I'm done with IndyCar Ovals

[IndyCarFan]

For better or worse NASCAR owns the ovals. I don't really enjoy watching IndyCars running wheel to wheel because the stakes are too high. If a car ever got airborne and cleared the fence and then went into the crowd like at Le Mans in 1955 autoracing would be done. Finished. Over. Everyone complains there aren't enough ovals on the schedule but other than the Indy 500 NO ONE GOES to the damn races so they must not be that important. I grew up watching IndyCars on the ovals but not PACK RACING! It's a time bomb just waiting to quit ticking.

[call_me_andrew]

No one is going over a fence. See my signature for more.

[IndyCarFan]

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. No one thought a car could fly into the stands in Le Mans until 1955 either. I was at Indy when Mario was higher than the fence during his "joy ride" in one of Michael's cars. He didn't go into the stands but he was higher than the fence. Now we're just talking about angles, not heights. History is repleat with examples of "that could never happen".

[Andrewmcm]

Your link is interesting. The mathematics behind your analysis may be sound, but does not take into account the physical difference between the machines. The devil is normally in the detail and a superficial analysis such as yours does not represent the actual differences in the nature of accidents involving Indycars and NASCARs.

Indycars don't race as Talladega and Daytona (and Pocono) for a reason. There are huge incidents at Texas, Las Vegas and other high banked ovals in Indycars for a reason too.

[nigelred5]

Did you see how high Power's car was at one point. It underscores that no matter how hideous that new rear bumper is, it would have prevented a large amount of what happened today. After seeing today's accident, All of the of math and physics hasn't changed what I know...They don't need to clear the fence for a horrible accident. Thankfully todays crowd was pushed high into the stands ant that accident happened opposite the stands. They didn't clear the fence in Atlanta either. I've said for years what most of the drivers have said, they have no business on the 1.5 mile nascar tracks. Hopefully if anything positive comes out of today, they won't ever run on these style tracks again.

[wedge]

Pack racing would make me cringe and yet at the same time it was thrilling to watching drivers race wheel to wheel. To go this far and not suffer the big one (as far as I recall) is a great testament to the drivers.

I'm not sure how Indycar will deal with this in future - perhaps breaking up the pack but I'm sure damn sure as hell that Indycar would not be Indycar without oval racing.

[Anubis]

Did you see how high Power's car was at one point. It underscores that no matter how hideous that new rear bumper is, it would have prevented a large amount of what happened today. After seeing today's accident, All of the of math and physics hasn't changed what I know...They don't need to clear the fence for a horrible accident.

I don't know who it was, but there was a car at the back that got a ludicrous distance off the ground. I like oval racing, but I do not want to see single seaters flying through the air like that. To have four cars taking flight in one accident is insane. Any number of them could've cleared the wall or landed on another car. Power's onboard is terrifying enough without knowing there were other cars taking flight all around him. I'm a huge fan of the series and of ovals, but this feels like the bullet they've been dodging for several years now, and a rethink is needed. Leave the pack racing to the stock cars, I just don't think it has a place in open wheel racing at those sort of speeds.

[speedsville]

For better or worse NASCAR owns the ovals. I don't really enjoy watching IndyCars running wheel to wheel because the stakes are too high. If a car ever got airborne and cleared the fence and then went into the crowd like at Le Mans in 1955 autoracing would be done. Finished. Over. Everyone complains there aren't enough ovals on the schedule but other than the Indy 500 NO ONE GOES to the damn races so they must not be that important. I grew up watching IndyCars on the ovals but not PACK RACING! It's a time bomb just waiting to quit ticking.


You might want to recalculate some of that now :dozey:

[nigelred5]

I don't know who it was, but there was a car at the back that got a ludicrous distance off the ground. I like oval racing, but I do not want to see single seaters flying through the air like that. To have four cars taking flight in one accident is insane. Any number of them could've cleared the wall or landed on another car. Power's onboard is terrifying enough without knowing there were other cars taking flight all around him. I'm a huge fan of the series and of ovals, but this feels like the bullet they've been dodging for several years now, and a rethink is needed. Leave the pack racing to the stock cars, I just don't think it has a place in open wheel racing at those sort of speeds.

That was Power, coming off the apron right after he collided with Bourdais rear wheel I think it was(the boy scouts car). There were so many cars in the race I hadn't even had a chance to see who was driving what colors. He had to be over 20 feet in the air.
http://www.autoweek.com/storyimage/CW/20111016/IRL/111019900/AR/wheldon-crash.jpg&maxw=383

http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2011/10/17/1226168/262817-indycar-crash.jpg

http://media.idahostatesman.com/smedia/2011/10/16/18/59/42-VYiRl.St.55.jpg

I agree, I don't ever want to see an accident like that again.

[Hoop-98]

Tragic, but read this and tell me where IndyCar ovals rank..

List of racing drivers who died in racing crashes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_racing_drivers_who_died_in_racing_crashes)

better yet, don't take a week of respect, then tell me that we should never do tire testing on road courses,,,,

[Mark]

Have to say I agree. High speed ovals are not the place for single seater racing.

[Andrewmcm]

What's that saying, lies, damned lies and statistics? Pack racing Indycar-style such as what we see on the high-banked ovals seems to be a fairly recent 'invention' (say since 1996) and numerous times we have seen cars get into catch fencing. Numerous times we have been lucky enough to see cars hit the fence rear-first, or at least with areas where the driver was offered some element of protection. (Briscoe, Brack, Conway spring to mind.)

Good fortune ran out yesterday. The design of the old generation of Indycar and the aero package which dictated the racing on high-banked ovals placed the drivers in situations where incidents like yesterday, whilst not the fault of anyone in particular, were more likely to occur. Let's hope that style of racing will be consigned to the history books with the new car.

I'm not saying that accidents don't occur on other types of race track. My point is that the style of racing we see on high-banked ovals is conducive to the type of accidents we saw yesterday. If safety in motor sport is about minimising risk then there are some fairly straightforward measures that can be taken to reduce the risk on these types of tracks.

[Chris R]

Dave Despian made some very good points at the end of Wind Tunnel last night. The man was a racer and as such accepted the potential consequences of his chosen career.

One of the things I took from his comments was that it would not necessarily be respectful to the man and his acceptance of the risks to use his passing as a battle cry to abandon all forms of the racing he truly excelled at. The is no question that action needs to be taken, but there is also no question that action is already underway (the new car addresses some of these issues already and Dan was a huge part of that process).

