Dan Wheldon Indycar accident - retrospective discussion

[WhiteBlue]

That, dear Sir is bullshit if you allow me the opinion. A dead driver is equally dead whether he dies in practise for a race or in a race. The conditions are the same and they would change if the track, the field or the cars would become safer.

[bhall]

I give up. I can see now that you're just seeing what you want to see rather than gazing upon reality. I never marginalized the significance of any motor racing fatalities.* In fact, my previous post asked you to stop implying just that.

Reprise: I didn't include practice fatalities because there's simply no way to quantify the number of practices and test sessions held by IndyCar over the past 17 years, or the number of drivers who participated in them for that matter. And I learned a long time ago that one can't properly collate data if only half of it is available.

However, I would love to see such data and to add it to my simple calculation. The total number of fatalities would obviously increase from one to four, but, the percentage of fatalities would be dramatically lower than what we've established thus far.

Bottom line: considering the nature of the cars, drivers and various track layouts, IndyCar racing is remarkably safe.



* Hey, look. Poetry.

[Ray]

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.

Then they should go play online poker. You ask EVERY driver in motorsport if they know they risk and EVERY one of them will say yes. They CHOOSE to race, and as you've already mentioned about JV, the can CHOOSE NOT TO. Where you get your arrogance in that they don't know better than you do about what is safe is amazing. These guys aren't children you need to coddle because you think you are smarter than them. Get off your high horse WB, you aren't as smart and as rational as you think you are. Oh and I'd greatly appreciate if you'd not call Indy fans a pack of blood thirsty animals. I don't know you, you don't know me,and you don't know every single Indy fan individually, so kindly keep that ignorant --- to yourself.

The report is detailed and the amount of time to write it seems appropriate.

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.

So which is it? An appropriate amount of time to gather and analyze data before it was published or not? Because you seem to not be able to make up your mind. EVERYONE new that Dan was killed when he hit the fence, there was no need to state the obvious and the report wasn't strictly to tell everyone that very obvious cause of his death.

Particularly it does not look into probability figures and how they are influenced by the conditions created by the track type....

Actually it does. There's quite a bit of talk about how the repaving of the track created a condition of being able to run at 100% throttle anywhere on track where that capability did not exist before. They also talked about how the cars were fast and had so much grip that they couldn't drive away from one another. You missed this critical part of the report because....

It fabricates a myth about the particular race not creating "racing grooves" which are otherwise common in Indycar racing.

...you obviously have zero knowledge of every type of race car to take to an oval track on dirt, asphalt, or concrete. Basing your opinion on ignorance leads you to incorrect assumptions. There is no myth about racing grooves disappearing on newly paved high banked ovals, it a widely known fact amongst all oval racing series and its teams/drivers. There is no myth about this not existing on dirt tracks either. Some tracks have grooves and some don't. Maybe you should learn more about oval racing and its intricacies before you pass judgement because your knowledge of the basis of the accident, the track type and how Indy cars race on them, seems very limited at best.

The report uses absolute language:

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

. This is an obvious lie.

No it is not. You yourself say in a later post:

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

Make up your mind. It either does or doesn't happen at any track or any time. Tony was killed on an open track at a tire test, not a crowded track with other cars inches away. I'm inclined to believe that it will happen "anywhere/anytime", because as racing accidents go, they are called "accidents" for a reason. So again, you need to have a consistent point instead of saying one thing and proving that statement false in a later post. You also need to quit perverting what happened to fit your needs. His death was not caused by hitting one pole on the fence, it was caused by hitting the fence at that speed and the forces enacted on him. Dan was hit in the head by one or more poles directly. The fact is, what they said is true. It could've happened anywhere to any driver. Has in the past and probably will in the future. You can't make a racetrack of any kind completely safe. Hell, Webber had almost the exact same accident in Valencia. Just so happened his car didn't hit the sign cockpit first. Chance.

