- 7,517
- Connecticut
- Cowboys965
The car just ripped in half when it hit the wall. 
If they keep racing at venues like LVMS, we'll just see more of what we witnessed this afternoon. New car or not.
One has to wonder whether the $5 million bounty on the race for any part-time driver who won it played a part in this accident. I don't think drivers would be so greedy that they'd ignore reality for the sake of a grand prize - Wheldon was a wildcard and was planning to split his winnings with a fan whose name was drawn from a lottery - and the accident happened on the twelfth lap of two hundred, a time when drivers don't start pushing for position. But between the extremely large grid, the number of inexperienced drivers and the intense nature of Las Vegas Motor Speedway (it's 1.5 miles, with twenty-degree banking), one has to wonder if the extra stakes added to the race contributed to the accident.It was noted here and there through the weekend that the drivers were not completely comfortable with the speeds and inexperience of some on the ovals. A big field for IRL, some low experience drivers mixed in the race, and the speed was a disaster waiting to happen.
prisonermonkeysOne has to wonder whether the $5 million bounty on the race for any part-time driver who won it played a part in this accident. I don't think drivers would be so greedy that they'd ignore reality for the sake of a grand prize - Wheldon was a wildcard and was planning to split his winnings with a fan whose name was drawn from a lottery - and the accident happened on the twelfth lap of two hundred, a time when drivers don't start pushing for position. But between the extremely large grid, the number of inexperienced drivers and the intense nature of Las Vegas Motor Speedway (it's 1.5 miles, with twenty-degree banking), one has to wonder if the extra stakes added to the race contributed to the accident.
One has to wonder whether the $5 million bounty on the race for any part-time driver who won it played a part in this accident. I don't think drivers would be so greedy that they'd ignore reality for the sake of a grand prize - Wheldon was a wildcard and was planning to split his winnings with a fan whose name was drawn from a lottery - and the accident happened on the twelfth lap of two hundred, a time when drivers don't start pushing for position. But between the extremely large grid, the number of inexperienced drivers and the intense nature of Las Vegas Motor Speedway (it's 1.5 miles, with twenty-degree banking), one has to wonder if the extra stakes added to the race contributed to the accident.
I don't think the extra prize money was the sole cause. Indeed, the accident was triggered by slight contact in the middle of the pack. It happens all the time; two drivers graze one another and drift off into the barriers. But then two separate packs of drivers all moved over to the left to avoid the initial contact, and there just wasn't enough room. And finally Wheldon arrived on-scene (by this point, he had probably passed the remains of the two cars that triggered the pile-up) and there was nowhere to go. This was a very complicated accident, influenced by hundreds of factors. Wheldon did not crash because he was not fast enough or smart enough to be able to avoid the carnage, he crashed because even if he was the fastest and the smartest driver in the world, he still would have been unable to avoid the pile-up. So nobody was really at fault here - but if we could narrow it down one thing that influenced the accident the most, I think it would be the intention of making the final race of the season as big and as bold as possible. That's why there was a thirty-five car grid in the first place, and I can't help but think that if the grid was restricted to full-time entires only, the accident never would have happened.That did come to mind...![]()
That is an interesting tidbit of information.One has to wonder whether the $5 million bounty on the race for any part-time driver who won it played a part in this accident. I don't think drivers would be so greedy that they'd ignore reality for the sake of a grand prize - Wheldon was a wildcard and was planning to split his winnings with a fan whose name was drawn from a lottery - and the accident happened on the twelfth lap of two hundred, a time when drivers don't start pushing for position. But between the extremely large grid, the number of inexperienced drivers and the intense nature of Las Vegas Motor Speedway (it's 1.5 miles, with twenty-degree banking), one has to wonder if the extra stakes added to the race contributed to the accident.
He's implying people overreact every time something like this happens.I'm not sure on what you're trying to imply with that...
Dan_I'm not sure on what you're trying to imply with that...
I don't understand how some people are ignoring the fact that running identical open-wheel cars at full speed for 100% of the lap on an oval is an extremely dumb idea. Your forcing cars that are most vulnerable when another open-wheel car is close-by to run close to each other all the time as it's the only possible way a driver can gain a position.
Let me make this very clear to you:You pointed out how banked turns work, that's all, not "addressing a folly".
Are is the imperative here: not, as in Formula 1, were. My argument is that the tracks are more dangerousnot that more people die from them.CSLACRI'm sorry, what's with the attitude?
Your entire post was of how dangerous banked ovals are.