Hoop bring up a valid point as well, lets give it some time, take a moment for the shock to wear off, time for respectful mourning before we call for things that may not be necessary quite yet (even if we come to believe they are later).... There is going to be more fallout for this accident than any of us can imagine right now - but that can (and must) be assessed at a future date.......

[F1boat]

What's that saying, lies, damned lies and statistics? Pack racing Indycar-style such as what we see on the high-banked ovals seems to be a fairly recent 'invention' (say since 1996) and numerous times we have seen cars get into catch fencing. Numerous times we have been lucky enough to see cars hit the fence rear-first, or at least with areas where the driver was offered some element of protection. (Briscoe, Brack, Conway spring to mind.)

Good fortune ran out yesterday. The design of the old generation of Indycar and the aero package which dictated the racing on high-banked ovals placed the drivers in situations where incidents like yesterday, whilst not the fault of anyone in particular, were more likely to occur. Let's hope that style of racing will be consigned to the history books with the new car.

I'm not saying that accidents don't occur on other types of race track. My point is that the style of racing we see on high-banked ovals is conducive to the type of accidents we saw yesterday. If safety in motor sport is about minimising risk then there are some fairly straightforward measures that can be taken to reduce the risk on these types of tracks.
+1

[BDunnell]

I couldn't agree more with the posts from both Andrewmcm and Chris R. Very well put in both cases.

[FIAT1]

Evryeone, from the fans ,media , self apointed experts and especially drivers from other form of racing ,should take a step back of running their mouth,because no one is immune to this in buisiness of motorsports. We are all angry, sad and in diesbelieve. This tragedy is unfortunate part of the sport that we love and is hard to understand, because everyone is still in shock. People die in car accidents and we continue to drive and built safer and faster cars. Pointing fingers at this time does not serve anyone and there is plenty of blame to go around. I'm sure that this tragedy like any other before will serve as a lesson to change things for the better.

[Doon]

Evryeone, from the fans ,media , self apointed experts and especially drivers from other form of racing ,should take a step back of running their mouth,because no one is immune to this in buisiness of motorsports. We are all angry, sad and in diesbelieve. This tragedy is unfortunate part of the sport that we love and is hard to understand, because everyone is still in shock. People die in car accidents and we continue to drive and built safer and faster cars. Pointing fingers at this time does not serve anyone and there is plenty of blame to go around. I'm sure that this tragedy like any other before will serve as a lesson to change things for the better.

I don't usually post on the Indycar forum, and only follow the series through the UK rag (Motorsport News) but as poor Dan was British we've been hearing plenty about the accident. There is no doubt that it's a tragedy, but I agree with your post. I follow WRC mainly, and compete at a low level. In our sport accidents happen regularly and everyone knows the risks, and if they didn't love doing it they simply wouldn't take part. I must say though Indycar, looks far more dangerous than F1, the solid walls are the big thing for me, yes in Rallying we have trees lining stages.....but we're not doing 230mph and there are no other cars around us. Anyway, RIP Dan, thoughts are with your family and friends. It's always sad to lose someone, but at least it was something he loved doing.

[heliocastroneves#3]

I don't think IndyCar should quit racing on ovals. Then NASCAR also have to do that. IndyCar lost 3 drivers in this century, while NASCAR already lost 8. It's sad that Danny boy lost his life, VERY sad. But that's not a reason for IndyCar to quit on ovals. Then the Indianapolis 500 should be banned too.


Las Vegas since it's update in 2006 is NOT suitable anymore for IndyCars, why don't they organize a race on ovals like Michigan, Kansas or Chicagoland? Those ovals are way better for IndyCar.. At least for it's safety.

[Chris R]

Indycar needs to look at which ovals it does - pretty much most of the NASCAR era ovals (all of the "cookie cutter" tracks) are no good for the speed Indycars go (one could argue that real racecars do not need such high banked tracks :p : )

Michigan and California should be good with the Hanford. Pocono could be good if it was repaved and updated. Indy is fine, maybe with more power and less aero. I am not sure how many other current ovals are acceptable - but really 3 or 4 big tracks would be fine - promote the heck out of the races as a rare commodity and really work the packages for those tracks to give a good safe product.

The truth of the matter is that Indycar CAN produce a far better show on an oval than NASCAR - as long as it is not trying to BE NASCAR and as long as it competes on tracks that are compatible with the cars and with cars that are compatible with the track.

NASCAR can absolutely produce more tight racing (by virtue of more races, more cars, fenders and slower speeds) - but they cannot produce the amazing speed and agility of an Indycar and they cannot (this one is debatable) showcase the skills and bravery of the driver as well as Indycar.

[gm99]

I don't think IndyCar should quit racing on ovals. Then NASCAR also have to do that. IndyCar lost 3 drivers in this century, while NASCAR already lost 8. It's sad that Danny boy lost his life, VERY sad. But that's not a reason for IndyCar to quit on ovals. Then the Indianapolis 500 should be banned too.

If you absolutely have to do a body count like that, you also have to consider that the eight NASCAR fatalities you mentioned include deaths in NASCAR Mexico and the Modified series. When you include those series in addition to the three major NASCAR series, you're talking about roughly 200 races per year, or about the same number that Indycar has done over the past eleven years. So the death to race - ratio is still far higher in IndyCars than in NASCAR, with a fatal accident occuring in around 1,5 % of the races, or roughly every 67th race, which is quite a high percentage, IMO.

[downtowndeco]

The thing everyone seems to be looking at and wanting to blame is the style of racing. Fast, close, wheel to wheel action on ovals. That being taken into consideration there has been just the one unfortunate fatality, Dan's this weekend, that could possibly be attributed to that style of racing. The other IRL fatalities were either in practice or qualifying.

That being said, one is still one too many. I'd be OK w/drastically rethinking the model once the dust settles. Less cars at some tracks? A Hanford type device? Some tracks eliminated entirely? I think everything should be on the table for discussion.

Sometimes I hate this f'n sport. I'm glad we're into the off season.


