Gentlemen start your....

[!!WALDO!!]

whining.

NHMS vice president and general manager Jerry Gappens is telling the New Hampshire Union Leader that there is a '60-70' percent chance that the one-mile oval will score a 2009 IRL date.

[call_me_andrew]

So why would we be upset over that?

[!!WALDO!!]

So why would we be upset over that?


It isn't a Road Course!

[!!WALDO!!]

Just got this:

Robin Miller: Eddie Gossage said in my latest commentary on SPEEDTV.com that he thought there was a good chance of Indy cars returning to Loudon. It was an excellent track for them (remember Nigel, Emmo and PT in 1993?) and CART drew 50,000 in 1995 before the owners went with the IRL.

Robin Miller: Well, Toronto is definitely coming back in 2009 (along with Long Beach) and Loudon is in the picture. Maybe Cleveland or Houston or Mexico City but Tony George wants to open the season in February or early March and that’s where the oval in Mexico might come in. It’s in a city of four million and it’s a flat 1.5-mile oval.


FYI

[Wilf]

It isn't a Road Course!


OH NOOOOO! That means it must be one of those nasty ovals. But wait, I think the drivers have to get off the throttle. That should lessen the blow!!

[!!WALDO!!]

OH NOOOOO! That means it must be one of those nasty ovals. But wait, I think the drivers have to get off the throttle. That should lessen the blow!!


It isn't my opinion or feeling, it is of those that think we should dump the ovals in favor of more road courses.

[Chaparral66]

Those of us here in New England would love to see the Indy Cars back at Loudon. But promote, promote, promote!

[!!WALDO!!]

Those of us here in New England would love to see the Indy Cars back at Loudon. But promote, promote, promote!

Serious question, I hear PROMOTE all the time. I PROMOTED RACES, tell me what your idea would be to get people off their butts and to drive to the track.
How much money would you spend and where?

Would you use the dreaded SMI tie in to other events at the track?

I would think that with furtile minds we could come up with something.

[electron]

if they dump a cookie cutter for this 1 miler I say bring it on!
racing can be pretty good on a track of such a layout and we had great races there.

I akso say, promote this stuff and you will see people coming.
The promotion wave for the all new series is what must be kept alive and rolling high until the season starts if IndyCar wants to grow. With the addition of places from history like this it can be done.

[xtlm]

sarcasm/

forbid an oval, oh no
call the troopers, an oval....oh no please no

stop the torture, oh no
/endsarcasm

[Civic]

Bring back Fontana!

[BobGarage]

New Hampshire great news.

I'm all for ovals on the schedule. As long as they aren't 1.5 mile high banked ovals whicfh produce boring racing where the driver never lifts off the throttle.

Perfect examples this season... I thought Homestead, Kansas and Texas were all fairly boring races. Milwaukee on the other hand was an amazing race.

New Hampshire is great news. Now buy back Nazareth from ISC and add it and Phoenix to the schedule plus Fontana and Michigan 500 mile races in place of some of the 1.5 milers and I'll be a happy man.

[Dr. Krogshöj]

Waldo, I can assure you most "transition fans" would like to see NHIS on the schedule. We like short ovals.

[BobGarage]

Robin Miller: Tony George wants to open the season in February or early March and that’s where the oval in Mexico might come in. It’s in a city of four million and it’s a flat 1.5-mile oval.


I like the sound of that. not been mutilated by nascar into a high banked oval.

in Guadalajara

http://www.etracksonline.co.uk/NAmerica/Mexico/jalisco_map.gif

[beachbum]

if they dump a cookie cutter for this 1 miler I say bring it on!
racing can be pretty good on a track of such a layout and we had great races there.

I akso say, promote this stuff and you will see people coming.
The promotion wave for the all new series is what must be kept alive and rolling high until the season starts if IndyCar wants to grow. With the addition of places from history like this it can be done.Bingo, you have just identified the real complain about some ovals. I think even oval fans get tired of the cookie cutter 1.5 mile D shaped "ovals". Ovals like Indy (actually a rectangle), Richmond, Iowa, and Milwaukee are all different enough to be unique challenges. Loudon is short enough to keep the speeds in check and different to be interesting. For marketing reasons, they need a race in New England.