Mefatalities [are] an incredibly myopic way to define danger
So notwithstanding my previous statement, I'm forced to address this again. I suppose the number of collisions, retirements, and average dollar-value of damage sustained during a race at a given track doesn't constitute any measurement? They're all indicativebut whether such data is available or even recorded to back my argument up is unclear, and undoubtedly what you're counting on.The only measurement we have for danger of any track is injuries and fatalities.
Simply saying "it looks bad, and could cause injuries isn't enough. Ovals are raced every weekend, and nothing worse happens on them overall then any other type of course.
Actually, I have:CSLACRThis thread is about IRL being possibly "too dangerous", to say yes it is, you should have some type of evidence to back that up, and you do not.
And so have many others. And yet you ignored it.CSLACRTo prove banked ovals are any bit more dangerous then other tracks, (which is what you said) you'll need safety records showing that more severe injuries and/or deaths occur on them then other tracks.
Public'sTwin
Which is what you did by citing (faultily) one of the most dangerous tracks in the world, in supposed support of your argument that IRL is not more dangerous than it should be. Because, to you, since the most dangerous track in the world has killed more people (obviously, by virtue of selecting a monster which ate Nikki Lauda's face), banked-oval tracks in general are not too dangerous. (The levels of fallacy so far are difficult to keep track of.)CSLACRYou can prove it is dangerous, but that's pointing out the obvious, and goes for all motorsport racing.
(For the record, I never said this.)CSLACRMy point is remarks like "shot on the spot" and "fired" towards the designers of these cars are ridiculous, and I feel the evidence show that.
1. Not ovals in America, but all high-speed banked ovals (I said American tracks because American tracks tend to be ovals, and are almost never used elsewhere)CSLACRIn any case, anyone that believes ovals in America are "too dangerous" must also say the same of the Nurburgring. As I've shown, people can and do die and get injured just as much on road courses, so this backlash at IRL for "allowing this" is completely unjustified.
In order to prove this, you'll need to provide me with measurements of reaction that are "over" what is par, along with a detailed history of the severity of previous similar situations and reactions to themoh, wait.CSLACRIt is unjustified because it's simply an overreaction to an incident, and incident no more severe than others that happen throughout motorsport.
That's because, in series where there are drivers and regulators who have common sense and FIGHT FOR THE WELL-BEING OF THE DRIVER LIKE FORMULA 1, the drivers HAVE STOPPED DYING. You've even given away a principle of the backlash: if people aren't having backlashes at tracks which aren't ovals, mmmaybe there's something wrong with ovals??CSLACRTo blame IRL, or the "oval design" is foolhardy and ignorant, people race just as safely on them as other tracks, yet no backlash at these other tracks, or the other series it happens in.
And this wasn't even coherent, so I'm not going to attempt it.As the drivers have "rights" they have the right to boycott if they feel it's to dangerous, and they haven't. It's happened before, why can't we let the people at risk decide for themselves? Because people want a scapegoat in times of tragedy.
(Even though the HANS device was implemented far earlier in F1.)When Dale Earndhart died it brought about the HANS device which saved Jimmy Johnson's life recently
Floatsrunning identical open-wheel cars at full speed for 100% of the lap on an oval is an extremely dumb idea. Your forcing cars that are most vulnerable when another open-wheel car is close-by to run close to each other all the time as it's the only possible way a driver can gain a position.
(Wheldon's roll-bar was completely demolished btw.)tompie913There is an "invisible canopy", a line from the top of the air intake to the nose which would protect the driver should he land upside down. This works in F1, we saw that with Mark Webber in Valencia 2010. It doesn't work in IndyCar, with 200 mph helmet-to-fence collisions.
EarthI dont want to fall into the trap of thinking that just because racing is inherently dangerous or tragic accidents happen somewhat rarely compared to years passed theres nothing that can be done to make it safer or prevent as many future accidents as possible.
Here Floats identifies exactly the geophysical nature which, combined with the centrifugal aspect to uncontrollable vehicles, leads to pile-ups.FloatsThe problem isn't with the difficulty of the track to drive or the speeds which they drive at, the issue is that nobody has any space to pull away from anyone else. As a result you get minor contact snowballing into the death of a driver because he happened to behind the initial crash.
Plate88The IRL on banked ovals is definitely more dangerous than many motorsports. It was noted here and there through the weekend that the drivers were not completely comfortable with the speeds and inexperience of some on the ovals. [...]
If the IRL wants to race on ovals thats fine, but keep it to the flat ovals. Still dangerous, but not 220mph dangerous.
prisonermonkeysOne has to wonder whether the $5 million bounty on the race for any part-time driver who won it played a part in this accident.
I don't think drivers would be so greedy that they'd ignore reality for the sake of a grand prize - Wheldon was a wildcard and was planning to split his winnings with a fan whose name was drawn from a lottery - and the accident happened on the twelfth lap of two hundred, a time when drivers don't start pushing for position.
