Is the IRL too dangerous?

[CSLACR]

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. NASCAR vehicles are not known for their dodgeball abilities, and quick evasive action in IRL is risky for precisely the reason 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.

You could have just said "ovals with banked turns shouldn't be allowed".
That's essentially what you've said.

To prove your theory valid, you'll need safety records indicating that these series that run on "dangerous ovals" have worse safety records then other series.

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.

I think the above may apply to this as well.
Is the safety record of IRL significantly worse than other comparable series? (open wheel)

 

[Public'sTwin]

You could have just said "ovals with banked turns shouldn't be allowed".
That's essentially what you've said.

To prove your theory valid, you'll need safety records indicating that these series that run on "dangerous ovals" have worse safety records then other series.

I think the above may apply to this as well.
Is the safety record of IRL significantly worse than other comparable series? (open wheel)

I'm sorry—do I need to explain geometry and physics to you? It wasn't a theory, it was an observation. I wasn't proposing a debate, I was summarizing history.

 

[Earth]

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?

With drivers buried so deep in openwheel cockpit nowadays I dont think its much of a problem. Of course there is the fluke accident here and there, like what happened to Ayrton Senna, or Felipe Massa, but I dont think enough to warrant a whole sale change. Maybe a larger windscreen to help deflect oncoming debri.

Reminds me a bit of the large crashes at Le Mans this year due to slower traffic. Of course the driving ability of those behind the wheel of the slower cars should be addressed, but I dont think it should mean the end of multi class racing at Le Mans.

Dan Wheldon did go into the catch fence and thats probably where he sustained his fatal injuries. But instead of looking at open cockpits I think they need to look at what caused the crash, and not the crash. What caused the crash was racing that allows for zero room for error. In motoGP if you make a mistake all the tracks have plenty of runoff room for you to fall off and slide to a stop. Formula 1 you make a mistake you usually slide through alot of sand then it a tire barrier and the last thing is a catch fence. In those sports if you make one mistake outside of the start you dont collect 5 or 6 other guys. And you're rarely going 220mph.

Oval racing is a dangerous form of racing, high speed and close racing, but the danger can be curbed by doing what CART did, which is run them on 1 mile flat ovals that spread the cars out and slow cornering speeds.

CART's schedule featured

1 mile Phoenix flat
1 mile Chicago (old track) 165 mph pole
1.3 mile Twin Ring Motegi (210 mph pole)
1 mile Nazareth flat (175 mph pole)
1 mile Milwaukee flat (175 mph pole)
1.25 mile Gateway flat (180 mph pole)
1.8 mile Rio De Janeiro flat (175 mph pole)

Source

The average pole speed for an IRL oval race is in the 220mph range. Compare that to the tracks oval CART ran on, which had pole speeds 30, 40, or even 50mph slower. And CART had much faster cars then the IRL.

CART actually tried to race at Texas, a 1.5 mile high banked NASCAR oval that the IRL runs on, but cancelled the race after several brutal crashes in practice and drivers blacking out due to 4-5gs of cornering for 50% of the lap

Jacque Villeneuve, Paul Tracy, Michael Schumacher, Sebastain Bourdais have all spoken out against the current IRL form of oval racing.

So whats to blame?

#1 Racing on 1.5 mile high banked ovals with openwheel cars designed for big heavy stock cars
#2 spec cars which cant break away from each other

 

[CSLACR]

I'm sorry—do I need to explain geometry and physics to you? It wasn't a theory, it was an observation. I wasn't proposing a debate, I was summarizing history.

I'm sorry, what's with the attitude?
Your entire post was of how dangerous banked ovals are. 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.

By 1994, the last death in Formula One was nearly a decade past, that of Elio de Angelis during testing in 1986. There had been several horrifying accidents (for example Nelson Piquet and Gerhard Berger at Imola, or Martin Donnelly at Jerez), but no fatalities. The speed of Formula One cars had continuously risen over 8 years, despite turbocharged engines being made illegal and reducing the width of tyres and eventually removing driver aids. There was an "air of invincibility" in Formula One, a belief the cars were inherently safe and drivers wouldn't die any more.[13]
At the San Marino Grand Prix this belief was crushed completely with the serious injuries sustained by Rubens Barrichello and the deaths of Roland Ratzenberger during qualifying and Ayrton Senna in the race on 1 May 1994.[14] Furthermore, Karl Wendlinger was left comatose after a crash two weeks later at Monaco Grand Prix.[15]

Anything we can say about IRL right now, we could have said about F1 then.