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

Paul Dana hit Ed Carpenter at racing speed because of his own inexperience. He was told over the radio to go low but failed to slow to a safe speed like he should have, unlike the other cars around him. He hit Carpenters car at 176mph, while other cars around him slowed to a safe speed to pass the driver on the apron of the track, and Carpenter was admitted to the hospital and released the next day. Dana died of his injuries caused by his own incompetence, not the car, the track, or the series. He died because he made a mistake and Carpenter is lucky he wasn't killed because of Dana's stupidity. If you are going to provide examples in your defense you need to do your fact checking and not pervert events to support your stance. You've left out critical details as to the cause and result of the accident.

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

This does not support any of your arguments. He wasn't in a pack of cars, he wasn't avoiding an accident, and he didn't get into a crash due to a packed track and bad circumstances. He had a tire failure and hit the wall, NOT the retaining fence. Why you provided and example that has absolutely nothing to do with the contents of the report, the circumstance to what caused the accident that led to Dan's death, and has pretty much no bearing on the discussion at hand is pointless. This doesn't support your argument because the reasons he died were in no way related to Dan's death. In fact, the walls he hit have already had a fantastic impact absorbing device has been added and arguably prevented more severe injuries.

There are tracks that are deliberately designed to avoid such risks. They are called F1 circuits.

Except for Valencia and possibly Montreal. How there was no protection from the spot Kubica hit was a massive screw up as well. But, it could also be a matter of chance in that particular spot. Another contradiction. Also, you're comparing apples to oranges, tracks are designed to meet different needs and different types of racing.

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.

Again, you have limited knowledge of oval racing. Tell me, how exactly would they move back the barriers on an oval? I seem to remember that Monza had a simple guardrail on it. The walls or "barriers" at those tracks have SAFER barriers installed to reduce the severity of impact with the wall and they have worked wonders. Comparing a road circuit with an oval is apples to oranges, they require different layouts and different safety design considerations. I'm not saying the fencepoles being on the inside wasn't an extremely stupid idea, but comparing that barrier to the ones on Formula 1 tracks isn't fair. They have very little chance of getting the cars into the stands. That risk isn't limited to just Indy cars either.

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....

These examples I agree with, except for the top speed limit and the polcarbonate pieces. The top speed is irrelevant if you can keep them on the ground and only a new car design that had closed wheels would solve that. Also, having more corner speed can get you away from other slower cars and reduce packs as well. That and you'll never be able to make the cornering speeds equal without control parts and some teams will always be able to make better use of what they have and we'll be right back where we are in terms of cornering speeds.

While NASCAR cars don't reach those speeds on that small of a track, they stay on the ground even at the speeds they do travel. The main reason Michael McDowell got airborne at Texas in his car is because of how he hit the wall, and even with the severity of the impact the SAFER barrier absorbed alo tof it and he walked away without any major injury. Alot of research and money was spent of keeping them on the ground at the really big tracks and barring hitting another car and causing a weight shift or hitting a break from asphalt to grass, they've pretty much stopped going airborne. Having some sort of system to spill the air from the underside of the car to the top would help that I'm sure. There was even a thread here (that I can't find at the moment) where this was mentioned and I think that should be explored more. Having big sheets of ballistics grade plastic in the fences seems like a bad move because one of them could possibly come loose and land on track where it could do more damage than it prevents. Much like my aversion to canopies on the cars, I don't believe that solutions solves more problems than it could introduce.

The report in my view is nothing but a white wash and full of lies.

I think it tries to gloss over a few things that could be changed, but it's not full of lies. You gave examples that have shown that to be untrue. They didn't need to state the obvious when the accident happened, everyone knew hitting the fence cockpit first was what killed Dan, but they didn't deny that's what happened. Considering the other cars that hit the fence in that wreck and many more over the years they are correct saying that he hit the fence in the worst way possible. Past accidents where cars hit the fence without major injury are a testament to the strength of those cars. Why everyone keeps saying they are unsafe after that has been proven to be a totally false statement time after time shows that they are either ignorant of the ins and outs of Indy cars, and they are just baying for blood overreacting to this accident. Yes, a participant being killed is a terrible thing but to lay all the blame on the car manufacturer, Brian Barnhart, or any number of other people is "rubbish and a mockery of the young man who lost his life."

