Dan Wheldon Indycar accident - retrospective discussion

[cossie]

xorry , but ASmore credentials are pretty solid, working for lola, Reynard F1, Dallara got the contract becausee they would build a office in Indy, paid for by the taxpayers, so now they are stuck with a pile of a supercrapwagon, , IMS record dealing with vendors sucks,

My point still stands. The Dallara contract may be political in nature, and I don't know enough of that backstory to refute his claims, but that man is nuts if he thinks that IndyCar as a series can afford to have tracks it calls its own, and the teams don't have the money or the sponsorship to go nuts developing their own cars with their own materials. I don't know where you're from but even the cash cow that is NASCAR has had a very hard time with its participants getting sponsors here. Viewership and attendance have been on the decline for years in that series. IndyCar has nothing like the following that NASCAR does and they are struggling like crazy to get exposure. Shooting off at the mouth saying IndyCar teams should be spending an assload of money on their own designs or looking down their nose at racing on "NASCAR tracks" smacks of ignorance of the economic climate in the US or being butthurt about not getting your way. IndyCar is struggling and it's not because the teams don't develop their own cars or because they are racing on what that man considers inferior tracks that don't meet the requirements they like. Adapt or die. That man is talking out his ass, I don't care what he has framed on his wall as far as credentials go.

the product sucks , pure and simple, it's spec racing at it's worset, BTW Dullarra blew off any recomendations by DR's Olvey and Trammel to make the car safer. to award a chassis contract to a company that already has a piss poor, safety record and give it to them again just reaks of incompitence. why because IMS has basically blackballed any company that did buisness with CART and Champcar. IF the people like Lola , Swift and BAT had prior knowlege that the bidding process was rigged they never would have made proposals in which they had to sign over design rights. now they are stuck with another pig of a car, that has basically they same desighn flaws as the previous car, long skinny, pointy nose poor roll hoop design. Interesting that no crash testing data has been released. Indy car and American open wheel racing is dead, done stick a fork in it, Thanks FTG was spending a billion dollars worth it

[Ray]

the product sucks , pure and simple, it's spec racing at it's worset, BTW Dullarra blew off any recomendations by DR's Olvey and Trammel to make the car safer. to award a chassis contract to a company that already has a piss poor, safety record and give it to them again just reaks of incompitence. why because IMS has basically blackballed any company that did buisness with CART and Champcar. IF the people like Lola , Swift and BAT had prior knowlege that the bidding process was rigged they never would have made proposals in which they had to sign over design rights. now they are stuck with another pig of a car, that has basically they same desighn flaws as the previous car, long skinny, pointy nose poor roll hoop design. Interesting that no crash testing data has been released. Indy car and American open wheel racing is dead, done stick a fork in it, Thanks FTG was spending a billion dollars worth it

Again, you and the guy linked in the post just don't get it. NASCAR is just about spec racing and they don't have a problem getting fans. The car design isn't flawed, it isn't unsafe. The car didn't cause Dan Wheldon to die, and other drivers in that same crash survived without injury. Dan hit the fence in just the right way. It was pure chance. Dallara hasn't made an unsafe car by any stretch. To say so is to belittle the drivers that have been kept safe in terrible accidents in the past. If Dallara made such --- cars then both McNish and Rocky wouldn't have walked away from their crashes at Le Mans. That man is a goddamn moron if he thinks the solution is to build specified tracks to Indy standards and for teams to build their own cars with their own materials. The US economy is in the shitter. They can't afford it. Maybe when the economy improves that would work great, but right now a spec series is all anyone can afford. The simple solution to his gripes is to not sign over his design ideas and go race for another series. All he's doing is pissing and moaning about his situation. And stupidly at that.

[cossie]

The product sucks, no fans, the economy has some bearing, however it's spec racing and it the products just plains sucks, AOW was dead before the econmy was in the shitter, the screwed up the new car like they have screwed up thier racing product for the past 16 years. they cannot drw a crowds and put butts in the seats because the racing is manufactured, pack spec racing

[Ray]

Alot of that was infighting between Tony George and other things. Mainly it was political arguing that killed it, not the racing. I've always enjoyed Indy racing no matter where they were. Sure the cars could have been better but the politics split up the series' and that's what killed it. They don't have the money to toss around like Formula 1 does, that's the real issue. They don't have the money or the manufacturer support that even the lower teams in F1 do. I'm guessing you didn't watch the Indy 500 this year, that was a fantastic race. It had everything Indy needed and the stands were packed, which is something that even Formula 1 can't say about Indy. Apples to apples IndyCar drew more fans that Formula 1 did. And it wasn't the cars that caused it. It was a crappy track and the bullshit politics that infest Formula 1 that drove it away. One single weekend with the Michelin incident sealed Formula 1s fate at Indy and maybe the US as a whole. While I hope the Texas race isn't like that, to say the racing sucked for IndyCar is stretching it alot and Formula 1 had one single weekend that was far worse than what IndyCar has done over the years.

