Dan Wheldon Indycar accident - retrospective discussion

[WhiteBlue]

Total crap attitude towards safety, IMO.

[hardingfv32]

Just a sound business model. Safety is really not an issue in no one is racing. What you want is not affordable to the USA open wheel oval racing industry. So you make a choice of some level of lower safety. If the insurance companies are happy with your choices, that pretty much means that a litigious society is too.

Brian

[gcdugas]

Just a sound business model. Safety is really not an issue in no one is racing. What you want is not affordable to the USA open wheel oval racing industry. So you make a choice of some level of lower safety. If the insurance companies are happy with your choices, that pretty much means that a litigious society is too.

Brian

Well the litigation is soon to be huge and will change that tune quick. When a wheel or car part or car goes into the stands and kills spectators the reaction will make the Swiss reaction to the LeMans disaster of 1955 look like a walk in the park. America is the place that thinks groping passengers is an acceptable alternative to the sane methods used in the rest of the world. All because of fear. Wait until an insurance company has to pay out. They will cancel all policies everywhere pending new onerous standards and steep rate hikes. You think the Italians were crazy for wanting to jail Patrick Head and company? Wait until you see Americans overreact. We are the best in the world at it.

[bhall]

Motor racing and insurance companies actually get on pretty well here. A driver can buy a US$250,000 policy for as little as US$425 a year. And attending any sporting event in America has long been an "at your own risk" proposition.

[hardingfv32]

Well the litigation is soon to be huge and will change that tune quick. When a wheel or car part or car goes into the stands and kills spectators the reaction will make the Swiss reaction to the LeMans disaster of 1955 look like a walk in the park. America is the place that thinks groping passengers is an acceptable alternative to the sane methods used in the rest of the world. All because of fear. Wait until an insurance company has to pay out. They will cancel all policies everywhere pending new onerous standards and steep rate hikes.

We have had spectators injured in recent years, maybe even a death, but nothing has noticeably changed. The injured spectators always sue and collect, but the insurance companies seem to be satisfied with the situation. Attending any sporting event in America is NOT an "at your own risk" proposition. It might be for participants, but even some drivers estates have successfully sued for damages.

Brian

[myurr]

Total crap attitude towards safety, IMO.

More like a total crap attitude to opinions other than your own.

With todays technology it's not impossible to keep all the desirable qualities of oval racing that draws the fans (although I don't see the draw myself), whilst still improving safety to a point where it's good enough. And safety will only ever be 'good enough', as the perfectly safe solution is not to race at all and that is not desirable.

The walls themselves have been vastly improved in recent years, the biggest remaining issues being the frequency with which the cars get airborne and the way the catch fencing (which is very similar to that used in F1 rather than a system that has had very little thought put into it as you state) shreds the cars at the velocities involved.

It must be possible to build a plexiglass or similar transparent, flexible, strong but smooth and continuous catch fence that can give the cars something more forgiving to hit. Ideally the cars would have less lift as well so that they tend to come back down to earth sooner rather than later, as they do in F1, as opposed to catching the air and lifting skywards.

But everyone has to remember that we will never be able to completely eliminate awful crashes in high speed motor racing. Take Mark Webber's crash in Valencia last year - his car was airborne for quite a distance and had that happened somewhere like Monaco coming out of the tunnel then it would have been a very very serious accident given the lack of runoff. Just look at all the drivers injured in the last few years at Monaco. F1 still has a way to go.

[WhiteBlue]

myurr, while you seemingly argue a contra position to me you are in effect supporting all the things that I have proposed.

Webber's accident in Valencia is a good example why F1 does not generally need catch fencing with the qualities you need on ovals. The likelihood of a car going into a wall or catch fence at a similar speed as they do on a short oval is extremely small, perhaps less than 1%.

Your example of the harbour chicane in Monaco actually shows that F1 has a non compromizing attitude towards safety. At the time when Wendlinger crashed in 1994 there was just the armco and a double stack of tyres there. Since then the tree has been felled so that the depth of the chicane could be increased. The run off has been massively increased with the effect that most cars that go out of control at the tunnel exit are safely breaked to pedestrian speed before impact. If a car still hits the barrier of that chicane it will hit a tripple TechPro barrier which will safely decelerate it as the accidents of the last three years demonstrate.

F1 has the opposite attitude compared to the crap we get from the IRL and their fans. And as long as IRL do not even start to consider safety improvements I will call that crap.

[bhall]

WB, I'm growing more and more convinced that you only believe the words that come out of your mouth. Or, to steal a few lyrics, "You hear only what you want to hear, and only know what you've heard."

(That's not a personal attack. It's a frustrated attempt to break through dense ice.)

Anyone who makes a comparison between F1 and the IRL is grasping at straws, because their similarities begin and end with four open wheels. The racing is different, strategies are different, the driving styles are different, the vehicle dynamics are different.

You don't seem to recognize that your constant comparisons between F1 and the IRL are nothing more than pompous acts of grandstanding against something you simply don't like. That's all it is. Because anyone who's serious about making changes to improve safety in the IRL would focus on the IRL and its unique characteristics as opposed to drawing parallels that don't really exist.

Put another way: you can't learn how to bowl by playing baseball.

[WhiteBlue]

You don't seem to recognize that your constant comparisons between F1 and the IRL are nothing more than pompous acts of grandstanding against something you simply don't like.

You can't be farer from the truth. My comparison is essentially about the attitude between the two series. I'm looking very specifically into the safety needs of IRL racing.

For instance I'm not asking to forbid all ovals. I just want a minimum track length and a number of cars on track that is significantly more safe than the existing standards.