[millencolin]

cant complain with a short oval... love 'em!!

[Chris R]

New Hampshire great news.

I'm all for ovals on the schedule. As long as they aren't 1.5 mile high banked ovals whicfh produce boring racing where the driver never lifts off the throttle.

Perfect examples this season... I thought Homestead, Kansas and Texas were all fairly boring races. Milwaukee on the other hand was an amazing race.

New Hampshire is great news. Now buy back Nazareth from ISC and add it and Phoenix to the schedule plus Fontana and Michigan 500 mile races in place of some of the 1.5 milers and I'll be a happy man.

bingo! nothing wrong with a good oval - but the "NASCAR" ovals are terrible....

[garyshell]

Well, so much for the whining, Waldo. You must be really disappointed.

Gary

[bblocker68]

I'm a CC guy and I don't hate ovals at all. I must admit that the 1.5 mile tracks get stale after awhile. Also, having 6 oval races in a row does not hold my interest by the end of the stint. I like short tracks very much. Hell, I dig Richmond and it's a Nascar track.

Bring on NHIS. I'm all for it.

As for promotion, I leave that to the promoters. I'm a tech, so dealing with the public is not high on my list :)

[BenRoethig]

I like the sound of that. not been mutilated by nascar into a high banked oval.

in Guadalajara

http://www.etracksonline.co.uk/NAmerica/Mexico/jalisco_map.gif

Looks like a mini Pocono.

[Breeze]

I like the sound of that. not been mutilated by nascar into a high banked oval.

in Guadalajara

http://www.etracksonline.co.uk/NAmerica/Mexico/jalisco_map.gif
THAT'S NO OVAL!! THAT'S A TRIANGLE!!

and now, for something completely different...............

On topic, I'd happily trade Homestead or other similar circuits for NH.

[F1boat]

Ovals rule :)

[!!WALDO!!]

Well, so much for the whining, Waldo. You must be really disappointed.

Gary

No, it is all over on other threads.

As far as 1.5 mile tracks, they are here to stay. i miles have always been an exibition of traffic driving.

[ykiki]

I was a CART/CC fan because I liked the variety of the schedule: road, street AND ovals. No two road circuits are alike, and no two street circuits are alike. The same should hold true with ovals to some extent. NH is very different from Indy, Texas, Michigan, Phoenix. I think I'm with the others that don't want to see many "cookie cutters". Hence, Milwaukee was a breath of fresh air.

Sorry Waldo, no whining here. I say "bring on New Hampshire"!!!

(Then again, it provided me with a memorable Nigel Mansel quote - "If you want to buy a Hoover, get a Dust Devil". Don't know why, but I always find it funny...)

[!!WALDO!!]

I was a CART/CC fan because I liked the variety of the schedule: road, street AND ovals. No two road circuits are alike, and no two street circuits are alike. The same should hold true with ovals to some extent. NH is very different from Indy, Texas, Michigan, Phoenix. I think I'm with the others that don't want to see many "cookie cutters". Hence, Milwaukee was a breath of fresh air.

Sorry Waldo, no whining here. I say "bring on New Hampshire"!!!

(Then again, it provided me with a memorable Nigel Mansel quote - "If you want to buy a Hoover, get a Dust Devil". Don't know why, but I always find it funny...)

Ovals are different too. Texas is different than Chicago/KansasCity and Kentucky, Chicago and Kansas City or different. Chicago's backstretch is curved and Kansas is straight. Kentucky is a cross between Texas and Kansas City.
Different set ups are required and a little difference in the driving also.

[coogmaster]

New Hampshire great news.



Perfect examples this season... I thought Homestead, Kansas and Texas were all fairly boring races. Milwaukee on the other hand was an amazing race.

