Is the IRL too dangerous?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Earth
  • 192 comments
  • 22,841 views

Is the IRL too dangerous?

  • Total voters
    172
As long as you have speed, you have danger. In fact, you cannot completely take danger out of life no matter what you do. Drivers know what they are getting themselves into when they sign up to race. That being said, it is a terribly tragedy when anything like this happens.

I agree that open wheel cars should not run at these big, fast ovals. It's just too easy to clip a wheel and cause an accident. Stock cars manage because their big bodies aren't as fragile.

We can all agree that racing as a whole is incredibly more safer than it was 20, 10, even 5 years ago. Technological innovations will continue to make the sport safer for teams and drivers, but you will never be able to remove all the danger.
 
when you can't get away from the car next to you because he/she has the same car. this sort of racing is going to happen, spec racing at these speed and on cookie cutter tracks that nascar owns is ending. we get new cars and engines next year....but until then. Gods Speed Dan
 
I don't think IRL is too dangerous. Superbike-esque racing have more higher risk than this.

And i don't think anybody would expect anyone would smash the topside of the car first in 300kph but anyhow, the death of someone will make the series more safer. Hopefully.
 
I believe I've said this before...

IRL/Indycar has dodged the bullet far too often since its inception back in 1996. A ticking time bomb of sorts, every time I've watched a race, I've had the feeling of seeing barely controlled chaos, not a a feeling of "if something's going to happen, it'll be brutal" but more of a "WHEN something's going to happen, it'll be brutal". Cue Mario Andretti at Indy, Kenny Brack at LVMS, Franchitti at Kentucky, and it goes on and on.

Whoever designed these cars should have been fired on the spot, and whoever decided to a) let them race in the first place, and b) let them race for this long with this formula should be shot on the spot as well. Cars shouldn't take flight like this upon impact. This series has been a disgrace to motorsport since the beginning, from poor management starting back in the Tony George days, to even poorer decision making. Open wheelers do not belong on superspeedways. This was true back in the CART and USAC days, and even more so today.

Motorsports will always be dangerous. But sometimes, part of that danger can be avoided. Such was the case today.
 
I don't think so. It is dangerous, but all are. However, they were working on making it safer with the new car. I just hope that they now have better justification for making more saftey changes.
 
People die in all forms of motorsport, it can be dangerous.
I'm not familiar with the situation,(track, etc) but anytime you're going 200+ mph in an open-wheel car you accept that risk, it's a shame to see it happen though.

People said the same of NASCAR after Dale Earnhardt's death, but it is what it is, I don't think any racing driver would really say different. You accept the risk of injury and/or death doing it.

The fact that so few do die is a testament to the efforts of all racing leagues in safety precautions.
 
I feel that there isn't really much that can be done with Wheldon's accident. Other than not running on particular ovals like Vegas and not allowing the field to become so bloated with inexperienced drivers who drive so wild.

Of course, the IRL and motorsport should try to learn lessons from today and try and prevent Wheldon's accident in future. But there is only so much that can be done, inevitably the driver's head is always exposed and when you have car flipping through the air and making contact top-side with a barrier or a catch-fence, I can't really see how the cars or the protection can be improved much more. I mean - even in a NASCAR or any other "tin-top" this kind of accident is pretty serious.

Same goes for preventing cars flying in the air - with an exposed "open wheel" these accidents are always going to be quite likely. We see at least one of these types of accidents every year, though its become a lot of frequent recently for some reason.
Maybe IRL's 2012 car with its covered rear-wheels is a way of preventing it. Maybe its not. Maybe its not "open-wheel" anymore.

I think really the question is whether its reasonable to run open wheel formula motorsports anymore with so many recent accidents happening and the open cockpit and open-wheel nature being difficult to work around. Are we looking at the end of open-wheel formula racing as we know it today?
 
Paul2448
However, they were working on making it safer with the new car.
Click to expand...

A new car won't change anything if they keep going 220mph+ between two concrete walls within inches of each others. There is absolutely ZERO room for a mistake, especially at these speeds.
 
-Fred-
A new car won't change anything if they keep going 220mph+ between two concrete walls within inches of each others. There is absolutely ZERO room for a mistake, especially at these speeds.
Click to expand...

I think the point is that the 2012 car is designed to try and prevent cars riding up the wheels of others and hence prevent cars flipping or flying through the air like Wheldon's. For sure the accidents at 200mph+ are still going to be serious but it helps if you aren't flying through the air...
 
BLITZ_69
We can all agree that racing as a whole is incredibly more safer than it was 20, 10, even 5 years ago. Technological innovations will continue to make the sport safer for teams and drivers, but you will never be able to remove all the danger.
Click to expand...