But between the extremely large grid, the number of inexperienced drivers and the intense nature of Las Vegas Motor Speedway (it's 1.5 miles, with twenty-degree banking), one has to wonder if the extra stakes added to the race contributed to the accident.
Actually, I suspect they prefer oval racing because ovals equalise the field. They all drive identical(-ish) cars on a circuit specifically designed to encourage a very narrow band of car set-ups. The idea behind it all is that the driver will be the deciding factor in all of it.Most American fans think road racing is simply too boring because the speeds are slower and there's not as many wrecks.
Let me make this very clear to you:
• Banked-oval track designs funnel out-of-control vehicles, like Dan's, back in to the actual racing-traffic
• There are no run-off areas for out-of-control vehicles
• When they slow down, they slide down the embankment, back into +200mph traffic
• NASCAR vehicles are too heavy (and slippery) to swerve, and Indy cars are too fast and pitched to dodge that vehicle if they aren't already on an averse traject
• All of that is bad
Next, your "folly", is this:
I've attempted to proceed from my original observation, yet you keep transforming it in order to fit what you perceive as the only legitimate means of analyzing "danger". I illustrated a geometric difference from road-tracks which constitutes a higher risk to drivers—the hypothesis can proceed analytically without reference to history. I pointed this out already:
So notwithstanding my previous statement, I'm forced to address this again. I suppose the number of collisions, retirements, and average dollar-value of damage sustained during a race at a given track doesn't constitute any measurement? They're all indicative—but whether such data is available or even recorded to back my argument up is unclear, and undoubtedly what you're counting on.
I didn't say it looks bad. I showed an obvious trajectory (I literally drew you a picture) and how it puts everybody at risk (see: bouncing off wall, wandering into 200mph traffic; hint: people die when they get hit by 200mph traffic); racing drivers, commentators, and all observant fans are already well aware of this.
Actually, I have:
And so have many others. And yet you ignored it.
Which is what you did by citing (faultily) one of the most dangerous tracks in the world, in supposed support of your argument that IRL is not more dangerous than it should be. Because, to you, since the most dangerous track in the world has killed more people (obviously, by virtue of selecting a monster which ate Nikki Lauda's face), banked-oval tracks in general are not too dangerous. (The levels of fallacy so far are difficult to keep track of.)
(For the record, I never said this.)
1. Not ovals in America, but all high-speed banked ovals (I said American tracks because American tracks tend to be ovals, and are almost never used elsewhere)
2. You're presenting a false opposition by making us "admit" the Nurburgring is dangerous, when nobody ever denied it;
3. We're not talking about road course. I simply see how you haven't accepted this. Dangerous road courses do not excuse dangerous ovals! Wait, is there an echo in here?
In order to prove this, you'll need to provide me with measurements of reaction that are "over" what is par, along with a detailed history of the severity of previous similar situations and reactions to them—oh, wait.
That's because, in series where there are drivers and regulators who have common sense and FIGHT FOR THE WELL-BEING OF THE DRIVER LIKE FORMULA 1, the drivers HAVE STOPPED DYING. You've even given away a principle of the backlash: if people aren't having backlashes at tracks which aren't ovals, mmmaybe there's something wrong with ovals??
What you're arguing is tantamount to saying all race-track configurations are equally safe, which is plainly untrue, although I daren't attempt to prove such since I may have to drive off a cliff with rumble-strips attached just to prove it to you.
And this wasn't even coherent, so I'm not going to attempt it.
In accordance with the demands of the F1 drivers, the Nordschleife was reconstructed by taking out some bumps and installing Armco safety barriers. The track was also made straighter, following the race line, which reduced the official number of corners. The German GP could be hosted at the Ring again, for another three years from 1971 to 1973. In 1973, the entrance into the dangerous and bumpy Kallenhard corner was made slower by adding another left-hand corner after the fast Metzgesfeld sweeping corner. Safety was improved again later on, e.g. by removing the jumps on the long main straight and widening it and taking away the bushes right next to the track at the main straight, which made that section of the Ring dangerously narrow. A second series of three more F1 races were held until 1976, but even higher demands by the F1 drivers and the FIA's CSI commission were too expensive or impossible to meet. So the 1976 race was deemed the last ever, even before it was held.
Americans in general don't want to watch the same driver win every race, they don't want to watch teammates hand each other wins for points, and most importantly, don't want to watch a driver win by 40 seconds, because it's boring.Actually, I suspect they prefer oval racing because ovals equalise the field. They all drive identical(-ish) cars on a circuit specifically designed to encourage a very narrow band of car set-ups. The idea behind it all is that the driver will be the deciding factor in all of it.