Homestead and Kansas I can understand, but Texas?? That was a great race, wheel to wheel action all the way through, Marco the (dumb) daredevil trying 3 wide on the high side all race long, plently of action...

Of all the 1.5 milers, I think Texas is the only one that still produces that hallmark wheel to wheel racing that we saw in the past. Keep that track, its been a part of the IndyCars since '97.

[coogmaster]

(Then again, it provided me with a memorable Nigel Mansel quote - "If you want to buy a Hoover, get a Dust Devil". Don't know why, but I always find it funny...)

I have a funny little Nigel Mansell story. A friend of mine works for 1070 in Indianapolis and told me this:

Back in '94 at the Speedway during the month of may, a reporter (might have been Ed Sorenson) went up to Mansell, who was sitting in his golf cart, and asked him if he could have a quick minute for an interview.

Mansell replied dryly: "For what is this for?"

The reporter said it was for Channel 6 news. Next thing he knew, Mansell turned his head forward, stood on the gas and zipped away in the golf cart, never looking back.

I always thought that quote was hilarious, just imagine it being said with a smug British accent: "For what is this for?"

[ChicagocrewIRL]

And for what it's worth.... the high banked ovals used to provide the best side by side three wide racing with the closest finishes (see Texas and Chicagoland) that made IndyCar exciting outside of Indianapolis. The League needs a new aero package to bring this type of racing back.

[turbo-engine]

The 2009 schedule seems to become a real cracker.

[coogmaster]

And for what it's worth.... the high banked ovals used to provide the best side by side three wide racing with the closest finishes (see Texas and Chicagoland) that made IndyCar exciting outside of Indianapolis. The League needs a new aero package to bring this type of racing back.

I agree. Think about this, though: Tony Renna and Kenny Brack. That is why the formula was slightly tuned down - to prevent those kinds of crashes. And when Honda became the sole engine supplier in '06, it was easier for them to tune the power down and make the racing slightly more single file, albeit safer.

But I think those years (2000-2003) provided some of the best racing on the 1.5 mile tracks. That formula was perfect for those tracks. Now, the current formula is better suited for short ovals like Iowa, Richmond, and the road courses, and of course Indy. Anywhere where its more finesse than power, this formula shines.

[!!WALDO!!]

Think about this, though: Tony Renna and Kenny Brack.

Tony Renna died at Indy. :confused:

Kenny Brack and Davey Hamilton survived fatal accidents. I believe both are still around and one just drove the 500 again.

Texas is the most dangerous of the 1.50 and they had to make changes due to a transition problem from corner to stretch.

[coogmaster]

Tony Renna died at Indy. :confused:

Kenny Brack and Davey Hamilton survived fatal accidents. I believe both are still around and one just drove the 500 again.

Texas is the most dangerous of the 1.50 and they had to make changes due to a transition problem from corner to stretch.

All true; However, my point was that the racing in those days was such that if 2 drivers touched, and in Renna's case got sideways at an odd angle or in the grass, their chances of getting airborne were much higher. The fact that the racing was much closer in those days, especially at the 1.5's like Texas, only added to this likelihood. The overall speed was higher back then, too. I would love to see more of the close wheel to wheel racing like in the 2000-2003 eras, but I think at this point we need to focus on a formula that enhances driver ability instead of just stab-it and steer-it racing.

By the way, the changes at Texas Waldo is referring to took place back in 1997, when the track was first built. Also, they had surface problems at the track in 2000 and had to change suspension around in the IndyCars so that they could withstand the rough pavement. Most of the big accidents at Texas and other 1.5's have come from the cars running close together.

Another quick thing: I think after Renna's crash at Indy, the engineers learned an important lesson: 230 mph is the limit for Indycars. Everytime the speeds have reached this peak, there has been a fatal accident (Marcelo at Indy in '92, Brayton '96, and of course Renna in '03). So I think that this is also a major reason why the speeds have been 'tuned down'. They don't want the cars to get above 220 at the 1.5 ovals, and they certainly don't want 230 at Indy anymore.

