Is the IRL too dangerous?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Earth
  • 192 comments
  • 22,975 views

Is the IRL too dangerous?


  • Total voters
    172
If they keep racing at venues like LVMS, we'll just see more of what we witnessed this afternoon. New car or not.

+1 This^^^^

IRL is not anymore dangerous than any other motorsport, but running 220mph avg. around an oval is way too much. The 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. A big field for IRL, some low experience drivers mixed in the race, and the speed was a disaster waiting to happen. Unfortunately it did and in a big way. We're fortunate it wasn't any worse than what it was.

Watching the replays of the crash just makes me cringe. It didn't even look real. None of those drivers had a chance once the crash got started.

If the IRL wants to race on ovals thats fine, but keep it to the flat ovals. Still dangerous, but not 220mph dangerous.
 
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.
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.
 
prisonermonkeys
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.

That did come to mind... :(
 
Every form of motorsport has a sizeable amount of risk associated with it, problem with IRL is the sheer speed attained by the cars in the ovals. No matter how much safety you put into maintaining the integrity of the survival cell or takeoff prevention, the g-force thrust caused by a impact at 220mph is enough to cause severe wounds in the human body alone.

Sucker cars as mentioned in some posts above, would probably reduce the lift-off effect cause by running over other car's wheels, however the fans would generate ludicrous amounts of downforce, enabling the cars to go even faster.

Whatever is the approach taken ( if there is any change to be made ), there are trade-offs and there will always be an incredible risk factor associated with racing high speed ovals.
 
madagascar.gif

The best thing is, every time something like this happens significant safety improvements ARE made.
 
I'm not sure on what you're trying to imply with that...
 
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.

Can't believe I missed this. Very interesting thought.
 
That did come to mind... :(
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.
 
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.
That is an interesting tidbit of information.

I'm not sure on what you're trying to imply with that...
He's implying people overreact every time something like this happens.
 
Dan_
I'm not sure on what you're trying to imply with that...

I'm not saying its good when people die, but learning from mistakes happens (and works). Sure its better to prevent it in the first place but it's not always possible. When Dale Erndhart died it brought about the HANS device which saved Jimmy Johnson's life recently
 
Im not sure how you guys saw the replay but what happened was :

First sebastien saveedra marginally clipped the car above him.....then Sebastien Saavedra oversteered into the car that was underneath him...........that triggered the whole fiery sequence.


above means highside, below is low side.....saveedra was in the middle....

you really dont the sense of how fast their going until you actually hear the speeds.....Most people dont realize theyre going 220mph.......i dont support that in openwheel cars.


Open wheel cars should never be allowed to race three wide for consecutive laps.

beside the temporary 3 wides that may randomly happen on a road course but at much lower speeds.
 
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.
 
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.

^ This.
 
You pointed out how banked turns work, that's all, not "addressing a folly".
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:

CSLACR
I'm sorry, what's with the attitude?
Your entire post was of how dangerous banked ovals are.
Are is the imperative here: not, as in Formula 1, were. My argument is that the tracks are more dangerous—not that more people die from them.

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:

Me
fatalities [are] an incredibly myopic way to define danger

The only measurement we have for danger of any track is injuries and fatalities.
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.


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.

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.

CSLACR
This 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.
Actually, I have:

CSLACR
To 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
And so have many others. And yet you ignored it.

CSLACR
You can prove it is dangerous, but that's pointing out the obvious, and goes for all motorsport racing.
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.)

CSLACR
My 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.
(For the record, I never said this.)

CSLACR
In 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.
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?

CSLACR
It is unjustified because it's simply an overreaction to an incident, and incident no more severe than others that happen throughout motorsport.
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.


CSLACR
To 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.
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.

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.
And this wasn't even coherent, so I'm not going to attempt it.

Additionally:

Where safety takes a back-seat in American motorsports:
When Dale Earndhart died it brought about the HANS device which saved Jimmy Johnson's life recently
(Even though the HANS device was implemented far earlier in F1.)
The space-track-traffic relationship I explained earlier:
Floats
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.

Where safety again takes a back-seat in IRL:
tompie913
There 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.
(Wheldon's roll-bar was completely demolished btw.)

Where the fallacy in your comparisons is eloquently expressed:
Earth
I 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.

Where track-design again comes into play:
Floats
The 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.
Here Floats identifies exactly the geophysical nature which, combined with the centrifugal aspect to uncontrollable vehicles, leads to pile-ups.

Again, banked ovals and high-speed identified as culprits:
Plate88
The 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.

And this, perhaps most tragic as it indicates not just perhaps ignorance of safety, but a legitimate conflict of interest in reducing risk:
prisonermonkeys
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.

So lets see:
• extremely fast
• oval
• extremely banked
• packed to the gills with traffic
• turned into a huge spectacle with obvious commercial incentive

Since basically everybody here has identified at least one component of what I'm trying to explain to you, I'm going to stop worrying so much about the quantifiability of my concerns to you.
 