And that wasn't an oval, and 2 drivers in one weekend died.

 

[Ardius]

With drivers buried so deep in openwheel cockpit nowadays I dont think its much of a problem. Of course there is the fluke accident here and there, like what happened to Ayrton Senna, or Felipe Massa, but I dont think enough to warrant a whole sale change. Maybe a larger windscreen to help deflect oncoming debri.

Reminds me a bit of the large crashes at Le Mans this year due to slower traffic. Of course the driving ability of those behind the wheel of the slower cars should be addressed, but I dont think it should mean the end of multi class racing at Le Mans.

Dan Wheldon did go into the catch fence and thats probably where he sustained his fatal injuries. But instead of looking at open cockpits I think they need to look at what caused the crash, and not the crash. What caused the crash was racing that allows for zero room for error. In motoGP if you make a mistake all the tracks have plenty of runoff room for you to fall off and slide to a stop. Formula 1 you make a mistake you usually slide through alot of sand then it a tire barrier and the last thing is a catch fence. In those sports if you make one mistake outside of the start you dont collect 5 or 6 other guys. And you're rarely going 220mph.

Oval racing is a dangerous form of racing, high speed and close racing, but the danger can be curbed by doing what CART did, which is run them on 1 mile flat ovals that spread the cars out and slow cornering speeds.

CART's schedule featured

1 mile Phoenix flat
1 mile Chicago (old track) 165 mph pole
1.3 mile Twin Ring Motegi (210 mph pole)
1 mile Nazareth flat (175 mph pole)
1 mile Milwaukee flat (175 mph pole)
1.25 mile Gateway flat (180 mph pole)
1.8 mile Rio De Janeiro flat (175 mph pole)

Source

The average pole speed for an IRL oval race is in the 220mph range. Compare that to the tracks oval CART ran on, which had pole speeds 30, 40, or even 50mph slower. And CART had much faster cars then the IRL.

CART actually tried to race at Texas, a 1.5 mile high banked NASCAR oval that the IRL runs on, but cancelled the race after several brutal crashes in practice and drivers blacking out due to 4-5gs of cornering for 50% of the lap

Jacque Villeneuve, Paul Tracy, Michael Schumacher, Sebastain Bourdais have all spoken out against the current IRL form of oval racing.

So whats to blame?

#1 Racing on 1.5 mile high banked ovals with openwheel cars designed for big heavy stock cars
#2 spec cars which cant break away from each other

Add in the huge field and the increased number of inexperienced drivers...I sadly think this was in some ways inevitable - even between the more experienced drivers as Tagliani and Briscoe almost started the whole thing moments earlier (actually their coming together did sort of start the chain reaction).

But I worry that the attention is once again going to be turned to the open cockpits and open wheels. I agree that the crash itself is pretty difficult to prevent serious injuries, but it has to be a question on everyones mind at the moment.

And its not just Ayrton and Felipe who have suffered freak accidents recently. There was also the sad accident of Henry Surtees and there have been many other close calls in several open formula, its amazing an incident like Coulthard & Wurz in Melbourne hasn't happened more often and hit drivers in the head. Its not something to take lightly when we are all so accustomed to so few fatalaties.

But before we get to the safety of the cars and the crash itself, I agree that the concept of oval racing is where you have to wonder if its really the most sensible style of motor-racing.

 

[CSLACR]

I sadly think this was in some ways inevitable

I agree 100%. In the sense that the next fatality is also inevitable.

 

[-Fred-]

I think the above may apply to this as well.
Is the safety record of IRL significantly worse than other comparable series? (open wheel)

Hard to say. The only "comparable series" would be CART/Champcar.

Indy Racing League/Indycar started in 1996, at 15 years old it's a relatively new series still. 4 drivers have died in those 15 years (Scott Brayton, Tony Renna, Paul Dana and now Dan Wheldon). CART/ChampCar/ has run from 1978 to 2007, almost twice as long, and 4 drivers have died in CART/ChampCar sanctionned events (Jim Hickman, Jeff Krosnoff, Gonzalo Rodriguez and Greg Moore, two of them on Ovals, the other two on road courses) with 14 years between the first (Hickman) and the second (Krosnoff) deaths.