Every one of those drivers could have walked away and not raced, you gave two examples of drivers who have done exactly that, one even for this specific race. It's a terrible thing to have happen but you aren't making it any better shooting off at the mouth and making false accusations and calling for peoples head on a pike.

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.

That's nothing more than supposition. You assume that nothing would happen, but we've seen tires and wheels come off car in much less severe impacts, and in the case of Torro Rosso in China, both wheels and tires came off at once without the car hitting anything. One even hit a photographer even with the very tall fence in front of him. --- happens. I'm not saying that you shouldn't improve safety where problems can be identified, but you are making assumptions and accusations when there is hard evidence to refute your claims.

What would you have done in the case of Liuzzi and Schumacher having their accident in Abu Dhabi last year? It was a chance accident and the only similar one I can think of is the accident in Melbourne between Wurz and Coulthard. Both of which their cars came together just right to have the accidents they did. Neither one of those will probably happen in either of our lifetimes and we shouldn't overreact to them.

Formula 1 isn't the safety darling you make it out to be. Sure no fatalities makes for a wonderful headline, but there are safety problems that they can fix. Namely the two accidents that I just mentioned that have not been even addressed nor measure taken to prevent them in the future. Your overreacting and calling for heads on a pike is counterproductive.

[WhiteBlue]

Oh and I'd greatly appreciate if you'd not call Indy fans a pack of blood thirsty animals.

Well I havn't said that. Those are your own conclusions what supporters of IRL race events could be called. I would not watch a series where I knowingly would sacrifice a young person's live every 60th race event. I honestly think that those who keep organizing a motor racing series that depict such fatalities as acceptable are cynical liers and irresponsible if not criminal. They run a business that exploits the dark side of people. They known that some fans enjoy spectacular crashes and they bloat around sanctimoniously when the next driver dies from their business practice.

I proudly support F1. I'm sure that the sport pulls out all the stops to make sure nobody gets killed. And if the residual risk should one day catch up with someone I'm also confident that the investigation will be very different to the bullshit that I have read from the IRL. I could live with that because the FiA deals responsibly with safety which the IRL apparently does not.

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.

Yes they are, but it will not stop me criticising the market that induces them to do so. With the same argument you could call for the legalization of crack. There is a market and what they do will statistically kill a number of them.

[WhiteBlue]

Ray, I'm not going to wade through all the stuff you write because it is largely repetitive, irrelevant or argument for argument's sake. It doesn't matter how Dana died and if he was sitting in the car that got T-boned or T-boned the other one. The accident would not have happened without the banking. The damaged car that was later T-boned rolled down into the racing line instead of leaving the track as it would on a non banked track, and that is typical for banked tracks.

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.

That's nothing more than supposition. You assume that nothing would happen, but we've seen tires and wheels come off car in much less severe impacts, and in the case of Torro Rosso in China, both wheels and tires came off at once without the car hitting anything.

It is not supposition, it is fact. With sufficient asphalt crash zone every object will decelerate enough to avoid impact in flight or wheels coming off. It does not say that F1 crash zone are going to stop each and every problem with wheels coming off. That would be unreasonable. But the crash zones are carefully dimensioned based on accident analysis to deliver enough deceleration to make it reasonably safe. And F1 has added these crash zones to existing circuits at a rate that is economically feasible and affordable. We still have some old tracks where safety would be worth to improve. Suzuka is one of them and I keep pushing this issue in every debate as other people are doing. Currently Brazil is under discussion to be changed due to the lack of crash zones in the last corners. That has never been a problem in an F1 race but the death of touring car drivers has triggered the issue. So now it is being discussed and I'm sure in doubt one will not shy away from the responsibility and modify the track to make it safer.

[Ray]

Oh and I'd greatly appreciate if you'd not call Indy fans a pack of blood thirsty animals.

Well I havn't said that. Those are your own conclusions what supporters of IRL race events could be called.

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.

Except for the fact that you did say that. You continually contradict yourself.

Ray, I'm not going to wade through all the stuff you write because it is largely repetitive, irrelevant or argument for argument's sake. It doesn't matter how Dana died and if he was sitting in the car that got T-boned or T-boned the other one. The accident would not have happened without the banking.