If you absolutely have to do a body count like that, you also have to consider that the eight NASCAR fatalities you mentioned include deaths in NASCAR Mexico and the Modified series. When you include those series in addition to the three major NASCAR series, you're talking about roughly 200 races per year, or about the same number that Indycar has done over the past eleven years. So the death to race - ratio is still far higher in IndyCars than in NASCAR, with a fatal accident occuring in around 1,5 % of the races, or roughly every 67th race, which is quite a high percentage, IMO.

[Phoenixent]

Indycar needs to look at which ovals it does - pretty much most of the NASCAR era ovals (all of the "cookie cutter" tracks) are no good for the speed Indycars go (one could argue that real racecars do not need such high banked tracks :p : )

Michigan and California should be good with the Hanford. Pocono could be good if it was repaved and updated. Indy is fine, maybe with more power and less aero. I am not sure how many other current ovals are acceptable - but really 3 or 4 big tracks would be fine - promote the heck out of the races as a rare commodity and really work the packages for those tracks to give a good safe product.

The truth of the matter is that Indycar CAN produce a far better show on an oval than NASCAR - as long as it is not trying to BE NASCAR and as long as it competes on tracks that are compatible with the cars and with cars that are compatible with the track.

NASCAR can absolutely produce more tight racing (by virtue of more races, more cars, fenders and slower speeds) - but they cannot produce the amazing speed and agility of an Indycar and they cannot (this one is debatable) showcase the skills and bravery of the driver as well as Indycar.

I agree with Chris on re-evaluating the types of ovals Indycar races on. IMO they should only run on two types of ovals and those are short oval of one mile or less and Super Seedways of 2 miles or more like Indy, Michigan, Fontana and Pocono. Pocono would make a good track to evaulate with some test as the are rebuilding the track with new fencing, more SAFER barrier and new asphalt configured to the original track as designed by Indycar driver Roger Ward the driver has to slow down entering the corners like they use to do at Indy before the track was reconfigured and cars tweaked for 10 years. The speeds and show can be controlled with a Hanford type device or Electronic Engine Management with the new turbo engines coming on line.

We just need to mourn for a great driver and than talk about these issues at a later date like Chip Ganassi said.

[Anubis]

The thing everyone seems to be looking at and wanting to blame is the style of racing. Fast, close, wheel to wheel action on ovals. That being taken into consideration there has been just the one unfortunate fatality, Dan's this weekend, that could possibly be attributed to that style of racing. The other IRL fatalities were either in practice or qualifying.

There has been one fatality, but that makes this accident sound isolated, which it isn't, only the magnitude and severity of outcome differs. We've seen cars in the air and in the catch fencing quite a bit down the years and I think we've been lucky not to have several fatalities before now. Briscoe, Brack, Conway and Pablo Perez in Lights spring immediately to mind. I just don't think this crash and Wheldon's death can be so easily dismissed as unfortunate. It's been coming, in all honesty.

[Chris R]

There has been one fatality, but that makes this accident sound isolated, which it isn't, only the magnitude and severity of outcome differs. We've seen cars in the air and in the catch fencing quite a bit down the years and I think we've been lucky not to have several fatalities before now. Briscoe, Brack, Conway and Pablo Perez in Lights spring immediately to mind. I just don't think this crash and Wheldon's death can be so easily dismissed as unfortunate. It's been coming, in all honesty.
I have to agree - there have been many accidents that could have ended with similar results. We have been lucky until now. I also want to note that the "excitement" I have felt watching these IRL style oval races almost since day one has been more of an anxious feeling - like I hope nothing bad happens. I have never found that type of "excitement" to be much fun....

[maxmach]

There's a reason that Hemingway said this.......
“There are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and mountaineering; all the rest are merely games.”

Now lets remember Danny Boy, and others, and let the fruitless finger pointing begin at another time..........

[IndyCarFan]

To clarify my original post, I am not against oval racing. I AM against pack racing.

For better or worse NASCAR owns the ovals. I don't really enjoy watching IndyCars running wheel to wheel because the stakes are too high. If a car ever got airborne and cleared the fence and then went into the crowd like at Le Mans in 1955 autoracing would be done. Finished. Over. Everyone complains there aren't enough ovals on the schedule but other than the Indy 500 NO ONE GOES to the damn races so they must not be that important. I grew up watching IndyCars on the ovals but not PACK RACING! It's a time bomb just waiting to quit ticking.

[zako85]

I am almost done with IndyCar street and road courses. I had watched maybe half of road course races this year and none of those races stood out in a good way IMO. Let's just hope the new car is going to help change that.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I am almost done with IndyCar street and road courses. I had watched maybe half of road course races this year and none of those races stood out in a good way IMO. Let's just hope the new car is going to help change that.

Well then I guess you wont be watching them at all, because it is clear after this weekend, they have a lot to sort out for their oval package. I think most of the street and road races vary on their level of entertainment based on the number of incidents being allowed. IN other wards, if Brian Barnhart enforces what he thinks is fair, it leads to more stupid crashes and bad calls but it makes every race a crap shoot on who can win....

No, there is a lot more wrong with this series right now than people think, but the new car and variations of aero packages and engines should fix some of them. Cleaning up the rules and getting rid of BB would be yet another..and maybe staying away from high banked cookie cutters until a rules package that makes sense would help too. Then again...at this point, god only knows how management will overreact or underreact. I do know a man is dead because someone as far back as 95 though Indycars could run on high banked cookie cutter 1.5's. Ask Kenny Brack how well that worked out for him.....because you cant ask Dan Wheldon....

[heliocastroneves#3]

One driver killed is indeed, one too much... They have to improve safety, but there is a limit. F1 is also improving their safety, but they're doing it so much that they're destroying the whole sport. I hope IndyCar won't overreact with safety improvements like F1 does.

The reason that this accident actually ended in a disaster, was especially because of the large starting field. C'mon, on Indy they're only allowed to start with 33 cars and at a much smaller 1,5 mile oval 34? C'mon, that's crazy!

[Chris R]

I think that the notion of F1 being so safe is a little over-stated. If Indycars always raced under the same circumstances as F1 (road courses with significantly lower speeds than ovals) they would have a pretty similar record. I doubt anything about F1 construction would have help Dan any in this accident.....

Similarly, this notion of a canopy - a dome of plexiglass or lexan over the drivers head - while it may be an interesting notion and could improve safety in some ways, I doubt it would have made much difference in this accident or Greg Moore's accident and in some situations it would be far worse (fire, slow rollover)... IMHO, it would be a safety wash....