 

[Public'sTwin]

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. Besides which, more people have died on them since Senna and Ratzenberger perished in Formula 1. How many people have been killed in Indy and NASCAR since then? Over a dozen. And notwithstanding fatalities—which is an incredibly myopic way to define danger by—how hard is it to notice the obvious chain-reactions which are caused by such a design? Half the field was taken out by Dan's crash.

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.

K

Anything we can say about IRL right now, we could have said about F1 then.

And that is the problem! That was Formula 1 seventeen years ago. The youngest Formula 1 drivers today have been raised without being old enough to witness a death in the sport. Indy does not have to be lethal to be Indy.

I agree 100%. In the sense that the next fatality is also inevitable.

Inevitable means guaranteed—and is an incredibly fatalist (where the term comes from) presumption. Still think so? (And, more importantly, would you still support a sport where death was guaranteed?)

 

[CSLACR]

Hard to say. The only "comparable series" would be CART/Champcar.

Indy Racing League/Indycar started in 1996, at 15 years old it's a relatively new series still. 4 drivers have died in those 15 years (Scott Brayton, Tony Renna, Paul Dana and now Dan Wheldon). CART/ChampCar/ has run from 1978 to 2007, almost twice as long, and 4 drivers have died in CART/ChampCar sanctionned events (Jim Hickman, Jeff Krosnoff, Gonzalo Rodriguez and Greg Moore, two of them on Ovals, the other two on road courses) with 14 years between the first (Hickman) and the second (Krosnoff) deaths.

Hard to tell if it's the tracks, cars, or drivers, imo.

Maybe I'm bringing this on to strong to soon, I know people get upset over these things, as they rightfully should, I just hate to see people pick scapegoats as is human nature, we always want somebody to blame.

But as I've shown, a serious injury, and 2 deaths in one weekend, followed by a driver in a coma, much worse then this has happened in the past, and yet that series is running faster now then back then, if I'm not mistaken.

The leagues really do everything they realistically can to prevent these things, imo, and I think it shows in the changes already implemented before this race, and the changes undoubtedly to come.

 

[boiltheocean]

To prove your theory valid, you'll need safety records indicating that these series that run on "dangerous ovals" have worse safety records then other series.

I don't see how you need to prove something that's so obviously wrong in the first place. It doesn't take a genius to work out that racing identical cars on a track that doesn't require you to slow down for the corners will result in a large crash should one small driver error occur.

 

[-Fred-]

The leagues really do everything they realistically can to prevent these things, imo, and I think it shows in the changes already implemented before this race, and the changes undoubtedly to come.

I still stand by my point. If they keep racing at venues like LVMS, we'll just see more of what we witnessed this afternoon. New car or not.

 

[Grand Prix]

Why not just make the ovals wider than they are now and put rumble strips on the outside of the current track widths? Leave the extra outside space as gravel/grass/tarmac runoff of their choice. It doesn't even have to be that much runoff. Just enough for cars to go outside of the racing line without crossing high-speed traffic.

I realize this would cost a lot of money and take away the inside rows of seats. But F1 has done more ridiculous things to circuits than this in the past, in the name of safety.

 

[hornet_burnout]

I still stand by my point. If they keep racing at venues like LVMS, we'll just see more of what we witnessed this afternoon. New car or not.

I also think the track is wrong for IRL, but if at least the cars didn't fly on impact, this would have been just another "harmless" big one.

 

[CSLACR]

One track is all I needed.
Should racing on this track be banned?
11 since IRL started.

 

[Public'sTwin]

I realize this would cost a lot of money and take away the inside rows of seats. But F1 has done more ridiculous things to circuits than this in the past, in the name of safety.

And that is my point.

In Formula 1, drivers have rights. Indy, NASCAR, champ-car racing are commercial, spectacle sports. Formula 1 is admittedly bourgeois, but driven by competition and achievement—including impeccable safety records since what is widely considered to be a landmark tragedy in Senna+Ratzenberger's deaths.

One track is all I needed.
Should racing on this track be banned?
11 since IRL started.

Not a single one of those had FIA, race-spec safety regulations. And, as a matter of fact, racing is banned on the Nordschliefe in F1.

 

[NEPALII]

Every racing is dangerous. To have 2 deaths in a decade shows that IRL isn't any more dangerous than any other Motorsport. Actually, there are more fatalities in other Motorsport series/championships. It was an unfortunate event what happened today and it's a risk that every driver takes when they go out there to the racetrack. These men must be praised for their courage for taking the risks they take. But unfortunately, things like these will happen in racing. IRL shouldnt be banned or anything like that because of what happened today. However, there should be changes made. More aerodynamic on the cars would help, or less top speeds.