Dana wouldn't have died if he simply slowed down. The impact at a much slower speed wouldn't have been as severe had he done that and would have likely survived. The fact that Ed Carpenter was released from the hospital the next day without life threatening injuries proves you wrong yet again. Why you continue to steadfastly stick to your opinion in the face of facts proving you wrong is pretty sad.

You choose not to read it because your mind is made up and facts and rational thinking won't change your stubbornness.

[Ray]

It is not supposition, it is fact. With sufficient asphalt crash zone every object will decelerate enough to avoid impact in flight or wheels coming off.

You again ignore what I said. Buemis car lost both front wheels without contacting anything and yet these crash zones you drone on about didn't protect the photographer on the other side. Crash zones and runoff didn't help him one bit. The photographers in Le Mans this year were extremely, extremely, lucky that McNish didn't hit that fence 18 inches higher than he did or he would have killed a few of them and possibly entered the stands right behind that barrier. I would assume that Le Mans is built to FIA standards and that was a terrible crash. The driver walked away but the possibility of more than one fatality was only stopped by pure luck. That track is designed like every other track Formula 1 runs on and we very nearly had multiple fatalities. So no, it's not down to just scientific designs and the governing body, luck plays a massive part in it. No matter what personal beliefs McNish holds.

Also, Jarno Trulli came very close to possibly killing Karun Chandok in last years Moanco GP. That was very close to being a deadly accident, but again chance intervened. Low speed, small track, simple mistake. It CAN happen anywhere at any time, WB. Combined with Liuzzi/Schumacher (Abu Dhabi) last year, Trulli/Chandok (Monaco) last year, and Schumacher/Perez (Singapore) and Schumacher/Petrov (Korea) this year, Formula 1 is in no way immune to the cars climbing on top of one another. Schumacher in Abu Dhabi could have been easily fatal and Chandok could have easily been killed in his accident with Trulli. Even on what I agree are some of the safest tracks in the world, people can easily get hurt or killed. Both the Schumacher/Liuzzi and Trulli/Chandok accidents were very close to fatal and yet we got lucky no one was hurt.

[bhall]

[...] I would not watch a series where I knowingly would sacrifice a young person's live every 60th race event. I honestly think that those who keep organizing a motor racing series that depict such fatalities as acceptable are cynical [liars] and irresponsible if not criminal. They run a business that exploits the dark side of people. They known that some fans enjoy spectacular crashes and they bloat around sanctimoniously when the next driver dies from their business practice.

I proudly support F1. I'm sure that the sport pulls out all the stops to make sure nobody gets killed. And if the residual risk should one day catch up with someone I'm also confident that the investigation will be very different to the bullshit that I have read from the IRL. I could live with that because the FiA deals responsibly with safety which the IRL apparently does not.

Your naivete is truly breathtaking, because most people don't make it past their 16th or 17th birthday with such strident idealism completely intact. I don't intend for that to be a slight against you in any way; I'm just realizing the genesis of your viewpoint. In a way, I rather envy you in that regard.

Motor racing is a very dangerous endeavor. It's taken the lives of many great men and women over the years, and will continue to do so in the years to come, no matter what measures are taken to try to prevent it. That's just the unavoidable reality of the game we all follow, and I'd suggest perhaps a different hobby if you can't reconcile deriving pleasure from watching a game in which any one of its contestants could, without warning, be killed in an instant.

Make no mistake: this will happen again.

It's a crying shame that Dan Wheldon was killed. By all accounts he was just as good of a man as he was a racer, if not better. But, he knew very well the risks that go hand-in-hand with his chosen profession, and he pressed on anyway. And I think if he was still around, his views on this subject would more closely resemble mine than they would yours.

[Richard]

I have to admit that 4 deaths since 1995 does seem rather high. To my untrained eyes it also seems as if Indy has a lot more contact and collisions. Also to my untrained eye, the high speed, number of competitors and confined nature of the track are contributing factors.

I guess limiting the number of cars on track and covering the wheels would result in fewer accidents, and better fence design would help too.