[WhiteBlue]

You would be right except for the fact his car was NOT the only one to get into the fence in that crash and NOT the only car to get into a fence before. It was a perfect storm. His car hit the fence cockpit first. That's what happened. How many times has one of those cars hit the fence and the guy/girl driving it hopped out and was talking to the media in perfect health 15 minutes later? It was bound to happen and it finally did, the amount of cars or the type of track is irrelevant. Like the officials said in the report, it was chance, and it finally happened. Manslaughter isn't really applicable because drivers know and accept the risk on a personal, professional and legal level. The poles should have been on the other side of the fence, but it's happened many times before at tracks that are just as fast with just as many cars on it. You're grasping at straws here. Those drivers agreed to get in their cars and race, that makes them responsible for what happens as well as the officials directing the race. I suppose everyone involved in hosting the race, building the cars, Jack Clarke, and the marshals involved at Brands Hatch when Henry Surtees was killed should be tried on manslaughter charges as well?

The data they sifted through was vast and I'd bet 50 bucks you didn't read a single word of that technical finding before you commented on it's contents. Not only were they finding out the causes and timing of the events, they found areas of data collection and driver data collection points where they can improve upon. Had you read the entire document, or even part of it, you'd know that in the course of the investigation they realized that the earplugs the drivers use has a cord that can be made too short and will unplug with sufficient impact on the car and it won't record the G forces the drivers head went through. That seems like a valuable part of the process and part of the reason it took them this long to collect the data, analyze it and compile a report on exactly what happened and what can be improved upon. Go read the actual document, it's completely free to read and you just might learn why it took them that long and the circumstances around what happened in that crash.

Wow, you seem to become quite emotional about this. Thanks for posting a link to the accident report. I have read it with great interest but I see no reason to change my main conclusions from reading the press output. I will tell you why:

The report is detailed and the amount of time to write it seems appropriate. Nevertheless the main points of interest were immediately available after the race:

Fifteen cars were involved in a mass accident. The open wheel configuration of the race cars made Wheldon's car go airborn, which is a common feature for open wheelers in high speed accidents. The contact orientation of the car with the track barrier and the fencing first exposed the roll hoop (primary driver head protection) to the succession of fence poles it was dragged over by the inertial forces. The roll hoop was sheared off the tub and exposed the helmet and driver head to the same ripping mechanism.

Those relevant findings were available within hours of the accident and could have been published. They were not. As previously assumed the reason for this is the attempted white wash and delaying the publication into a time when the attention of the public had moved to other issues and the season was over.

The report ignores some of the most fundamental scientific methods of accident evaluation. Particularly it does not look into probability figures and how they are influenced by the conditions created by the track type, the safety installations of the track, the field of cars and the type of cars. Instead it uses unscientific language like "perfect storm" to mislead the readers. It fabricates a myth about the particular race not creating "racing grooves" which are otherwise common in Indycar racing.

The report uses absolute language:

"... this incident could have occurred at any track at any time .."

. This is an obvious lie. For the accident to happen it was necessary for a car to become airborne at high speed and crash into the the safety barriers. It was also necessary that the geometry of the barrier surface allowed a build up of a sufficiently high force to rip off the roll hoop. There are tracks that are deliberately designed to avoid such risks. They are called F1 circuits. All corners with high cornering speed or following straits with high speed have the safety barriers removed from the immediate track limit. This helps any car becoming airborne to come back down on the tarmac or gravel surface and scrub speed off in order to minimize damages at the final impact with the safety barriers. Ovals do not have such features.

This incident and the consequences could have occurred with any size starting field at any track.