In my opinion, we need bigger, production-based engines with less downforce in the cars. Something like the IRL formula from '97-'99 would be cool to see, I think. Turbos would only start another engine production arms race, in which the rich would get richer and the poor would get poorer.

[champcarray]

As I wrote in the earlier NHIS thread, I'd love to see them racing here in New England. I love low-banked ovals where drivers have to lift off the throttle and/or shift. My fingers are crossed!

[!!WALDO!!]

(Marcelo at Indy in '92, Brayton '96, and of course Renna in '03).

Marcelo's last lap was 192. 40MPH below Guerrero's speed. The speeds were lowered in 1993 but by how?

(NO REFERENCE, IMPLIED OR REAL TO ANY POSTER, LIVING, DEAD, or NOT YET BORN.)

[coogmaster]

Marcelo's last lap was 192. 40MPH below Guerrero's speed. The speeds were lowered in 1993 but by how?

(NO REFERENCE, IMPLIED OR REAL TO ANY POSTER, LIVING, DEAD, or NOT YET BORN.)

Track reconfiguration and removal of aerodynamic pieces from under the cars. What about Nelson Piquet, Hiro Matsu****a, Jeff Andretti, Jimmy Vasser, and all of the other drivers who went to the hospital in 1992? What about Alessandro Zampedri whos feet were destroyed in '96?

Every time they hit 230, someone dies or gets seriously hurt. 230 is the limit for Indy. I bet they'll never go back, or if they do, it won't be for quite a few years.

[!!WALDO!!]

Track reconfiguration and removal of aerodynamic pieces from under the cars. What about Nelson Piquet, Hiro Matsu****a, Jeff Andretti, Jimmy Vasser, and all of the other drivers who went to the hospital in 1992?

Nelson because of lack of track time and others on race day racing on a 37 degree day and not getting a heat into the track thus grip.

Track was reconfigured. USAC and CART had a rules package from 1990-1995 so there was no change in aerodynamic pieces. Just a more square corner thus slower straightaway times so they could make the corner.


What about Alessandro Zampedri whos feet were destroyed in '96?

As Foyt said, it does not matter how fast you hit the wall, it is how. Alessandro last lap was 224.5.


Every time they hit 230, someone dies or gets seriously hurt. 230 is the limit for Indy. I bet they'll never go back, or if they do, it won't be for quite a few years.

It has always been a problem in history. In 1962, Norm Hall was practicing Bill Forbes' Laydown roadster and he lost in Turn 1 and backed it into the wall. He did $500.00 worth of damage and Norm Hall lost the rest of the season due to head injuries.
Everyone will tell you, speed is not the issue. Gordon Smiley's accident was the most gruesome in Speedway History and Gordon's fate was sealed immediately. His crash occurred at 182.
Ten years earlier, Jim Malloy lost his Eagle in the same place while running 191 in high winds. He lived a few days and today he may have survived due to new treatments.
Again the hits were different and had Smiley hit like Malloy, Smiley would have driven more 500s and if Malloy had hit like Smiley, Jim's fate would have been sealed.

I have seen too many crashes that do not look bad and are, and trerrible accidents that work out in the end.

(NO REFERENCE, IMPLIED OR REAL TO ANY POSTER, LIVING, DEAD, or NOT YET BORN.)

[coogmaster]

Waldo, throw all the facts that you want at me, but I still strongly believe that there is a dichotomy between 230+ speeds and safety. Why do you think the formula has been tweaked in the last 5 years to keep the cars under this speed? If safety wasn't an issue, woudn't they WANT to see these speeds again and the possibility of a new track record?

[!!WALDO!!]

Waldo, throw all the facts that you want at me, but I still strongly believe that there is a dichotomy between 230+ speeds and safety. Why do you think the formula has been tweaked in the last 5 years to keep the cars under this speed? If safety wasn't an issue, woudn't they WANT to see these speeds again and the possibility of a new track record?