Last edited:
I'm not going to say IRL is too dangerous, but it amounts to this. Flame me if you want for this upcoming comment but this is how I feel.

American race fans today are too simple. Since the IRL/CART split back in the 90s most of the fans went to NASCAR where the cars are built like tanks and they drive at fast speeds on ovals and tri-ovals. Most American fans think road racing is simply too boring because the speeds are slower and there's not as many wrecks.

The IRL knows this and as such, they have tried to play into the hands of the fans. They want to draw attention to the sport with high speeds. The new car they are testing right now (which Dan Wheldon himself tested at Indianapolis just a few weeks ago) is going through a radical redesign and is said to go even faster than the current IRL cars. As many people have said... this is just too much. Ovals are built for high speeds only for cars that can withstand the hits. NASCAR vehicles are built to withstand such impacts but IRL cars are not. I am of the belief that they need to start focusing more on road courses and low banked ovals if they are to continue their series. I know this might seem like a knee-jerk reaction but it's not. Watch the Texas races sometime. There's so many bumps on the track and the cars are so low to the ground that sparks fly constantly from the chassis hitting the ground. It was only a matter of time before a big wreck like this happened on one of these steep banked ovals. Unfortunately, a true gentleman and a supremely talented driver had to lose his life as a result.

It's time for the IRL to stop worrying about ratings and start worrying about quality and safety. If they're going to use cars like this, they need to put them on tracks that they can race on.
 
Most American fans think road racing is simply too boring because the speeds are slower and there's not as many wrecks.
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.
 
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.

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, 8th grade geometry lessons from an internet wonder aside. So please stop acting like I don't understand how ovals work.

2. F1 Drivers boycotted the Nurburgring. It wasn't the "regulators" saying "this is enough" the drivers boycotted.
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.

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.

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.

When wrecks happen, they can be worse on ovals. Read the word "can".
If you wish to continue arguing against the statistics, you'll be talking to a wall, I've said all there is to say, and 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.

I haven't once claimed that these cars should continue racing at this track, because I don't know, but what I do know, is there are other forms of racing and other types of tracks proven more dangerous.
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.
You can't have your cake and eat it to, if one is too dangerous, the other is, and since none of you claim the Nurburgring is too dangerous, you don't have a leg to stand on to claim this track with these cars is to dangerous.
It's both or neither, it's that simple.

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.

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.
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.

That's what the media would want you to believe. When you walk into a bar and there's racing on, people talk about speed and wrecks. When NASCAR goes to Infineon and Watkin's Glen every year, they are some of the lowest rated races. I definitely get what you're saying and to a degree pack racing does that... but if you were here and could experience it first hand, I suspect you would believe differently.

That being said, I think Americans would get a kick out of your V8 supercar division.
 
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
This is an unproven presupposition anyway, so it's hardly relevant here.

2. F1 Drivers boycotted the Nurburgring. It wasn't the "regulators" saying "this is enough" the drivers boycotted.
Err, ok? You realise that many drivers—since they are largely the ones interested in the outcome—are on the regulatory boards, too, yes?

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.
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?

I'm not sure if you know how logic works, but presenting a similar idea to the one I'm protesting, and simply pointing out that, it, too would be subject to similar protest, does not negate the original protest. All you've done is provide me with another example of something that is unjust, which is due for our attention—except, in your case, you keep erroneously asserting that we're not protesting it, when it's been proven multiple times that we are. By simply keeping to the topic at hand, we're not advocating other dangerous track.

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.
(This is just way too ironic for me to deal with right now.)

When wrecks happen, they can be worse on ovals. Read the word "can".
I did. Your acknowledgment implies nothing.

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.
I'm not claiming—they have. You have a tenuous relationship with facts, it seems.

That the poll shows people think all racing is dangerous, has no actual relative value to whether IRL is more dangerous than average (quanta), less dangerous than average (quanta), or whatever may be considered "too dangerous" (qualia); it especially says nothing in regard to oval tracks in IRL being more dangerous than road-tracks in IRL. The poll cannot be appealed-to here for it is already flawed.

What a strange assertion.


but what I do know, is there are other forms of racing and other types of tracks proven more dangerous.
. . . how does that excuse the authorities from holding events at IRL tracks which are demonstrably deadly, exactly?

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.
Umm, yes, we have noted many times the Nurburgring is deadly. Here's that tenuous CSLACR-and-fact relationship again.

if one is too dangerous, the other is, and since none of you claim the Nurburgring is too dangerous,
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?


It's both or neither, it's that simple.
I've told you, you're not allowed to use fallacies.

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.
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!

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.
. . . 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).
 
Last edited:
That being said, I think Americans would get a kick out of your V8 supercar division.
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.
 
Goodnight.