Another lie. I have already pointed out that there are tracks that practically eliminate the risk of cars impacting barriers at the speed and attitude that happened in the Vegas accident. But the size of the starting field also has an impact that is denied here. It you run 34 cars on a track that consists to 30% of high speed banked corners, is only three cars wide and less than three miles long you create a massive statistical probability for a collision leading to cars getting airborne or T-boning each other. By having such a massive percentage of high speed corners you also increase the risk that a car arrives with the critical attitude at a safety barrier. Eventually the laws of probability will catch up with you and then you have a fatal accident on your hand. It is immaterial that race cars do not often impact with the safety fence in the critical attitude. Perhaps they do so only in 2-3% of the collisions and they may do so at lower speeds. They may also stay lower where the safer barrier protects them from the ripping influence of the fence posts. And in some cases the posts may be on the inside of the fence fabric which obviously can also help to reduce the interlocking effect that generates the ripping. So far Indycar racing never had to face a combination of those factors but it is simply untrue to say they were unforeseeable and unavoidable. The responsible thing to do would be looking into each contributing factor and make sure that the statistical probability for it gets massively reduced. Unless you do that you can wait for the next accident to happen.

If I had to make recommendations I would consider banning open wheel cars from short ovals or if that is not possible I would impose massive restrictions. No more than 20 cars, top speed limits well under the current type of cornering speed, fence posts only outside the fence and if possible removed from the fence fabric. Fence fabric on the inside covered with one inch thick polycarbonate panels which are secured to the fence fabric. The polycarbonate plating to be six foot high and start at the top edge of the safer barrier. It would still be very inferior to crash zones but it could reduce the probability of another similar accident significantly. The report in my view is nothing but a white wash and full of lies.

Regarding the Henry Surtees accident at Brands Hatch my opinion is very well known. I think that Brands is unfit to race high downforce open wheel race cars. The crash zone at the site of the accident was a very slim strip of grass which did not slow down Jack Clarke's car significantly to shed the motion energy. As a consequence the wheel was ripped off the car and the probability for hitting Surtees on the head was created. With sufficient asphalt crash zone the car would have stopped clear of the safety barrier or it would have been gently stopped by the barrier without any part being ripped of the car. Another good example that you can calculate accident probabilities and react to fatal accidents with good preventative measures. The Vegas report did nothing of that kind. It is rubbish and a mockery of the young man who lost his life.

[bhall]

Would you mind posting a very brief summary at the end of your posts? Just some bullet points or something so I can skip the histrionics and get to the meat of what you're trying to say.

Of course, you're right about most of the things you listed within that volume of knowledge in terms of probabilities and outcomes. But you neglect a fundamental reality that should not be ignored.

The type of racing you so often deride IS WHAT PEOPLE PAY TO SEE. If road course racing is what the fans wanted, I'm pretty sure F1 would be a LOT more popular around these parts.

If no one pays to see racing, racing does not happen.

Also, this type of racing IS WHAT THE DRIVERS SIGNED UP FOR. Even with all of the risk involved, all of which you've enumerated countless times, no driver's arm had to be twisted to get him/her in their car and start the race.

None of this is to say that safety should be treated as a trivial matter; far from it. But, reasonable measures were taken, and, as a whole, the record of safety on high-speed ovals is quite remarkable. More people have been severely injured or killed playing football in America than have been severely injured or killed on a racetrack.

[WhiteBlue]

Would you mind posting a very brief summary at the end of your posts?

I have no intention. Nobody is forced to read my posts, but those who do might find them interesting.

The type of racing you so often deride IS WHAT PEOPLE PAY TO SEE.

Yep, those people loves the racing to be bloodier. Not my taste.

More people have been severely injured or killed playing football in America than have been severely injured or killed on a racetrack.

True, but then scuba diving is even deadlier. Its like comparing apples and bananas. Each type of sport needs to look for their own safety track record.

It is a historic fact that we had banked corners in European GP racing 60 years ago. The great classical tracks in Monza Italy, Brookland in Britain, the AVUS in Germany and the LINAS-MONTLHÉRY track in France all had banking. But the consensus was that banked tracks were too dangerous for GP open wheel racing and the FiA disallowed those tracks. America did not follow that policy and kept the banked tracks although the speeds increased considerably and aerodynamic downforce was added. As a result those racing series are riskier and the statistic shows much higher fatalities. This is particularly true for the last 17 years. By eliminating the banking the racing venues in Europe have also used the opportunity to ad crash zones which are now on a very high level of sophistication. For slow corners the FiA Institute commisioned the development of the TechPro barriers which have saved a lot of drivers from injury and possible fatal impacts.