But there are different situations. In modern F1 for instance you have to be very very unlucky to have a fatal crash. A potential fatal situation is what happened to Massa in 2009, with the infamous debris collision hitting his helmet at high speed. Or crashing at Monaco because it's a tight city track with zero run off areas. Or a suspension failure at Eau Rouge. But a part from that the percentage of potentially fatal situations is lower than oval racing at the average speed of 340 km/h.
 
Is the IRL too dangerous? Yes and no.

If the series absolutely must race on 1.5-mile ovals, then something needs to be done to slow the cars down, whether it be more downforce (ie drag) and/or simply less power. NASCARs don't even run at 200mph around 1.5-milers - the pole speed at Atlanta this year was 186mph - so why do Indycars need to run at 220?

On the other side of the coin, Indycars are pretty safe in isolation. I'm sure everyone remembers Dario's lolwut flip at Michigan '07 where he walked away, and on road courses they're simply too slow to have any significant accidents. However something does need to be done to reduce the cars' tendencies to flip - get even a wisp of air under the car and away she goes.
 
-Fred-
A new car won't change anything if they keep going 220mph+ between two concrete walls within inches of each others. There is absolutely ZERO room for a mistake, especially at these speeds.
Click to expand...

Some of the proposed changes I've heard of were slower cars and lower downforce, which would discourage 4 wide racing, and have the cars go to the 190-200 MPH range.


Even though that might not have saved Wheldon, it will help at other tracks and in other crash scenarios.
 
Ardius
I think the point is that the 2012 car is designed to try and prevent cars riding up the wheels of others and hence prevent cars flipping or flying through the air like Wheldon's. For sure the accidents at 200mph+ are still going to be serious but it helps if you aren't flying through the air...
Click to expand...

It's been 8 years since we've seen the first of these cars take flight on a superspeedway. 8 years. That's a lifetime and a half in motorsports...
 
I'm confused why anyone would assume this couldn't happen somewhere else, or at a speed of "just" 190mph.
 
At 190mph you'll still get pretty nasty accidents yes, but I'm sure drivers would rather have a crash at 190 than 220. If running the cars 30mph slower reduces the risk of a serious accident, regardless by how much, then surely it's worth doing?
 
Another thought is that 15 drivers were involved in that wreck. While we lost a true gentleman today, that fact can't be overlooked. It's alot safer now then it was when I became a fan of Indy Cars. They have safer barriers, better monocoques and the best safety team in auto racing.
 
Sharky.
At 190mph you'll still get pretty nasty accidents yes, but I'm sure drivers would rather have a crash at 190 than 220. If running the cars 30mph slower reduces the risk of a serious accident, regardless by how much, then surely it's worth doing?
Click to expand...

Jeff Krosnoff was killed in an almost identical Indycar accident but at a street course. The problem is that the open cockpit got tangled in the catchfence. Driver struck pole and was dead almost instantly.
 
Sharky.
At 190mph you'll still get pretty nasty accidents yes, but I'm sure drivers would rather have a crash at 190 than 220. If running the cars 30mph slower reduces the risk of a serious accident, regardless by how much, then surely it's worth doing?
Click to expand...
Yes and no. 180 is safer then 190. 150 is by far safer then 180, where does that line get drawn, and why are the leagues the ones responsible?

I'm sorry for Dan and his family, but it's an active decision he made to risk his life while racing, and that goes for every driver in the world, they accept the risk.
I would never hold someone else responsible for a decision I made.

-Fred-
It's been 8 years since we've seen the first of these cars take flight on a superspeedway. 8 years. That's a lifetime and a half in motorsports...
Click to expand...
Cars take flight when they crash while racing, it's quite common.
 
CSLACR
I'm confused why anyone would assume this couldn't happen somewhere else, or at a speed of "just" 190mph.
Click to expand...

It's not the speed itself that's the problem, it's the way they're all bunched up together and that if something wrong happens, half the field gets taken out, with dramatic results as we've seen today. They're flat out all the time, and if you bang wheels, you don't even have time to react and you're either flying or it's the wall that's slowing you down.

Simplest way to reduce the risk of re-seeing what we've seen today? Don't race on superspeedways that were built for stock cars.


CSLACR
Cars take flight when they crash while racing, it's quite common.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but these cars seem to act like gliders once they're in the air.
 
-Fred-
It's not the speed itself that's the problem, it's the way they're all bunched up together and that if something wrong happens, half the field gets taken out, with dramatic results as we've seen today. They're flat out all the time, and if you bang wheels, you don't even have time to react and you're either flying or it's the wall that's slowing you down.

Simplest way to reduce the risk of re-seeing what we've seen today? Don't race on superspeedways that were built for stock cars.


Agreed, but these cars seem to act like gliders once they're in the air.
Click to expand...

Well that's certainly a possibility, but it seems quite common for people to overreact in these situations.
There was a lot said when Dale Earnhardt died, but the reality all drivers are faced with is they could die anytime they head onto any track.