Big reason, ECONOMICS.

Higher the speed the more cost. You may believe differently but I do know some of the IRL Safety people and possed the same questions 5 years ago and the first was ECONOMICS.


(NO REFERENCE, IMPLIED OR REAL TO ANY POSTER, LIVING, DEAD, or NOT YET BORN.)

[!!WALDO!!]

It's rare that I agree with Waldo, but pure speed has little to do with the severity of the accident or the potential injuries. Other factors have much more to do with it. See Paul Tracy's hit on the wall at a street course, kept him out for a while. He was going relatively slow at the time. Or Dale E's fatal when about 90% of similar hits he could have walked away from. How about Dario's two upside down trips, all were below your 230 figure. Much, much more involved than pure speed.

As Foyt said, it does not matter how fast you hit the wall, it is how.

I would hope he would know. He said that in the mid-80's after the Smiley crash.

(NO REFERENCE, IMPLIED OR REAL TO ANY POSTER, LIVING, DEAD, or NOT YET BORN.)

[coogmaster]

There's no doubt that a fatal crash can occur no matter what the speed, that's been proven for over a century.

And I agree that even if your traveling at 100mph, given the nature of your crash and how you hit, you could tenichally still get killed, even in today's cars, even though the chances of that happening have been reduced dramatically over the years.

But what I'm talking about is the lesson people have learnt the past century, and how they are using that to plan for the future of the sport. The main concern of engineers and designers these days is safety, with speed coming second, unlike years ago, when it was the reverse. I remember when going to Pole Day at the Speedway was like watching NASA send a man to the moon. It was exciting because there was a new track record every year, and because it was dangerous and people usually busted their asses.

But now, the speeds have settled around 225, and I feel like they are there to stay for a while for a number of reasons, economics sure, but a bigger reason is safety. Tony Renna's crash was a big eye opener, people realized that these cars are running much closer together these days, 230 is just right at the threshold of safety and control. Drivers now are alot younger as well, with less experience running at those speeds.

You had 5 major drivers who were killed in the 1990s in CART & IRL (sorry, I'm probably missing some): Jovy Marcelo, Scott Brayton, Jeff Krosnoff, Greg Moore, Gonzo Rodriguez, and a ton more who were seriously injured (Piquet, Foyt, Jeff Andretti, Ect ect) compare that with this decade so far: Tony Renna and Paul Dana. The slower speeds, along with safety innovation, have obviously reduced that statistic.

The point is that the first thing an engineer would do after a fatal crash is look for some way to slow the car. It may not be the main cause of all fatal crashes, but it certainly contributes a great deal to most. There is a reason that, in the big picture, this decade in racing has been alot safer than the last. AND whoever is in charge of designing the new cars in 2011 would probably like to continue that trend for the next decade, which is why I believe speeds most likely won't exceed 230 mph in all likelihood for a long time.

[!!WALDO!!]

There's no doubt that a fatal crash can occur no matter what the speed, that's been proven for over a century.

And I agree that even if your traveling at 100mph, given the nature of your crash and how you hit, you could tenichally still get killed, even in today's cars, even though the chances of that happening have been reduced dramatically over the years.

But what I'm talking about is the lesson people have learnt the past century, and how they are using that to plan for the future of the sport. The main concern of engineers and designers these days is safety, with speed coming second, unlike years ago, when it was the reverse. I remember when going to Pole Day at the Speedway was like watching NASA send a man to the moon. It was exciting because there was a new track record every year, and because it was dangerous and people usually busted their asses.

But now, the speeds have settled around 225, and I feel like they are there to stay for a while for a number of reasons, economics sure, but a bigger reason is safety. Tony Renna's crash was a big eye opener, people realized that these cars are running much closer together these days, 230 is just right at the threshold of safety and control. Drivers now are alot younger as well, with less experience running at those speeds.