The real issues lay in the relationship between the car and the track - this is where F1 (and to a certain extent NASCAR) are ahead of Indycars. They are more tightly controlling the CIRCUMSTANCES of racing (track layout, barriers, speed, consistent rules on driver ethos) -

I am not saying there is not a need to make the cars safer - just noting that the majority of racing safety is beyond the car yet much of the discussion has focused on the cars......

[Rex Monaco]

I think that as the officiating body of the series and as the promoter of this race, Indycar has alot of questions to answer for this tragedy. I seem to recall reading that Indycar wanted to run a temporary road course in the parking lot at Las Vegas instead of the oval. What was the leagues reason for not wanting to run the oval? Did the league feel that this oval posed a risk to safety? If they did have reservations about the safety of this track, then why would they attempt to lure more drivers to this track with the 5 million dollar purse? Certainly more cars on the track was one of the main contributing factors to this horrific crash.

The question right now should not be about the future of oval racing. The safety of the cars and the tracks can (and should) be improved. The question that many of us have wanted answered for a long time is does this league have the capablity to rebuild Indycar while being a good steward of American 'Indy Car' racing? The jury might still be out on this question, but this tradgedy does not help the defense.

[DexDexter]

I think that the notion of F1 being so safe is a little over-stated. If Indycars always raced under the same circumstances as F1 (road courses with significantly lower speeds than ovals) they would have a pretty similar record. I doubt anything about F1 construction would have help Dan any in this accident.....

Similarly, this notion of a canopy - a dome of plexiglass or lexan over the drivers head - while it may be an interesting notion and could improve safety in some ways, I doubt it would have made much difference in this accident or Greg Moore's accident and in some situations it would be far worse (fire, slow rollover)... IMHO, it would be a safety wash....

The real issues lay in the relationship between the car and the track - this is where F1 (and to a certain extent NASCAR) are ahead of Indycars. They are more tightly controlling the CIRCUMSTANCES of racing (track layout, barriers, speed, consistent rules on driver ethos) -

I am not saying there is not a need to make the cars safer - just noting that the majority of racing safety is beyond the car yet much of the discussion has focused on the cars......


The difference between Indycar and F1 is of course the fact that in F1 they build new cars every year and if there is a safety concern, they can address it right away while in Indycars they raced the same chassis for what 8-9 years. I'm not an expert on Indycar and what they've done to the chassis safety in those years but the safety of F1, or passenger cars for that matter, has developed quite a lot in those 8 years.

[Doon]

F1 is safer for many reasons, but in this case, F1 tracks are safer in respect of run offs and the tyre walls taking the majority of the impact. Soild concrete walls are never good, even in MC the barriers are impact tested.

[downtowndeco]

Yes and no. IMO if Dan's car would have been any manufacturer 2011 F1 & it crashed in exactly the same way the result would have been the same. Also, while it's true you can upgrade & make improvements with each and every new model, there is also the chance that with new designs come new, unforseen problems.

IMO is "safer" mainly due to the style of racing & the circuits. The style is , in general, more likely to be follow the leader rather than side by side for more than a corner or two. The cars are running slower more often than Indycar. Yes they hit high speed once or twice on many of the circuits. But I don't think they reach 225+ at many & they certainly don't do it for more than a few seconds.

The tracks are safer in F1, no doubt. If the worst that can happen (usually) is you get stuck in the sand, well, of course you're going to be better off than hitting a concrete wall. Apples vs oranges etc.

As I said before, everything should be on the table to be looked at.





The difference between Indycar and F1 is of course the fact that in F1 they build new cars every year and if there is a safety concern, they can address it right away while in Indycars they raced the same chassis for what 8-9 years. I'm not an expert on Indycar and what they've done to the chassis safety in those years but the safety of F1, or passenger cars for that matter, has developed quite a lot in those 8 years.

[Mark]

Monza is the fastest track in F1 and cars can reach 215mph at the end of the pit straight. But as you say if they do get there it's only for a few seconds before they hit the brakes and that's certainly not a cornering speed.

[Lousada]

F1 is safer for many reasons, but in this case, F1 tracks are safer in respect of run offs and the tyre walls taking the majority of the impact. Soild concrete walls are never good, even in MC the barriers are impact tested.

They are not solid concrete walls! Please inform yourself a little!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAFER_barrier

[Lousada]

The difference between Indycar and F1 is of course the fact that in F1 they build new cars every year and if there is a safety concern, they can address it right away while in Indycars they raced the same chassis for what 8-9 years. I'm not an expert on Indycar and what they've done to the chassis safety in those years but the safety of F1, or passenger cars for that matter, has developed quite a lot in those 8 years.

They drove the same shape of chassis for 8 years, but that doesn't mean they drove the exact same cars those 8 years. Most of the teams renewed their chassis every year, so Dallara kept updating them to the latest standards. You just have to look at all the crashes where drivers walked away the last years to understand how safe these cars are. The Indycars are probably the safest cars in the world but Indycarracing is also the most extreme in the world, so it balances out.

[chuck34]

The reason that this accident actually ended in a disaster, was especially because of the large starting field. C'mon, on Indy they're only allowed to start with 33 cars and at a much smaller 1,5 mile oval 34? C'mon, that's crazy!

I've seen this all over. Why are 34 cars crazy? Why is that too many? This exact same thing could have easily happened with 20 cars on track. All you need is two guys near the front to get together, and it doesn't matter how many people are behind them, many will be collected. I just don't understand why so many people are saying it was the number of cars on track that was the problem.

Also why are so many calling for the end of all oval racing? Sure I can see a case being made to get away from the no-lift type racing we currently have at 1.5 mile tracks, in fact I support that whole-heartidly. But why should we get away from ovals altogether? That is what makes this series unique. Get rid of ovals, and we might as well change the name to F2 or something, and quite pretending that we are something other than what we are.

[Lousada]

I've seen this all over. Why are 34 cars crazy? Why is that too many? This exact same thing could have easily happened with 20 cars on track. All you need is two guys near the front to get together, and it doesn't matter how many people are behind them, many will be collected. I just don't understand why so many people are saying it was the number of cars on track that was the problem.