[bhall]

No, those people don't want to see bloody racing. (Well, maybe in England. Now I'm guilty of a bad joke.) They want to see open-wheel racing on high-speed ovals. And there's a contingent of highly skilled and motivated drivers who are more than willing, and have the stones, to give the fans what they want.

Incidentally, that kind of racing isn't my cup of tea because I simply find it boring as hell to watch cars repeatedly turn left. I know there's much more to it than that and that the technical expertise required is on the same level as F1. But damn, it's just monotonous to my eyes. I suppose I'm mentioning this so that you don't think I'm just blithely waving aside concerns over safety because they might interfere with some sort of passion I have. They don't. At all.

Your overzealous assumption that you know best, however, really grates me because of its inherent refusal to acknowledge that people have the freedom to do whatever the hell they want to do. Just like you're free to go on and on and on ad nauseum with your contempt for these legitimate activities, these men and women are free to race to within an inch of their lives if that's what they want to do and if there's a market that supports it.

This is John Locke sh*t, baby.

And no one is made a criminal simply because they failed to construct a virtual model to analyze and anticipate every single possible outcome of every single possible scenario in which every single car could possibly interact with every single inch of the racetrack and beyond. And even if they could have, I seriously doubt they would because they were too busy doing things rather than pontificating possibilities behind a keyboard.

ac·ci·dent /ak-si-duhnt/
Noun: an undesirable or unfortunate happening that occurs unintentionally and usually results in harm, injury, damage, or loss; casualty; mishap: automobile accidents.

[WhiteBlue]

I'm just criticising the hypocritical attitude of these lying ass holes who write such a report. Racing high performance open wheelers on overcrowded short ovals is more dangerous than on other track types. They still say that the tracks and the car density have no bearing. The fans disregard the lies and provide the money which is used to attract drivers who do not care about their risk level. When drivers get killed the same fans who provide the money that kills them praise the drivers for having balls and being heroes. I don't think that Michael Schumacher or Jacques Villeneuve are sissies. They are just being sensible in their decisions to be risk selective. But I have no great hopes that rational thinking will stop the racing fatalities.

[cossie]

The IRl had dodged this bullet for 16 years, the number of times that car( chassis) had taken flight was the norm, you are looking at about 20 seperate incidents that car has taken flight even without tocking another car, such as Mario's 10 piont landing at Indy, Dario wner to Nascar stating he felt the cars were unsafe and prone to having to call the FAA for takeoff permission, so no this was known for 16 fricking years that the cars was unsafe , prone to taking off and then rotating while in the air, this time however they could not dodge the big bullet, and thusly a fatality occurred. They were running tracks flat out and not lifting for years, here's the fricking proof the incidents in which thata chassis went flying, and no it's not just because of running ovals, i worked for 12 years at Milwaukee milee nand Road America on safety teams and i NEVER saw a Reynard, Lola, or Swift take flight, it was Dallara failure to make a safe chassis amd then the stupid idiots give the contract right back to Dallaraa and again they made a pig of a car, yeah FTG you won the War but att what cost, the public doe's give a sahit about Indy Car, the only race the draw in the 500, the reat you get blinded fron the shiny empty Aluminum stands, if not for the 500 this seies would be dead , gone bye bye,

2001, Atlanta, multiple car crash
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YKFS...eature=related

2001, Texas, Davey Hamilton
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sc6tC...eature=related

2003, Indianapolis, Mario Andretti
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMeE9NAh60I

2003, Indianapolis, Dan Weldon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFNTA...EE1E46CB59C467

2003, Texas, Kenny Brack
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVpux5JxqEk

2003, Indianapolis, Tony Renna
http://indymotorspeedway.com/500d-03.htm

2005, Chicagoland, Ryan Briscoe
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ka2Qh...eature=related

2006, Homestead, Paul Dana
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=PcN-a0mW_mQ

2007, Indianapolis, Marco Andretti
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbArt...eature=related

2007, Texas, multiple car crash
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Wady...eature=related

2007, Michigan, Dario Franchitti
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRCWjV5tnVQ

2007 Kentucky, Dario Franchitti
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAzHT...eature=related

2010, Indianapolis, Mike Conway
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJfQ-...eature=related

2010, Texas, Simona de Silvestros
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78SIe...eature=related

2010, Sonoma, Dan Weldon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gzled...eature=related

[cossie]

And all that brought to you by TGBB( the great Brian Barnhart) who restarted a oval race at N.H while it was still raining causing a mutliple car wreak fest, and thus the now famous Will Power flipping Barnhart the bird on national TV, they wanted to be like NASCAR and have every race like Daytona and Tallegada with wheel to wheel racing and pack racing , IE manufactured racing, the powers to be of IMS and ICS aaare strictly to blame for the Wheldone accident, BTW they did not include the FIA and ACCUS in athe investigation, thus the whitaewashed B.S.