R.I.P. Dan Wheldon.

 

[-Fred-]

One track is all I needed.
Should racing on this track be banned?
11 since IRL started.

But that's multiple series and very different types of cars. On a track that's known for not being the safest thing in the world.

Indy's the deadliest track around, anyway. 56 deaths since its inception.

 

[CSLACR]

Not a single one of those had FIA, race-spec safety regulations. And, as a matter of fact, racing is banned on the Nordschliefe in F1.

You've missed the point somehow. It was just said, and described in much more detail then needed that ovals are "excessively dangerous" due to their layouts.

If that is the case, the Nurburgring is "excessively dangerous" due to it's layout, and as you were so kind to point out for me, they don't even run the most dangerous cars there, and still just as many people die there.

Indy's the deadliest track around, anyway. 56 deaths since its inception.

Read the link. 68 competitors, 8 others = 76.

 

[Grand Prix]

You've missed the point somehow. It was just said, and described in much more detail then needed that ovals are "excessively dangerous" due to their layouts.

If that is the case, the Nurburgring is "excessively dangerous" due to it's layout, and as you were so kind to point out for me, they don't even run the most dangerous cars there, and still just as many people die there.

You do realize most of those deaths were from the uber-lethal cars of the 30's, 60's, 70's and 80's right?

 

[Public'sTwin]

You've missed the point somehow. It was just said, and described in much more detail then needed that ovals are "excessively dangerous" due to their layouts.

If that is the case, the Nurburgring is "excessively dangerous" due to it's layout, and as you were so kind to point out for me, they don't even run the most dangerous cars there, and still just as many people die there.

Read the link. 68 competitors, 8 others = 76.

You do realize most of those deaths were from the uber-lethal cars of the 30's, 60's, 70's and 80's right?

It's no secret that the Nordschleife is one of the most dangerous tracks in the world, which is why the drivers in F1 refused to drive there, resulting in it being taken off the calender, but the lack of safety at that track and the deaths there is not an excuse or justification for lack of safety and/or deaths in another motorsport. Modern F1 is very safety concious after Imola 1994, and thankfully no drivers have died since. I think Indy needs to take a serious look at what they are doing for the safety of their drivers.

Nobody is arguing the Nurburgring is excessively dangerous. That's half of why it's famous, and does not negate my point. In fact, you've conceded to it, despite attempting to imply otherwise. (On that note, I don't see the discussion becoming any more productive from this line of discourse. . .)

 

[Tompie913]

Open cockpit + 220 mph on an oval just doesn't work. Today's events really show that. 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.

If IndyCar wants to be safe, it needs to either slow down its oval races, as NASCAR has had the wisdom to do, or put strong canopies over the cars. (Perhaps they could take inspiration from Gran Turismo's X2010)

 

[CSLACR]

You do realize most of those deaths were from the uber-lethal cars of the 30's, 60's, 70's and 80's right?

11 since IRL's inception. I already said that though. (actually 12 though counting the non-competition death)

Nobody is arguing the Nurburgring is excessively dangerous. That's half of why it's famous, and does not negate my point. In fact, you've conceded to it, despite attempting to imply otherwise. (On that note, I don't see the discussion becoming any more productive from this line of discourse. . .)

So comparing all oval cart racing deaths in history to one track's history of the past 15 years "proves" ovals are incredibly dangerous?
That's the same amount of deaths for all oval tracks combined, over a longer span of time.

Think first.

 

[Earth]

Add in the huge field and the increased number of inexperienced drivers...I sadly think this was in some ways inevitable - even between the more experienced drivers as Tagliani and Briscoe almost started the whole thing moments earlier (actually their coming together did sort of start the chain reaction).

But I worry that the attention is once again going to be turned to the open cockpits and open wheels. I agree that the crash itself is pretty difficult to prevent serious injuries, but it has to be a question on everyones mind at the moment.

And its not just Ayrton and Felipe who have suffered freak accidents recently. There was also the sad accident of Henry Surtees and there have been many other close calls in several open formula, its amazing an incident like Coulthard & Wurz in Melbourne hasn't happened more often and hit drivers in the head. Its not something to take lightly when we are all so accustomed to so few fatalaties.

But before we get to the safety of the cars and the crash itself, I agree that the concept of oval racing is where you have to wonder if its really the most sensible style of motor-racing.