To take out 15 cars in a 20 car field the accident needs to start at place 1-5. To take out 15 cars in a 34 car field the accidents needs to start at place 1-20. So the chance of a major accident is increased 4-fold.
Also with so many more cars it is essential that you sit as far in the front as possible. Because in the front you have less chance to be collected in an accident and you have a much better position at the pitstops. And also the pack might break, so you'll need to be as far in front as possible. This encourages hard driving and taking big risks.

[anthonyvop]

Yes and no. IMO if Dan's car would have been any manufacturer 2011 F1 & it crashed in exactly the same way the result would have been the same. .


That is true. For me the issue was the Current Dallara's propensity to become airborne. While all formula cars have the risk of wheel to wheel contact causing lift off the Dallara would take off on ovals anytime the nose was lifted.
Remember Mario's incident at Indy in 2003 when he hit some foam on the track?

[chuck34]

To take out 15 cars in a 20 car field the accident needs to start at place 1-5. To take out 15 cars in a 34 car field the accidents needs to start at place 1-20. So the chance of a major accident is increased 4-fold.

I might be able to agree with some of this, but having a 20 car field does not eliminate the risk. Nor does it reduce it by the 4-fold you claim. Statistics just don't really measure this type of random happening.


Also with so many more cars it is essential that you sit as far in the front as possible. Because in the front you have less chance to be collected in an accident and you have a much better position at the pitstops. And also the pack might break, so you'll need to be as far in front as possible. This encourages hard driving and taking big risks.

This is true of a 34 car field, a 50 car field, or a 15 car field. Splits happen in racing, accidents happen in racing, it is always advisable to be up front. Hell it's advisable to be up front on road/street racing, I'd even say more so there than on ovals where it is "easier" to get around people. So people take big risks to get to the front, maybe even bigger risks to get to the front of a road/street race. This argument just doesn't hold water in my book.

[downtowndeco]

I don't buy that it had any more propensity to get airborne than any other OW car. It just had more chances to get airborne because it was spending much more time at high speed than any other OW series. An F1 car on a typical F1 circuit might spend 5 % of the time at speeds above 200 mph. An Indycar may spend 80 % of it's time at above 200mph (on ovals, where all of these incidents happened). More time at speed, more chances to get airborne because let's face it, any winged vehicle is more likely to take off at 200 mph than it is at 100 mph.


That is true. For me the issue was the Current Dallara's propensity to become airborne. While all formula cars have the risk of wheel to wheel contact causing lift off the Dallara would take off on ovals anytime the nose was lifted.
Remember Mario's incident at Indy in 2003 when he hit some foam on the track?

[Chris R]

I think the Dallara (and later IRL cars in general) took flight much easier than previous AOWR cars that traveled at similar speeds on similar tracks. I do not recall Reynards, Lolas, Marchs, Penskes etc. taking flight as often or from (more or less) the front end nearly as often as this last generation of IRL car. The G-Force/Panoz did it too. I suspect ovals cars need ground effects to help curb such issues.... At the very least the leading edge of the tub (nose) needs to be razor close to the ground or in some other way serve to "move" debris from getting under the structural tub and therefore creating a launching ramp.....

i am not saying past cars were better or anything like that - simply that these cars seemed to take of from the front end more easily than past cars at least from the ground effects era....

[downtowndeco]

You might be right but still the IRL spent more time at speed than any other OW series in history. Compared to CART or CCWS the IRL raced at a higher speed more often than either of those two. And as far as I remember, an IRL car never "took flight" on a road or street course. It's the speed that plays a huge part in this. Look at NASCAR. Huge hulks of rectangular metal yet still they have problems with cars taking flight at Talladega & Daytona.

I think the jury & still out & this could really only be answered by having engineers studying the data.




I think the Dallara (and later IRL cars in general) took flight much easier than previous AOWR cars that traveled at similar speeds on similar tracks. I do not recall Reynards, Lolas, Marchs, Penskes etc. taking flight as often or from (more or less) the front end nearly as often as this last generation of IRL car. The G-Force/Panoz did it too. I suspect ovals cars need ground effects to help curb such issues.... At the very least the leading edge of the tub (nose) needs to be razor close to the ground or in some other way serve to "move" debris from getting under the structural tub and therefore creating a launching ramp.....

i am not saying past cars were better or anything like that - simply that these cars seemed to take of from the front end more easily than past cars at least from the ground effects era....

[Chris R]

You might be right but still the IRL spent more time at speed than any other OW series in history. Compared to CART or CCWS the IRL raced at a higher speed more often than either of those two. And as far as I remember, an IRL car never "took flight" on a road or street course. It's the speed that plays a huge part in this. Look at NASCAR. Huge hulks of rectangular metal yet still they have problems with cars taking flight at Talladega & Daytona.

I think the jury & still out & this could really only be answered by having engineers studying the data.

You are right about the engineers studying data....

As far as "at speed" miles - I am not so sure the IRL had more than CART. CART had lots of 500 mile races in its history (for the purposes of this discussion all Indy 500's from 1979 to 1995 were "CART" races in terms of car specifications) on big ovals and did more than a little oval racing in its day - I would guess the IRL had more ovals miles - but I would not be so sure..... CCWS - no question had far fewer ovals miles -but then again it was pretty much the same technical package as CART except for the last year..... The IRL really went about re-inventing the Indycar and I think the basis of that formula was lower costs and relatively big motors. The final iteration of the formula was the current car and I am not sure that formula lent itself to the speeds it eventually developed whereas the fundamental CART formula was designed in the "let's break records" days and as such the final designs were all about speeds that were in excess of what they actually did (those cars were slowed down once they realized they were too fast).... I am not intending criticism of the IRL concept - just noting the foundation from which all future designs and thoughts evolved were decidedly lower tech and lower speed yet ultimately the formula was pushed well beyond what I think was intended in 1997 and I think some of the original engineering concepts of the IRL formula that were still in the last car led to some of these issues (again, not blaming or assessing "fault" - other than perhaps holding on to the old design a little too long once the speed and technology had really overridden the original design parameters of the car/concept......)..

[numanoid]

And also the pack might break, so you'll need to be as far in front as possible. This encourages hard driving and taking big risks.

As opposed to what? This whole sport is about hard driving and taking risks! The drivers who are perceived as not running hard or taking risk (Danica) are continually mocked right here on this forum. Read a few pages back or search "Phoning it in", "High Downforce", "Lifting", or just plain old "Danica". You can put 2 drivers on the track and they will both drive hard and take big risks...to win. It's what they are trained to do, and it's what they want to do.