[WhiteBlue]

The IRl had dodged this bullet for 16 years, the number of times that car( chassis) had taken flight was the norm, you are looking at about 20 seperate incidents that car has taken flight even without tocking another car, such as Mario's 10 piont landing at Indy, Dario wner to Nascar stating he felt the cars were unsafe and prone to having to call the FAA for takeoff permission, so no this was known for 16 fricking years that the cars was unsafe , prone to taking off and then rotating while in the air, this time however they could not dodge the big bullet, and thusly a fatality occurred.

I think this statistic does not really go to the core of the problem. I would look at it in a different way.

Indycar driver fatalities 1995 - now

Scott Brayton – (May 17, 1996), 1996 Indianapolis 500 practice session.
Had a tyre failure at high speed and was killed colliding with the safety barrier

Tony Renna – (October 22, 2003), Firestone private testing session.
Lost control due to unknown reason, got airborne and was killed by collision with safety fence pole

Paul Dana – (March 26, 2006), 2006 Toyota Indy 300 practice session.
Was involved in accident. Due to banked track the wreckage slided down into the racing groove and was T-boned by a following car at racing speed

Dan Wheldon – (October 16, 2011), 2011 IZOD IndyCar World Championships.
Was unable to avoid a mass collision ahead, car got airborne, was killed by a fence pole

F1 driver fatalities 1995 - now

Zero

Statistically the unsafe way of IRL racing claims one driver fatality every fifth year or two per decade. Motor sport is dangerous and accidents will always happen. But the application of a proper safety strategy and technology can help to cut down on live threatening injuries and fatalities. Some race tracks should simply be abolished.

If you look at the details of Kubica's Rally accident you understand what I mean. That course was unsafe by a factor of 100 compared to a banked oval and he still went went through a wet section at almost full speed. It shows that drivers will take unreasonable risks in competition if the sanctioning body allows them to do so. So it is the responsibility of the IRL to stop the killing.

F1 had the same attitude about fatalities until people like Jacky Steward, Nicky Lauda, Bernie Ecclestone, Sid Watkins and Max Mosley got their heads out of their collective ass holes and took action. Today if you go to a race you don't expect to see a driver killed. If you visit an IRL race you have a statistical probability of 0.3 percent that a driver gets killed in front of your eyes. This is nothing I would want to have on my conscience.

[bhall]

There were 239 IndyCar races in the past 17 years. (That number includes the pre-split 1995 CART season.) A reasonable estimate of the average number of drivers per race throughout those years is 32. Some races featured more; some less. That presents about 7,648 opportunities for a driver to suffer a fatal accident in a race.

There's been one race death in about 7,648 "chances."

The probability of Joe or Jane Doe being killed in an automobile accident in America is about 1 in 5,000.

That comparison is obviously not a linear one. But, given the extreme nature of IndyCar racing, I'm comfortable with it nonetheless.

So, tell me again why I should be alarmed.

[WhiteBlue]

I accept your figure that there were 239 races. Do you honestly think that the loved ones of killed drivers will make a difference if the man was killed in practise or the race itself? That is BS, man. Practise is part of the public show.

So the chance of having a driver killed is every 60 events or a chance of 1.7% per race event. The individual chance for a driver is smaller but for the public and the spectators those are unacceptable risks IMO.

People can have different views, but I hope they do not in case of life or death of racing drivers. Something should be done to change the current situation.

[bhall]

Enough with the histrionics already.

There's virtually no way to ascertain exactly how many practices and tests were carried out by IndyCar and its teams over the last 17 years. Similarly, there's no real way of knowing how many drivers took part in those sessions. Please don't imply that I'm making my numbers prettier by being cavalier about the lives of drivers, the comfort of their families or the safety of the fans.

I'd love to see those numbers, though. Adding practices to the equation would obviously increase the total number of fatalities. But, I have a sneaking suspicion that the overall percentage would go down.

Safety in motor racing ultimately rests in the hands of its drivers, each of whom casts their vote every time they choose to strap themselves into a race car.