You had 5 major drivers who were killed in the 1990s in CART & IRL (sorry, I'm probably missing some): Jovy Marcelo, Scott Brayton, Jeff Krosnoff, Greg Moore, Gonzo Rodriguez, and a ton more who were seriously injured (Piquet, Foyt, Jeff Andretti, Ect ect) compare that with this decade so far: Tony Renna and Paul Dana. The slower speeds, along with safety innovation, have obviously reduced that statistic.

The point is that the first thing an engineer would do after a fatal crash is look for some way to slow the car. It may not be the main cause of all fatal crashes, but it certainly contributes a great deal to most. There is a reason that, in the big picture, this decade in racing has been alot safer than the last. AND whoever is in charge of designing the new cars in 2011 would probably like to continue that trend for the next decade, which is why I believe speeds most likely won't exceed 230 mph in all likelihood for a long time.


Nice post and well thought out. Cannot comment beyond that except with safety innovations comes an increase in costs, with increase speed, comes the same.

I remember Team McLaren going through 26 engines during the month of May in 1973, just for the Revson car. A lot of money spent to go fast. There was 2 drivers killed and one seriously injured along with many fans. Rules changed immediately and it wasn't until Gordon Smiley until a driver lost his life.

We cannot simplify what happen to a speed or design or tire width. It does show that over the years we must improve what we do. NASCAR slowed down because the Insurance Company told them to after Bobby Allison attempted to sit in the Talledega Grand Stands with his car. Game, set, match and no arguement from NASCAR, only the competitors. Amazing I hear people complaining about restrictor plate racing but not one was following the sport in 1987 when this occurred.

Want to see a bad accident, a fatal that wasn't? Dan Drinian at Springfield in a Midget made Gordon Smiley's look tame.
Still gives me the shivers thinking about it at 115MPH.

(NO REFERENCE, IMPLIED OR REAL TO ANY POSTER, LIVING, DEAD, or NOT YET BORN.)

[chuck34]

Just had to weigh in on this one. Waldo and Coog are probably both right, but I have to believe that Coog is "more right" about the safety.

Injuries are a function of Kenetic Energy. As the Kenetic Energy goes up, the potential for injury also goes up. And Kenetic Energy goes up at the square of the speed.

KE=1/2*m*v^2

[!!WALDO!!]

Just had to weigh in on this one. Waldo and Coog are probably both right, but I have to believe that Coog is "more right" about the safety.

Injuries are a function of Kenetic Energy. As the Kenetic Energy goes up, the potential for injury also goes up. And Kenetic Energy goes up at the square of the speed.

KE=1/2*m*v^2

In theory, but explain Tracy at 45MPH.

(NO REFERENCE, IMPLIED OR REAL TO ANY POSTER, LIVING, DEAD, or NOT YET BORN.)

[coogmaster]

One thing I like about your posts Waldo are your references to the historical standpoint of it all. Everything that goes on today can be related to how it was back then. Indy used to be such an endeavor for drivers and teams - like you said, blowing X amount of engines or whatever during the month - and they used to practice the ENTIRE month, from the 1st to raceday - I just feel like the commitment level, the risk, and the reward was so much more back then. Drivers realized that what they were doing was like going to the moon in the 60s or stagecoaching to the West in the 1800s - it was a giant risk with huge payoffs. Today, with all of the technological innovation, commercial opportunities and endorsements and just other things to do these days, I think drivers have lost that unique feeling somewhat.

Basically, high risk means high thrills and high payoffs. I wonder how this new era of IndyCar racing will try to capture that unique aspect once again.

A good start I think would be our new schedule we talked about in that other post.. bring back the dirt cars!

[!!WALDO!!]

One thing I like about your posts Waldo are your references to the historical standpoint of it all. Everything that goes on today can be related to how it was back then. Indy used to be such an endeavor for drivers and teams - like you said, blowing X amount of engines or whatever during the month - and they used to practice the ENTIRE month, from the 1st to raceday - I just feel like the commitment level, the risk, and the reward was so much more back then. Drivers realized that what they were doing was like going to the moon in the 60s or stagecoaching to the West in the 1800s - it was a giant risk with huge payoffs. Today, with all of the technological innovation, commercial opportunities and endorsements and just other things to do these days, I think drivers have lost that unique feeling somewhat.