[nigelred5]

F1 is safer for many reasons, but in this case, F1 tracks are safer in respect of run offs and the tyre walls taking the majority of the impact. Soild concrete walls are never good, even in MC the barriers are impact tested.

And yet two of the newest tracks in F1, singapore and Korea, have concrete walls and catch fencing at the edge of the racing surface. No different than Indycars. it's the massive runoff areas at F1 tracks, which many fans are actually critical of that are probably the biggest factor.

[00steven]

I think oval racing is pretty safe, EXCEPT for NASCAR's 1.5 mile pieces of garbage. If Indycar sticks to Indycar and not NASCAR designed tracks than it is reasonably safe. Texas, LV, Chicago, Charlotte, etc. shouldn't be raced ever again with Indycars. Bring back Phoenix, NH, Michigan, tracks that were designed with openwheels in mind.

[00steven]

I think the Dallara (and later IRL cars in general) took flight much easier than previous AOWR cars that traveled at similar speeds on similar tracks. I do not recall Reynards, Lolas, Marchs, Penskes etc. taking flight as often or from (more or less) the front end nearly as often as this last generation of IRL car. The G-Force/Panoz did it too. I suspect ovals cars need ground effects to help curb such issues.... At the very least the leading edge of the tub (nose) needs to be razor close to the ground or in some other way serve to "move" debris from getting under the structural tub and therefore creating a launching ramp.....

i am not saying past cars were better or anything like that - simply that these cars seemed to take of from the front end more easily than past cars at least from the ground effects era....

It's obvious Dallara missed it big. When a small peice of debris causes a car to flip wildly, you know there are problems.

[HereIam]

suitable ovals, less cars, less speed... and we might not see this happening again...

[Lousada]

I might be able to agree with some of this, but having a 20 car field does not eliminate the risk. Nor does it reduce it by the 4-fold you claim. Statistics just don't really measure this type of random happening.
I never said it would eliminate the risk. I said adding another 14 drivers increases the risk of a big accident. You can actually calculate the chance of a random incident happening, although I didn't.


This is true of a 34 car field, a 50 car field, or a 15 car field. Splits happen in racing, accidents happen in racing, it is always advisable to be up front. Hell it's advisable to be up front on road/street racing, I'd even say more so there than on ovals where it is "easier" to get around people. So people take big risks to get to the front, maybe even bigger risks to get to the front of a road/street race. This argument just doesn't hold water in my book.

This does not apply to every sort of racing, only in specracing. In normal racing you can get an advantage by a better car or better driving. In foot to the floor ovalpackracing however it's essential to get up front in the right draft. Which was the point I was trying to make, that with this kind of flatoutspecovalpackracing the IRL does, road position is a lot more important than in regular racing.
And yes, in essence it also applies to road and street races with these Indycars. It seems you already forgot some of those horrid street races Indycar put on this year. Remember the crash fest in Toronto? The difference was that there they were doing 50mph instead of 220mph. It's very hard to pass in these cars without using force or a lot of bluff.

[Chris R]

You know, I think the skills required for pack racing are being really underplayed here. the TRACK may be easy to drive - but I think it requires a lot of skill to do well in the pack racing... They always said Earnhardt could "see" the air at the big, fast tracks - don't tell me that is not a skill....

If anything, I think track position is less important at the banked tracks than elsewhere because you CAN pass if you are skillful and take risks.... How far up in the pack was Dan from his starting position when he crashed??

I am not saying we should keep this type of racing going - but I am reading a few too many posts (from all of us, not any one person) that are dismissing the skills required to do the kind of racing that we saw at Las Vegas. "flat out" RACING still requires tremendous skill. Perhaps any one of us could QUALIFY as car on those tracks(me, only if I drop 100 or so) but I doubt many of us could RACE on them.....

Anyway, pack racing in Indycars is not a great idea - nor is it in NASCAR for that matter - it is also only a matter of time before someone else is killed at a NASCAR plate track and realistically only a matter of time before one of their cars goes through the fence (it has happened before, they have taken admirable steps to prevent it - but it can happen again with potentially more dire consequences).... Heck, even the pack at the start of an F1 race is a bit of a circus - how about that car that came from the back, spinning across the grass and took out the middle of the pack a few races back?? The only reason it was not complete carnage is that they were going fairly slow - even then, cars were in the air (I think) and if one of them landed on someone's helmet it was a potential disaster and as much luck as design that nobody was hurt....

The accident that killed Henry Surtees, "slow" cars with tethered wheels -a completely random and accident against which significant technology and forethought had been employed - any one of 1,000 different parameters could have been marginally different and it would have been an non-event..... but instead it was a tragedy...

My overall point is that racing is dangerous and those who live in glass houses should not cast stones because all series' are far more vulnerable to death than they may care to admit...... no question that Indycar needs to look at the situation very carefully and change their program... but the fans of other series' should be very careful climbing on their high horses because they could be facing the same questions in very short order.....

[FIAT1]

Anyway, pack racing in Indycars is not a great idea - nor is it in NASCAR for that matter - it is also only a matter of time before someone else is killed at a NASCAR plate track and realistically only a matter of time before one of their cars goes through the fence (it has happened before, they have taken admirable steps to prevent it - but it can happen again with potentially more dire consequences).... Heck, even the pack at the start of an F1 race is a bit of a circus - how about that car that came from the back, spinning across the grass and took outMy overall point is that racing is dangerous and those who live in glass houses should not cast stones because all series' are far more vulnerable to death than they may care to admit...... no question that Indycar needs to look at the situation very carefully and change their program... but the fans of other series' should be very careful climbing on their high horses because they could be facing the same questions in very short order.....

like your post , but this portion I agree very much and I would say drivers of other series should shut up also.

[chuck34]

This does not apply to every sort of racing, only in specracing. In normal racing you can get an advantage by a better car or better driving. In foot to the floor ovalpackracing however it's essential to get up front in the right draft. Which was the point I was trying to make, that with this kind of flatoutspecovalpackracing the IRL does, road position is a lot more important than in regular racing.

Perhaps you should tell Sebastian Vettel that track position is not critical in "normal" racing. Have you ever seen the chops he puts on the field at the start of an F1 race? Honestly like I said before, and Chris has said as well, track position is LESS important in pack racing, especially on lap 11 as it is "easier" to pass than a road course. Your argument just doesn't hold water on this point. That being said, I agree with your basic premise that pack racing isn't necessarily "good".