I want the banking reduced to FiA standards and I am truly convinced that the fence and wall system has big improvement potential. With work being done in all three areas I would accept a report to be written in good faith. But the IRL report does nothing to improve the safety critical aspects and simply delivers a whitewash. That is simply not acceptable because the action I'm asking for would save lives.

[flynfrog]

You don't seem to recognize that your constant comparisons between F1 and the IRL are nothing more than pompous acts of grandstanding against something you simply don't like.

You can't be farer from the truth. My comparison is essentially about the attitude between the two series. I'm looking very specifically into the safety needs of IRL racing.

For instance I'm not asking to forbid all ovals. I just want a minimum track length and a number of cars on track that is significantly more safe than the existing standards.

I want the banking reduced to FiA standards and I am truly convinced that the fence and wall system has big improvement potential. With work being done in all three areas I would accept a report to be written in good faith. But the IRL report does nothing to improve the safety critical aspects and simply delivers a whitewash. That is simply not acceptable because the action I'm asking for would save lives.

so what number of cars per distance is considered safe? What about the width of track. You are making a demand for a change with no data to provide a "safe" number. You will be making the same trade off that is being done now just at your undetermined number. What is the metric for track length number of cars and lives saved.

Why would the FIA banking number have anything to do with cars and tires the FIA does not control. As already pointed out this is nothing like F1 with large gaps and speed differentials with slow corners.

I agree the walls can use some work. The safer barrier has been implemented at quite a few tracks. The catch fence works fine except for a freak accident I would maybe mandate a smaller gap size between the cables.

[hardingfv32]

I just want a minimum track length and a number of cars on track that is significantly more safe than the existing standards.

I want the banking reduced to FiA standards and I am truly convinced that the fence and wall system has big improvement potential. With work being done in all three areas I would accept a report to be written in good faith. But the IRL report does nothing to improve the safety critical aspects and simply delivers a whitewash. That is simply not acceptable because the action I'm asking for would save lives.

I can safely say none of this is ever going to happen nor that there is any reason to think that it would save more lives. You are simply too narrow minded to grasp the issues of this topic.

Brian

[strad]

WB, I'm growing more and more convinced that you only believe the words that come out of your mouth. Or, to steal a few lyrics, "You hear only what you want to hear, and only know what you've heard."

(That's not a personal attack. It's a frustrated attempt to break through dense ice.)

Anyone who makes a comparison between F1 and the IRL is grasping at straws, because their similarities begin and end with four open wheels. The racing is different, strategies are different, the driving styles are different, the vehicle dynamics are different.

You don't seem to recognize that your constant comparisons between F1 and the IRL are nothing more than pompous acts of grandstanding against something you simply don't like. That's all it is. Because anyone who's serious about making changes to improve safety in the IRL would focus on the IRL and its unique characteristics as opposed to drawing parallels that don't really exist.

Put another way: you can't learn how to bowl by playing baseball.

Very Good. =D>

[strad]

I just want a minimum track length and a number of cars on track that is significantly more safe than the existing standards.

Understand this WB...Nobody cares what you want. Not the IRL, the FIA or cetrtainly not me.
Such an ego...YOU want.

[myurr]

Steady on guys - WB is entitled to an opinion just like the rest of us, and attacking him for saying what he wants is just an attack on the semantics of his statement and not the content. It would be nice if he'd actually listen to differing opinions but we should afford him the same courtesy we expect in return.

To address his specific points I too agree that the number of cars on track per mile is an arbitrary number. The safest number is zero so anything above that is already a compromise where someone is assessing what the safe enough level is. Whether the number of cars per mile is 5, 10, or 20 is probably largely irrelevant to safety. Yes more cars can get involved in an accident, and yes there is more likely to be contact, but from there on in the chances of a fatal accident are probably much the same regardless of the number of cars involved. More cars involved in an accident does not automatically mean more chance of a fatality, and it only takes two cars coming together to launch one high into the catch fences. I believe that despite the number of cars involved in the crash, Wheldon only actually made contact with one other car before hitting the fence.

I'd also be interested to know if there is any evidence that the banking is contributing to the safety issues. Sure it increases the cornering speeds but as has been pointed out it gives drivers more than one line through the corner so they don't HAVE to occupy the same piece of tarmac. Would a totally flat oval with cars trying to funnel on to a single racing line be any safer than a circuit with steep banking and multiple lines through the corner but with a correspondingly higher cornering speed?

I'm not a fan of oval racing or IRL but I respect the fact that many people are, and I would hate there to be a knee jerk reaction that unnecessarily kills that form of racing or neuters it enough to cause a slow and steady decline in popularity.

[hardingfv32]

I'm not a fan of oval racing or IRL but I respect the fact that many people are, and I would hate there to be a knee jerk reaction that unnecessarily kills that form of racing or neuters it enough to cause a slow and steady decline in popularity.

1) There is no concern about knee jerk reactions in this case. There is simply no money available to change anything at this point. They are lucky to find circuits to race at as it is without asking anything more from the circuit owners.

2) Say we disregard that banking in general increases speeds, and look at the situation in this accident where you have variable banking that provides multiple driving lines. Three in this case. You can change lanes with easy. I would say this accident was started by one of these quick lane changes. There are misjudgments in closing speeds and the position of cars around you that can lead to an accident. But there is nothing to be done about it if you intend to draw spectators that have raised on fender to fender NASCAR racing or even wheel to wheel racing in Midget and Sprint cars. The show is not marketable without it.

They went to two wide restarts this season, what could be more unsafe! The show comes first. If they survive financially then they can turn their attention to safety.

Brian