Basically, high risk means high thrills and high payoffs. I wonder how this new era of IndyCar racing will try to capture that unique aspect once again.

A good start I think would be our new schedule we talked about in that other post.. bring back the dirt cars!

Thank you very much, but I must go out and stand in traffic to relax.... :D

And Think....

(NO REFERENCE, IMPLIED OR REAL TO ANY POSTER, LIVING, DEAD, or NOT YET BORN.)

[!!WALDO!!]

Now I am calm. :p :

Chicago Sun-Times has some info on a possible "attitude problem" existing in NASCAR after the Sunday morning meeting now known as "shut up and drive".

(NO REFERENCE, IMPLIED OR REAL TO ANY POSTER, LIVING, DEAD, or NOT YET BORN.)

[chuck34]

[quote="!!WALDO!!"]In theory, but explain Tracy at 45MPH.

Anything can happen at any speed. All I am saying is the potential for mor serious injury becomes higher at higher speeds

[!!WALDO!!]

In theory, but explain Tracy at 45MPH.

Anything can happen at any speed. All I am saying is the potential for mor serious injury becomes higher at higher speeds

Sure but accidents occur at any speed. I saw a fatal crash in a Street Stock race, when it occurs it occurs. That accident was at less the 60MPH.


(NO REFERENCE, IMPLIED OR REAL TO ANY POSTER, LIVING, DEAD, or NOT YET BORN.)

[chuck34]

Ok Waldo. Now you are just arguing to argue. I said the POTENTIAL is higher at higher speeds. No one has ever said that lower speeds were absolutely safe. The point is that if you take a crash that happens at 210mph, keep all the factors exaclty the same (I know that isn't possible, but we are talking theory here), except increase the speed to 230. At 210 the guy might walk away, but at 230 he breaks his leg or worse.

All I am saying is that higher speeds have higher energy, and higher energy means higher risk. You can't argue that. It is physics.

Now if you want to argue that racing should have more risk to attract more fans, that may be a an avenue that can be persued.

[!!WALDO!!]

Ok Waldo. Now you are just arguing to argue. I said the POTENTIAL is higher at higher speeds. No one has ever said that lower speeds were absolutely safe. The point is that if you take a crash that happens at 210mph, keep all the factors exaclty the same (I know that isn't possible, but we are talking theory here), except increase the speed to 230. At 210 the guy might walk away, but at 230 he breaks his leg or worse.

All I am saying is that higher speeds have higher energy, and higher energy means higher risk. You can't argue that. It is physics.

Now if you want to argue that racing should have more risk to attract more fans, that may be a an avenue that can be persued.

I taught flying in the 1970's. I know physics. Airplanes crashing at 100MPH on landing are as bad as 186MPH.

Again POTENTIAL, does not mean much. Cars operated safely at IMS at 120 and at nearly 240, there were fatals at both and all points in between.

For thoses doubting it: Airline Transport Pilot SMEL: #2105937. Certified Flight Instructor, Airplane SMEL, Instrument. Certified Ground Instructor #2202651. Accident Prevention Consular 1973-Current.

In an earlier life I was very involved in the safety end of things as what you are talking about is in theory. In theory a certain driver should not have died but real physics does not follow theories.
Too bad though.

(NO REFERENCE, IMPLIED OR REAL TO ANY POSTER, LIVING, DEAD, or NOT YET BORN.)

[chuck34]

Ok Waldo, I get it now, you are the god of everything. Let's go dig up Sir Isaac and tell him he was wrong.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that the energy involved in a crash at 120 mph is the same as a crash at 240?