I personally would leave the decision to the drivers, who are fully aware of all risks involved, the racing leagues do everything they can to make it as safe as possible, it sounds like they already have been developing new cars for this league in particular.

Yet I've seen remarks like "the designers should have been fired on the spot", and "shot on the spot".
but it seems quite common for people to overreact in these situations.
Click to expand...
 
-Fred-
Agreed, but these cars seem to act like gliders once they're in the air.
Click to expand...
Because there is nothing holding the down. When a car behaves normally, air flowing over it pushes it down. But when it loses a wing, all the downforce is lost and there is nothing left to push it down. A driver can keep going without a wing - we saw it yesterday when Vitaly Petrov hit Michael Schumacher in South Korea - but he has to go slowly. The problem is that the undercarriage of these cars are shaped in such a way that they are aerodynamically efficient ... but if they get too much air underneath them, the car becomes airborne.

The solution isn't to take the downforce off, but to pile it on even more. Ground effects would suck the car down closer to the road by forming a vaccuum. This would allow the drivers to go faster, yes, but it would also make it harder for a car to take flight.
 
Ardius
I think the point is that the 2012 car is designed to try and prevent cars riding up the wheels of others and hence prevent cars flipping or flying through the air like Wheldon's. For sure the accidents at 200mph+ are still going to be serious but it helps if you aren't flying through the air...
Click to expand...

I agree completely. Those noses act like ramps and the flat bottom makes them glide, not slowing at all, which they would if they were scraping the ground and had the tires there to help as well.

This a common problem on all open wheels, Schumacher flew (luckily much slower) a while back in F1.

These guys must find a way to get the cars to stay flat, or at most under, and not fly over the guy ahead in case of a crash.
 
The notion that the outcome of his crash is accidental is naive. The lead-up to it, no doubt, was—as no driver would ever assume the risk of initiating a massive chain-reaction of collisions, as happened here. Allow me to elaborate.

American track-designs (ovals) are designed to funnel out-of-control vehicles, like Dan's, back into the actual racing-traffic and promote a ridiculous level of spectacle. There are no run-off areas for out-of-control vehicles: you simply hit the wall. And what's worse, all the traffic is contained within the unfolding mess; it is circumscribed by danger all around them. Only when vehicles run out of kinetic energy do they drift back down the slope of the oval, across the racetrack and through the path of high-speed traffic, does it come to rest—perhaps not before flipping a few times—in a patch of grass. The fact that it's round and sloped, "for grip", actually creates a centrifugal tendency to the action where only once the vehicle is slow enough to descend down the slope, may it depart from danger: once speed is thus no longer the enemy itself, you're forced into the oncoming fray of multiple objects travelling at unnavigable speeds toward you. Thanks to the rails, you're guided along the path of the track, forcibly remaining among the traffic-flow, even though you are longer in competition with it. And NASCAR vehicles are not known for their dodgeball abilities, and quick evasive action in IRL/champ-car is itself risky for precisely the reasons outline above.

I find it a revolting structural arrangement that is designed only with regard to spectacle, and by implication, commercial interests. Once these drivers lose control, they are totally at the mercy of chance and the laws of physics.

And that's not even getting into the tenuous history of safety regulations and drivers' rights in IRL + NASCAR.

I voted "Yes", because too dangerous is a qualifier of an assumed level of danger already inherent in anything (option #3 is meaningless in this context).

My $0.02.

Edit: Also, did anybody see the pics of his car? His roll-bar was sheered off. Intolerable, and worthy of complete safety-regulation overhaul, IMO.
 
Last edited:
CSLACR
Yet I've seen remarks like "the designers should have been fired on the spot", and "shot in the head".
Click to expand...


Back in the day I was a diehard CART fan, when the IRL came along in 1996, I thought it was nothing more than a big joke. They came out with their own chassis a few years later, started choosing venues that made no sense for open wheelers (Atlanta, Dover, Las Vegas, tracks that have been designed with stock car racing in mind) and suddently we were seeing cars flying around at 220mph plus, 3-4 wide, flat out for 500 miles. As I said earlier, you had that feeling that when something was going to go wrong, it would be quite brutal. Not IF, but WHEN. Kenny Brack dodged a bullet back in 2005, everyone held their breath and feared the worst back then, too. Was CART any better back in the day? No, but at least they didn't run superspeedways every weekend.

I'd say it's split 50/50 between a design that allows the cars to stay bunched up and create "close" racing, partly because that's where the money seems to be, the fans supposedly want to see this, and partly because I always had the feeling that IRL/Indycar is trying so hard to be just like NASCAR, and racing at circuits that are not made for these kind of cars.


That's my point of view anyway.
 

Latest Posts

Back