I hope that was too confrontational.

ps - I recall that the number of cars is normally limited, and shorter tracks are normally avoided? Perhaps this accident will people stick to those limitations in future.

[cossie]

my point has been that it was well known for a number of years that the old IRC Dallara was unsafe, prone to taking off even without contact, and that a blind eye to satfety took a back seat in order to be " like NASCAR" at Tallegada, wheel to wheel racing was encouraged, the driver's for years told the higher ups like the incompetent Brain Barnharat that the racing was getting to be Russian Roullete. the high number of injuries related to that chassis is just inexcusable, and yet they did nothing , nada that the crime, and yet they went with Dallarra again in a deal made in the backroom.

[WhiteBlue]

[...] I'm just the most vocal guy here who still calls a spade a spade. If you support the Las Vegas whitewash of the IRL report you can as well sign the death sentence for another IRL driver in the next five years. You are welcome to have that on your conscience. I'll be happy to remind you by the time it happens.

I have been calling for change to open wheel oval racing since Paul Dana died 5 years ago. I do remember vaguely that you blamed it on the guy being a rookie. Are you saying Wheldon was a rookie too? Or are you saying [...] that death in motor racing is inescapable and the brave men and women dedicate their life heroically to the case for the fun of the spectators? [...]

F1 proves year after year that people do not need to die in a highly popular top level open wheel racing series if those responsible for the safety of the sport act responsibly. And this will be my final word unless I see a comment that is worthy of debate.

[WhiteBlue]

WB, you strike a code as you and a few others want the entire concept of open wheel oval racing banned. You cannot take Europe's abandonment (even if there had been 2 new oval built in in the last decade) of oval racing as the reason for American's to do so. Americans enjoy full throttle racing and always had a fascination for more violent sports such as rodeo, football, ice hockey etc.

Your posts criticisms the American love for their kind of sport. Your tone for the topic should be to fix rather than ban.

If the death toll can be stopped by banning short ovals, excessive banking or other factors I would be happy to see the IRL continue with oval racing. That is not the point. I'm not the expert to say what is necessary to reach an appropriate safety level. What really irate me is the attitude of doing business as usual two month after an unnecessary fatality and putting out such a sanctimonious and lying report. The fascination of Americans with more violent sports - as you put it - is a mystery to me.

All the happiness for watching cars pass or crash at high speed cannot compensate for the pain when you see the people around the grave of one of your heroes. The deaths of so many wonderful and talented men from the age of Bernd Rosemeyer to the dreadful day in 1994 that took the life of Senna and Razenberger should really be a lesson to us.

Jim Clarke, von Trips and Jochen Rindt probably had to die because science and technology were not good enough at that time but already Gilles Villeneuve's accident may have been survivable had he been in the revolutionary McLaren MP4 carbon chassis instead of the old aluminium Ferrari. I have always seen death to racing people from 1982 as a great waste and tragedy. Every time I hear of a young life unnecessary sacrificed by greedy and heartless people it makes me sad.

[FW17]

What really irate me is the attitude of doing business as usual two month after an unnecessary fatality and putting out such a sanctimonious and lying report.

The report dealt with facts. What is the dispute with that?

It is off season, the guys behind the could have probably done something if there were races after Las Vegas.

Not defending the choice of track as I would prefer tracks that test the drivers

[Ray]

The fascination of Americans with more violent sports is a mystery to me.

(edited to remove false accusations.)

Keep your ignorant opinion to yourself WB. I'm an American and I don't like seeing people get killed in auto racing or any other sport. Kindly shut the f uck up. You're a waste of time to talk to because of your stupid stubbornness, but this is too much. The second time you've insulted a whole region of people because of your ignorance.

Yes, that was a personal attack.

[wesley123]

Excuse me but it is a fact. For some weird reason every American sport or sportbroadcast is a show and more people get hurt than in Europe with the same sport.

American's are more violent, and that's a fact. Just watch the Documentary 'Bowling for Columbine' and you'll notice why.

Just mentioning, because it isn't applicable for you doesnt mean it isnt the case for all those other Americans.