:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

--

"which is believed to be the greatest acceleration ever experienced by a human" -- does this only includes humans who survived? It would be a lot more remarkable if no one had ever undergone such acceleration even including those who have died in the process.

The only non-Wiki reference I've found on this is at http://www.asag.sk/bio/purley.htm, wherein it's claimed "Purley was subjected to the highest G-forces ever survived by a human being - 179.8G - when the car went from 108mph to zero in just over half a meter." While not conclusive or something that's thus far been corroborated, it clearly says "survived". Further, the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster is known to be an instance where humans experienced (and died from) a higher g impact: "The crew cabin impacted the ocean surface at roughly 207 miles per hour (333 km/hour), causing deceleration of over 200 g, far beyond the structural limits of the crew compartment or crew survivability levels." (http://history.nasa.gov/kerwin.html). As such, I'm changing this entry. --Thorprime 17:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Calculation of deceleration rate

The Guinness Book of Records figure is inaccurate. Deceleration from 173 kph to 0 kph in 660 mm is equivalent to (48 m/s)^2/(2 x 0.66) m/s^2 = 1746 m/s^2 = (1746/9.81) g = 178 g. Robma 12:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is the distance in the calculation doubled? (Oh and nothing like keeping significant digits and saving all rounding till the end, eh?) 68.151.23.179 22:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Poemisaglock 00:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC) he actually experienced -(negative)178g's because he was decelerating. These are harder on your body than positive g forces.

Puxley

There is a request for a citation re the fact the Purley name was previously Puxley (or perhaps Pucksley). I haven't done any research on this family but it wouldn't be hard to do. I was David's room-mate at school and we were good friends. He told me this information, as well as where his mother was born. Since this came from the horse's mouth as it were, it should be on good authority. Athbaz (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I've never seen it written down anywhere (and I know more about Purley than most people do), and Wikipedia is all about sourcing. As I'm the one who added the citation request, I explain it as thus - had I completely disbelieved the 'Puxley' claim, I would have deleted it. All I did was ask for a reliable verification. Lec CRP1 (talk) 01:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand, though you didn't ask for a citation on his mother's birthplace ;-) . I have collected proof of the Puxley story but it is in a Word document which I can't paste in here. My email is bazalgette(at)telus.net. If you will send me an email I will reply with the document attached. Athbaz (talk) 16:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I turned the Word document into text and pasted it below:

---

"Charles Purley was born in Twickenham in 1910…" http://www.bognor-local-history.co.uk/article36.html

Full name: Charles Reginald Purley (Companies House) “He was in partnership with his brother Frank in the fish business” [LEC history]

LDS BMD entries: http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/frameset_search.asp

Charles Reginald PUXLEY Birth: 17 JUL 1910 Death: 07 DEC 1991 Chichester, Sussex, England Burial: 16 DEC 1991 Chichester, Sussex, England

Parents: Father: Greville Adolph Charles Lavallin PUXLEY Mother: Mary Louise HANSFORD

Brother to Charles: Frank PUXLEY Birth: 23 JUL 1911 Tunbridge Wells, Kent, England Death: 25 JAN 1996 Bognor Regis, Sussex, England Burial: 02 FEB 1996 , Sussex, England

Sister: Louise Ivy PUXLEY Birth: 1912 Death: 25 JUN 1996 Bognor Regis, Sussex, England Burial: 02 JUL 1996 Bognor Regis, Sussex, England

October 1991 “At the age of 81 Charles Purley gave up the chairmanship of the board, he became life president but died in December” From: http://www.lec.co.uk/History_p23.aspx Athbaz (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

"English" or "British"?