More safety need to be worked on for openwheel racing, for sure. I dont want to fall into the trap of thinking 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.

The IRL is apparently looking into hockey rink type catch "fencing" that doesnt tear the car apart when struck. That would have certainly helped Wheldon's chances.

As for the open cockpit, they can try perhaps bigger rollover bars, a larger windscreen, and if possible putting the driver even lower into the cockpit with larger headrests.

Every racing is dangerous. To have 2 deaths in a decade shows that IRL isn't any more dangerous than any other Motorsport.

The IRL is lucky to not have 5 or 6 more fatalities

Very similiar to today's crash

 

[boiltheocean]

One track is all I needed.
Should racing on this track be banned?
11 since IRL started.

How many of those 11 deaths were caused by minor contact between two drivers some 12 places in front of them though? I'm willing to bet none.

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.

 

[Public'sTwin]

So comparing all oval cart racing deaths in history to one track's history of the past 15 years "proves" ovals are incredibly dangerous?
That's the same amount of deaths for all oval tracks combined, over a longer span of time.

Think first.

So using a quantitative fatality value is the only valid measurement of 'danger'? We've already addressed the folly of this.

(On that note, I don't see the discussion becoming any more productive from this line of discourse. . .)

And since we're now arguing about issues besides the point, I reaffirm thus.

Think twice.

 

[NEPALII]

Open cockpit + 220 mph on an oval just doesn't work. Today's events really show that. 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.

If IndyCar wants to be safe, it needs to either slow down its oval races, as NASCAR has had the wisdom to do, or put strong canopies over the cars. (Perhaps they could take inspiration from Gran Turismo's X2010).

Its not the fact that it's open cockpit. There were other cars that were flying by on the accident and nothing happened to the drivers. Dan was very unlucky because he hit the wall at a staggering speed. Dan hit the wall by his side with his head. That's what sadly killed him. The solution, in my opinion, is increase downforce or decrease top speed for Indy cars.

 

[Bigbazz]

It's no secret that the Nordschleife is one of the most dangerous tracks in the world, which is why the drivers in F1 refused to drive there, resulting in it being taken off the calender, but the lack of safety at that track and the deaths there is not an excuse or justification for lack of safety and/or deaths in another motorsport. Modern F1 is very safety concious after Imola 1994, and thankfully no drivers have died since. I think Indy needs to take a serious look at what they are doing for the safety of their drivers.

 

[Tompie913]

Its not the fact that it's open cockpit. There were other cars that were flying by on the accident and nothing happened to the drivers. Dan was very unlucky because he hit the wall at a staggering speed. Dan hit the wall by his side with his head. That's what sadly killed him. The solution, in my opinion, is increase downforce or decrease top speed for Indy cars.

Yes but the idea is for even the most unlucky man to still be able to survive. You can't leave luck in the equation if you're trying to make your sport truly safe. And some of the guys who do come away alive are actually very lucky, not the other way around. Take these two:

 

[Grand Prix]

That's the thing, isn't it? Nurb is a very dangerous exception to most road courses. It's a relic of the Roaring Twenties when nobody gave a crap about driver safety and actually promoted dangerous high speed tracks. Alongside Nurb were tracks like Reims, Pescara, old Spa, old Monza and several others, all extraordinarily dangerous. And in comedic fashion, Reims was made even faster in the 50s by shortening the layout.

Most of these tracks, like Reims, are no longer being used. They couldn't stand the test of time and safety standards. Tracks like Monza and Spa, on the other hand, were essentially neutered with chicanes and massive runoffs to allow their continued existence.

The point is, road racing track layouts have attempted to change over time to meet increasing safety demands. How much have oval circuits changed since their invention?

 

[CSLACR]

So using a quantitative fatality value is the only valid measurement of 'danger'? We've already addressed the folly of this.

Think twice.

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

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.

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

It's no secret that the Nordschleife is one of the most dangerous tracks in the world, which is why the drivers in F1 refused to drive there, resulting in it being taken off the calender, but the lack of safety at that track and the deaths there is not an excuse or justification for lack of safety and/or deaths in another motorsport. Modern F1 is very safety concious after Imola 1994, and thankfully no drivers have died since. I think Indy needs to take a serious look at what they are doing for the safety of their drivers.

I agree with all of this. And they've already built something that's to be implemented next season, which is 2 steps ahead of F1 back in 94, who had begun to believe deaths were a thing of the past.

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.

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

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.

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.