Actually, I suspect they prefer oval racing because ovals equalise the field. They all drive identical(-ish) cars on a circuit specifically designed to encourage a very narrow band of car set-ups. The idea behind it all is that the driver will be the deciding factor in all of it.
This is an unproven presupposition anyway, so it's hardly relevant here.Couple things for this overly long quote on this next to covered subject.
1. If people don't get hurt more, it's not a safety issue
Err, ok? You realise that many drivers—since they are largely the ones interested in the outcome—are on the regulatory boards, too, yes?2. F1 Drivers boycotted the Nurburgring. It wasn't the "regulators" saying "this is enough" the drivers boycotted.
Yes, but that means nothing with regard to my point. Does the dangerousness of Nurburgring in Germany make a superfast oval track Las Vegas safer?3. The purpose, for the umpteenth time, of listing the Nurburgrin and San Marino, was to show that just as bad and worse happens on road courses.
(This is just way too ironic for me to deal with right now.)If you can't see how that relates to your claims ovals are infinitely more dangerous, then you simply can't comprehend the entire discussion.
I did. Your acknowledgment implies nothing.When wrecks happen, they can be worse on ovals. Read the word "can".
I'm not claiming—they have. You have a tenuous relationship with facts, it seems.while you may claim "many have told me", if we're going the way of popular vote, the poll pretty much says the majority finds this a part of racing. And I mean the vast majority.
. . . how does that excuse the authorities from holding events at IRL tracks which are demonstrably deadly, exactly?but what I do know, is there are other forms of racing and other types of tracks proven more dangerous.
Umm, yes, we have noted many times the Nurburgring is deadly. Here's that tenuous CSLACR-and-fact relationship again.You're not attacking them though, are you? Not one of any replies has said racing should be discontinued at the Nurburgring, yet a handful of you have said open wheel cars on banked ovals should.
Are you insane? Almost all of us have called the Nurb incredibly dangerous. Hey, CSLACR, Facts, am I going to have to separate you two if you can't get along?if one is too dangerous, the other is, and since none of you claim the Nurburgring is too dangerous,
I've told you, you're not allowed to use fallacies.It's both or neither, it's that simple.
So? We're already calling it absurdly dangerous. Obviously we'd never put a CART car on the Nurburgring, it can't even drive around an oval!As has been shown, more people have died on the Ring in the past 15 years then all CART type racers combined, ever.
And that's with zero CART races on the Nurburgring.
. . . aaaand the presumptions present in this last statement alone are mind-boggling (ie that the same driver wins all the non-oval races, American racing is free from cheating/cheating is omnipresent in other racing forms, and that despite a disparity in driver-skill, it's better for races to be close finishes—lots of indication of racer-merit in that one. Must make betting real exciting! Yeesh, I'm exhausted just thinking about this excitement; bedtime).Americans in general don't want to watch the same driver win every race, they don't want to watch teammates hand each other wins for points, and most importantly, don't want to watch a driver win by 40 seconds, because it's boring.
That's certainly the intention - the Bathurst 1000 was broadcast live on SPEED this year, and next week's Gold Coast 600 will be shown, too. Dan Wheldon was actually supposed to race in Surfers with James Courtney.That being said, I think Americans would get a kick out of your V8 supercar division.
Goodnight.Snip
Sorry for the double post. If you think IRL is too dangerous go look at F1 on the 70's, 80's and early 90's. You will be sh:censored: bricks. Did the people ask for it to get banned? NO. The drivers were willing to drive despite it being dangerous. My father raced, and once he got hit pretty hard and his car flipped. He got minor injuries. Did he stop racing? NO. He kept going, because of the passion he had for it. So, IRL cant be banned or stopped. Maybe it should have rules to improve safety, yes, but to be banned? Why?
Just my 2 cents.
EarthI cant believe these pictures. A total nightmare that became reality. This is similiar to watching 9-11 or the Japan Tsunami in how completely unreal it looks. You d never expect to see anything like this. Just sickening
http://forums.autosport.com/index.php?showtopic=155633&view=findpost&p=5346638
I mean seriously what is this!!! This is stupid. Theres 5, 6 cars flying through the air. Stupid video game racing gives you stupid video game crashes. Any race that has the potential for this crap needs to be shut down. I cant believe this happened. And it never needs to come even close to happening again. The IRL put sponsorship money ahead of the safety of the drivers. All they cared about was putting on a show at the expense of hte driver's safety. The stupid double file restarts another example of putting logical safety behind entertainment.
I know Paul Tracy and others who refused to race the IRL ovals are feeling pretty smart right about now.