And yes, in essence it also applies to road and street races with these Indycars. It seems you already forgot some of those horrid street races Indycar put on this year. Remember the crash fest in Toronto? The difference was that there they were doing 50mph instead of 220mph. It's very hard to pass in these cars without using force or a lot of bluff.

Then you go and imediately contridict yourself. Strange? And yes the speeds are lower, but things still happen. You bring up Toronto, so go back and look at the '96 race and see how "safe" lower speeds are.

No. Lower speeds are not the whole answer. Getting rid of pack racing is not thw whole answer. Driver canopies are not the whole answer. Parts of these may be the answer, but they can also have unintended consequences. Remember there are lots of people out there before this happened that were yelling for more speed, closer competition, etc to boost the interest/viewers. So if you impliment all of these "fixes" you may just kill the series by saving it. Everyone needs to take a step back, really look at what happened, analyse the root causes, and fix them if possible. Take a breath, calm down, and fix this right. But please keep in mind that racing will never be 100% safe. Unfortunatly Dan will not be the last racer to die. I know that sounds cold and people don't want to hear it, but it is the truth.

[DexDexter]

They drove the same shape of chassis for 8 years, but that doesn't mean they drove the exact same cars those 8 years. Most of the teams renewed their chassis every year, so Dallara kept updating them to the latest standards. You just have to look at all the crashes where drivers walked away the last years to understand how safe these cars are. The Indycars are probably the safest cars in the world but Indycarracing is also the most extreme in the world, so it balances out.

I just don't know. BTW how do you guys see Dallara, I mean they couldn't even build a proper F1 car and their engineering expertise seemed (with HRT) to be on a much lower lever than what other F1 teams had. Are they competent enough to do the safest possible car?

[Marg]

Hello, just registered here. A lot of things to say, but I will not write about it... One question though - I analyzed videos of this terrible accident, and still cannot determine who`s the driver which`s car flew in the air - in page 1 of this thread, in second photograph, right in the middle - it`s white, with a little bit of red in the rear. He (she?) hit the duo of the cars, one of which was Schekter`s #57 green white car (bTW what was that another car alongside schekter`s?). It seems that this car hit the barrier being at the time close to Wheldon (as a little bit later Power was), and later it went further ahead and after it had stopped, was shown upside down. And that was not Townsend Bell`s car (that`s in violet yellow colours), although he was shown near it! I think that was the same car near wheldons`s car, which was also covered with yellow. material.

[Dr. Krogshöj]

Hello, just registered here. A lot of things to say, but I will not write about it... One question though - I analyzed videos of this terrible accident, and still cannot determine who`s the driver which`s car flew in the air - in page 1 of this thread, in second photograph, right in the middle - it`s white, with a little bit of red in the rear. He (she?) hit the duo of the cars, one of which was Schekter`s #57 green white car (bTW what was that another car alongside schekter`s?). It seems that this car hit the barrier being at the time close to Wheldon (as a little bit later Power was), and later it went further ahead and after it had stopped, was shown upside down. And that was not Townsend Bell`s car (that`s in violet yellow colours), although he was shown near it! I think that was the same car near wheldons`s car, which was also covered with yellow. material.

That's the #30 car of Pippa Mann.

[ShiftingGears]

I just don't know. BTW how do you guys see Dallara, I mean they couldn't even build a proper F1 car and their engineering expertise seemed (with HRT) to be on a much lower lever than what other F1 teams had. Are they competent enough to do the safest possible car?

I don't believe Dallara should be in question here because it is IndyCar's responsibility to assign crash tests and safety regulations to which Dallara has to comply. If their car passes the tests, then they are competent. It is IndyCar's responsibility to ensure that the cars are safe enough through regulations that they create.

[anthonyvop]

I don't believe Dallara should be in question here because it is IndyCar's responsibility to assign crash tests and safety regulations to which Dallara has to comply. If their car passes the tests, then they are competent. It is IndyCar's responsibility to ensure that the cars are safe enough through regulations that they create.

You are right.

Funny how whenever anything bad or negative happens with IndyCar the trail always seem to end up in Indianapolis

[anthonyvop]

Bobby Unser blames formula for Wheldon accident
Bob Gates
October 21, 2011

After the death of two-time Indianapolis 500 winner, Dan Wheldon in the horrendous crash at Las Vegas Motor Speedway, many pundits have weighed in on the tragedy, blaming the track, the crowded field, and the speeds.

Three-time Indianapolis 500 winner, the iconic Bobby Unser, never one to shy away from voicing his opinion, insists that what happened at Las Vegas was not simply the result of one issue, but a set of circumstances that have accumulated over the years in Indy car racing.

“It was the perfect storm,” explains Unser. “And, IndyCar racing has been very fortunate. It could've happened at anytime over the past six years, and they're very fortunate that more drivers weren't hurt in that mess at Las Vegas.

“No, it's not the track, not the speeds,” continues Unser, who helped lead IndyCar into the stratosphere of speed with his development, and engineering efforts on the Gurney Eagles of the early 1970s, “it's the cars.

“For a lot of reasons, IndyCar racing has become a spec series. Every car is exactly the same, and everything is spelled out in the rules. Even down to the size of the mirrors. It's ridiculous.

“It's created this pack racing, which is not racing at all. And, no one likes it; the drivers, the fans. At first pack racing was exciting for the fans, but then they realized that there was no passing. It was just guys running side by side. They don't want this pack racing, now. IndyCar tried to emulate NASCAR, but NASCAR fans don't want pack racing either.

“I had a sit down with Randy Bernard, and told him, ‘Listen to what the fans want. That's what we have to do. It doesn't matter what you want, or Bobby Unser wants. It's what the fans want.'

“These cars have so little horsepower and so much downforce,” continues Unser animatedly, “that you can take a hitchhiker off the street, and put him in a car, and if he'll just do what he's told, he can drive that car wide open. He couldn't race, because he doesn't have the experience, but he could drive flat out. That's not right.

“They need to go to work, and up the horsepower, and get rid of a lot of the aerodynamic rules. The rule book needs to be half the size it is now. Make the guys have to back off, and the cars will separate. The racing becomes safer, and better, because a guy can actually pass.