Yes fatal crashes can and have occured at many different speeds. I have seen a guy break his leg just walking down the street. Who cares? What the racing body (ie, IRL) must do is limit the POTENTIAL for serious injuries. Where does this POTENTIAL come from? The bigest area for POTENTIAL injury mitigation is by loweing the energy involved in a crash. Now again folks, what has the biggest inpact (pun intended) on energy? ... That's right our old friend velocity, or speed. There are two other things you can do to lower energy. One is to lower the mass, but that has the probably side-effect of raising speeds. The other is to try and "shed" this energy by use of crumple zones, breakaway suspensions, etc. but we are about at the limit of that. So the only quick easy way to limit speed/energy/potential for injury is to lower speeds.

The results from your airplane crash example may have been simmilar, but I guaruntee you that the energies/forces were not at all the same.

I'm not sure what you don't understand about this.

And by the way, no one is impressed by your creditials. I have my own as does everyone else here, I'm sure. But do not question me on physics

[Bob Riebe]

Throw/shoot a ten pound rock at a lake at twenty miles per hour; throw/shoot a ten pound rock at a lake at two hundred miles per hour, both at a ten-degree angle.
Which do you think will register the greatest pound per foot loading at initial impact?

[!!WALDO!!]

Ok Waldo, I get it now, you are the god of everything. Let's go dig up Sir Isaac and tell him he was wrong.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that the energy involved in a crash at 120 mph is the same as a crash at 240?

Yes fatal crashes can and have occured at many different speeds. I have seen a guy break his leg just walking down the street. Who cares? What the racing body (ie, IRL) must do is limit the POTENTIAL for serious injuries. Where does this POTENTIAL come from? The bigest area for POTENTIAL injury mitigation is by loweing the energy involved in a crash. Now again folks, what has the biggest inpact (pun intended) on energy? ... That's right our old friend velocity, or speed. There are two other things you can do to lower energy. One is to lower the mass, but that has the probably side-effect of raising speeds. The other is to try and "shed" this energy by use of crumple zones, breakaway suspensions, etc. but we are about at the limit of that. So the only quick easy way to limit speed/energy/potential for injury is to lower speeds.

The results from your airplane crash example may have been simmilar, but I guaruntee you that the energies/forces were not at all the same.

I'm not sure what you don't understand about this.

And by the way, no one is impressed by your creditials. I have my own as does everyone else here, I'm sure. But do not question me on physics


Thank you. You are right.

This was about New Hampshire and got derailed by the danger of 1.5 mile tracks.

I made a mistake of starting this thread. I am sorry for that. Hopefully that won't happen again..

(NO REFERENCE, IMPLIED OR REAL TO ANY POSTER, LIVING, DEAD, or NOT YET BORN.)

[FIAT1]

50.000 fans before they went irl and now is what.O jeah, irl with Danica. Give me Road America and stop this boring oval pedal to the floor bs.

[!!WALDO!!]

The other night Bruton Smith was on WindTunnel in studio. Dave asked him some tough questions about things and it was what he said and not said that was interesting.

Bristol: BS, "We sell that track out for the August race."
Las Vegas: BS, "We do need a second date there due the growth in that market."
NHIS: BS, "We are looking at spending some real money there."
Kentucky: BS, "We had over 73,000 for a Nationwide race, I bet we had more than Michigan for the Cup race."

My scenario is two dates get moved. NASCAR says OK to that but not to additional dates. So you have four dates with two tracks and two tracks needing a date.

This just may open up an IRL date at NHIS as early as 2010.

(NO REFERENCE, IMPLIED OR REAL TO ANY POSTER, LIVING, DEAD, or NOT YET BORN.)

[champcarray]

Here's hoping. NHIS, like Milwaukee, is a great Indy car race track. Plenty fast with tons of action throughout the pack. It represents the best kind of oval racing: the kind that requires skills, smarts, and lifting off the throttle.

[Chaparral66]

Here's hoping. NHIS, like Milwaukee, is a great Indy car race track. Plenty fast with tons of action throughout the pack. It represents the best kind of oval racing: the kind that requires skills, smarts, and lifting off the throttle.

Remember, that's NHMS. We don't to tick Bruton off before the deal gets done :)