An English, Welsh or Scottish sportsman is normally described as "British" when competing in an international competition and representing the United Kingdom. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

"For many years, this was thought to be the highest g-force ever survived by a human being"

This sentence sounds like today there is a higher record. However, neither this text, nor its reference ("Purley was subjected to the highest G-forces ever survived by a human being") nor the article g-force ("Brief human exposure survived in crash[17][23] > 100 g", with ref. 23 being a link to this article and ref. 17 not being accessible) provide such a record. --YMS (talk) 07:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

To answer my own question: Kenny Bräck claims to have survived a 214 g crash. --YMS (talk) 12:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Recent IP edits

To the persistently incorrect IP: 1) His attempt to save Williamson at Zandvoort in 1973 is what he is most famous for. I've added a cite and I can at least half a dozen more for that exact fact. 2) You seem to think an accident in which a car overturned, caught fire and a man was killed was not serious. I find that offensive and not a little ludicrous. 3) I have changed the verb from "perish" to "suffocate", per the specific fact. 4) Purley and Williamson were not friends; they hardly knew each other. 5) The throttle valve on a DFV is not a switch; it's not just open or closed. It was stuck wide open (not slightly open or half-open) by congealed fire extinguishant following an earlier fire. If you don't know about these things, and you don't, don't edit about them. 6) You're big on providing verifiable facts – the g-force was the greatest measured at that point in time. We have no idea what other g-forces may have been "known". Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

1. What he is "most famous for" is a subjective opinion, regardless of who says it. Stating objective facts is simple and straightforward. Trying to guess what some unspecified demographic might think of them is stupid and pointless.
2. I do not think that. You seem to be over-interpreting wildly
3. Good
4. The article previously claimed otherwise. If you knew different, why had you not removed it before, and why did you not mention this in an edit summary?
5. Your statements have no relevance to the wording of the particular sentence about the throttle, the meaning of which did not change. The differences between "became stuck" and "stuck", and between "open" and "wide open", are not matters of fact but of style.
6. And how, pray tell, could one possibly know the value of a g-force without measuring it?

190.162.88.128 (talk) 00:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

1) Rubbish. You have a fixation with it, and you're wrong on almost every occasion. He got a GM for it, not for anything else. The information is sourced, and removing it is against Wikipedia guidelines. I suggest you restore it.

2) Your actions say otherwise.

3) I hadn't noticed the "friends" claim before.

4) You have no idea what you're talking about regarding the throttle on a DFV. You think "open" and "wide open" are the same thing. Perhaps you should test that at the wheel some time and then decide if it's a fact or not.

5) You are saying "known". Who are we to say what is "known" and not known? "Measured" is a simple fact. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

1. So, we say that he got a GM for it. Simple. Nothing else required. Or perhaps you'd like to say he got a GM, best known for being a medal given to people who've done brave things?
2. No, they don't.
3. And you didn't bother to understand the situation before levelling false accusations at me, did you? Do you see why such behaviour is problematic?
4. "Open", in the English language, includes all states of openness unless further qualified, by words such as "partly", "fully" or "wide". The set defined by the word "open" fully includes the set defined by the phrase "wide open". Why do you think the word "wide" is essential to the sentence?
5. In fact, you have been changing the word "measured" to "known". Arguing against your own edits makes it obvious that you are simply trolling. Time for you to leave, I think. 190.162.88.128 (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

1) He is best known for that incident. It's a fact and it's widely verifiable as such. If you knew anything at all about the subject, you wouldn't even argue about it.

2) We could agree to differ. Or you could just restore the word "serious".

3) What false accusations? I wasn't referring to the "friends" element when I said you were introducing factual errors. That was just something I removed as unsourced and untrue.

4) I really don't need to explain this, I would have thought. The fact that it was wide open caused the severity of the accident. Had it been only partially open, the crash would either not have happened, or the accident would not have been as severe. You think this is some kind of style issue, well, it isn't.

5) No, I haven't [1]. You introduced the word "known" [2]. Poor, even for you. Do try and get your facts straight before trying to be funny. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

1. Stop trolling. 190.162.88.128 (talk) 01:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Is that all you've got? Don't forget to be nice. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Purley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130718070038/http://www.kennybrack.com/pages/personal-info/2003.html to http://www.kennybrack.com/pages/personal-info/2003.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)