The true irony, is I listed the Nurburgring because it's an infamously dangerous place to race.
The outcome, is nobody wants to say it's too dangerous to race there because they like the track. That's called bias.

If you want to ignore statistics, that's your prerogative, but saying one is fine while the other is dangerous is hypocritical, and must be presumed a biased "decision". If you're being biased, you're opinion isn't worth the time to type a response.

I didn't come into this thread to argue oval semantics with you, nor any of the other billion separate sentences you quoted, I see a few taken out of context, way to "internet argue".👍

If you feel IRL is too dangerous because they allow open wheel cars to race on ovals, then you should feel the same way about any races allowed on the Nurburgring. That would be logic, and applying the same principles to tracks you like along with tracks you disregard, would be unbiased.
You've done neither.

Actually, you haven't really addressed the thread topic at all that I can remember, maybe your semantics have temporarily clogged my memory.

As it stands, and in-line with my original point in bringing our beloved Nurburgring up, is if you feel IRL is out of line allowing this because it's so dangerous, then you feel racing anything on the Ring is out of line, you'd have to if you're using the logic you claim. You've agreed the Ring is incredibly deadly, and you've agreed open-wheel cars on ovals can be deadly, so make a post about the topic, which will ultimately answer the question for both.

Is IRL too dangerous?
 
Any type of racing is dangerous, that's why not everyone does it! Now assuming that IRL is too dangerous is just ridiculous. It's as dangerous as any other motorsport. It's faster, doesn't mean its more dangerous. You can have slower racing being as dangerous. What happened today was unfortunate and can happen to any driver, sadly. Also there were worse crashes in IRL and didnt take any lives. Dan was very unlucky. :nervous:

F1, WRC, NASCAR, V8 Supercars, DTM, and more have had crashes as severe as what we saw today. Are they too dangerous now? Should they be banned now? NO! It's racing anything can happen. You saw how Dan won Indy 500? Last lap, on the final straight. Senna lost a World Championship right before the checkered flag. ANYTHING can happen, with some cheerful moments, and some heartbreaking moments. It's the risk that the drivers take and the intensity of it that make motorsports exciting.

I respect every professional race driver for the risks they are taking to do something they love, something they have passion for. Now, we are not staying discussing whether or not that car, or track or series is dangerous or not, or should be banned or not. In my opinion, its a bunch of BS. Based on the majority of you, racing shouldnt even exist. WTF?! And once again, R.I.P. Dan. You will be dearly missed.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
I 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.
 
Last edited:
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.

People didn't care if drivers died in the 1970s. They cared even less before that. It was generally accepted that motor racing was dangerous and that deaths were guaranteed. Which is the same mentality IRL supporters are demonstrating now.

It wasn't until Jackie Stewart and Niki Lauda came along and had horrible accidents at Spa and Nurburgring, that safety really came to the drivers' awareness, and made them realize things didn't have to be that way.

We're just seeing history repeat itself here. Soon it won't just be Paul Tracy and others boycotting the oval races.
 
Earth
I 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.

🤬 Racing shouldn't be like that.
 
Any form of motorsport is dangerous, and as the speed increases so does the danger. It's this what makes it an exciting sport to watch and participate in. Those doing so know the risks and its these risks that keep them on the limit.

A professional racing driver must surely know that Everytime they get into a car, they may never get out again, its this that separates them from us. When something does go wrong, lessons need to be learned.

With this accident, it was waiting to happen and on the scale that it did, is shocking to see.
 
Earth, you either clearly DO NOT know a thing about IndyCar racing or you're one of those insane Champ Car Fanatics who chant "death to the IRL" even though the war ended almost 4 years ago.

1. It's called the IZOD IndyCar Series now and the sanctioning body is called IndyCar.

2. Paul Tracy raced this weekend at Las Vegas so he clearly didn't refuse to race ovals in an IndyCar.

3. Drivers have gotten killed on road and street courses and dirt tracks too. Racing has always been dangerous and any real race fan realizes that you cannot eliminate injuries or deaths, just improve car and track safety. The only way to eliminate racing injuries and deaths is to eliminate racing altogether.

4. IndyCar already contracted Dallara to build the new 2012 chassis which is designed to prevent cars from going airborne from wheel-to-wheel contact.
FULL.jpg


I've been an IndyCar fan since the 80s and followed the sport under CART/Champ Car/IRL/IndyCar sanctioning. I, and the majority of IndyCar fans, are glad the sport is unified. Most of us know that shutting down the IZOD IndyCar Series would also mean the death of open wheel racing in America. F1 will only come to America once a year and they won't race on ovals.

The IZOD IndyCar Series is the only major racing series in the world that challenges its drivers to race on a balanced mix of ovals and road/street courses. That challenge is what made the CART IndyCar World Series great and it will make the IZOD IndyCar Series great.
 
Last edited:
Back