“Believe me, it doesn't take a genius to see this, but the leadership needs to make it happen.”

http://www.racer.com/bobby-unser-blames-formula-for-wheldon-accident/article/214963/?DCMP=EMC-RACER_DAILY

[Mark in Oshawa]

Bobby Unser blames formula for Wheldon accident
Bob Gates
October 21, 2011

After the death of two-time Indianapolis 500 winner, Dan Wheldon in the horrendous crash at Las Vegas Motor Speedway, many pundits have weighed in on the tragedy, blaming the track, the crowded field, and the speeds.

Three-time Indianapolis 500 winner, the iconic Bobby Unser, never one to shy away from voicing his opinion, insists that what happened at Las Vegas was not simply the result of one issue, but a set of circumstances that have accumulated over the years in Indy car racing.

“It was the perfect storm,” explains Unser. “And, IndyCar racing has been very fortunate. It could've happened at anytime over the past six years, and they're very fortunate that more drivers weren't hurt in that mess at Las Vegas.

“No, it's not the track, not the speeds,” continues Unser, who helped lead IndyCar into the stratosphere of speed with his development, and engineering efforts on the Gurney Eagles of the early 1970s, “it's the cars.

“For a lot of reasons, IndyCar racing has become a spec series. Every car is exactly the same, and everything is spelled out in the rules. Even down to the size of the mirrors. It's ridiculous.

“It's created this pack racing, which is not racing at all. And, no one likes it; the drivers, the fans. At first pack racing was exciting for the fans, but then they realized that there was no passing. It was just guys running side by side. They don't want this pack racing, now. IndyCar tried to emulate NASCAR, but NASCAR fans don't want pack racing either.

“I had a sit down with Randy Bernard, and told him, ‘Listen to what the fans want. That's what we have to do. It doesn't matter what you want, or Bobby Unser wants. It's what the fans want.'

“These cars have so little horsepower and so much downforce,” continues Unser animatedly, “that you can take a hitchhiker off the street, and put him in a car, and if he'll just do what he's told, he can drive that car wide open. He couldn't race, because he doesn't have the experience, but he could drive flat out. That's not right.

“They need to go to work, and up the horsepower, and get rid of a lot of the aerodynamic rules. The rule book needs to be half the size it is now. Make the guys have to back off, and the cars will separate. The racing becomes safer, and better, because a guy can actually pass.

“Believe me, it doesn't take a genius to see this, but the leadership needs to make it happen.”

http://www.racer.com/bobby-unser-blames-formula-for-wheldon-accident/article/214963/?DCMP=EMC-RACER_DAILY

Which is what 2012 is all supposed to be, but the owners have fought the ICOCIC committee and Randy tooth and nail....because they are scared of the reality they will be responsible for their own results, and not being able to have what everyone else has...

[anthonyvop]

Which is what 2012 is all supposed to be, but the owners have fought the ICOCIC committee and Randy tooth and nail....because they are scared of the reality they will be responsible for their own results, and not being able to have what everyone else has...

2012 IndyCar season will still be a Spec racer series. Whoever has the better engine between Honda or Chevy(I am not holding my breath with Lotus) will dominate. If they are equal then the teams will just copy Penske or Ganassi's setup.
By the end of the season the better funded teams will dominate. If the new car still maintains the flat-out all the way around, Pack racing on Cookie cutter ovals then you may see one of the lesser teams win. Ex. Ed Carpenter.

[garyshell]

“They need to go to work, and up the horsepower, and get rid of a lot of the aerodynamic rules. The rule book needs to be half the size it is now. Make the guys have to back off, and the cars will separate. The racing becomes safer, and better, because a guy can actually pass.

Gee where have we heard this before. Many of us here have been saying the very same thing for several years. Where has Bobby been? At least he is saying it now.

Gary

[Chris R]

Bobby always has something interesting to say. Despite him being a bit of a know it all, he is often right as he is this time.... Interesting how ll of the old timers who survived the era have pretty much the same thing to say(more horsepower, less aero)...... hmmmm, I wonder if maybe someone should listen to them??????

[garyshell]

Bobby always has something interesting to say. Despite him being a bit of a know it all, he is often right as he is this time.... Interesting how ll of the old timers who survived the era have pretty much the same thing to say(more horsepower, less aero)...... hmmmm, I wonder if maybe someone should listen to them??????

Oh he is right, just a little "late to the party". Many, many folks have been vocal with this same idea for YEARS. Where has Bobby been all this time?

Gary

[numanoid]

I agree that the formula should change, but I disagree about his assertion on lack of passing in "pack racing". There were plenty of passes in the ovals leading up to Vegas, and Dan himself moved up 10 spots in 11 laps. Scheckter and Kanaan excel at doing this.

I don't want the drivers to take unnecessary risks for my enjoyment, but adding the new aero rules a couple years ago made ovals much more exciting and competitive compared to the year prior.

[ChicagocrewIRL]

Maybe I'm a GLASS HALF FULL kind of guy but can anyone deny the fact that 15 cars were involved and for the most part, drivers walked away with little or no injuries. The most serious injury after Dan Wheldon's was Will Power's back and Pippa's burned hand. If 15 drivers had died that Sunday, then all you nellies calling for an end to ovals have a case. It's a testament to the safety of these cars. Dan's car was a victim of circumstance. A freak accident.,

[numanoid]

Maybe I'm a GLASS HALF FULL kind of guy but can anyone deny the fact that 15 cars were involved and for the most part, drivers walked away with little or no injuries. The most serious injury after Dan Wheldon's was Will Power's back and Pippa's burned hand. If 15 drivers had died that Sunday, then all you nellies calling for an end to ovals have a case. It's a testament to the safety of these cars. Dan's car was a victim of circumstance. A freak accident.,

There you go with logic. This is what many on the interview circuit have been saying. Several cars got airborne, many cars burst into flames, yet no serious injuries other than Dan.

[Chris R]

Maybe I'm a GLASS HALF FULL kind of guy but can anyone deny the fact that 15 cars were involved and for the most part, drivers walked away with little or no injuries. The most serious injury after Dan Wheldon's was Will Power's back and Pippa's burned hand. If 15 drivers had died that Sunday, then all you nellies calling for an end to ovals have a case. It's a testament to the safety of these cars. Dan's car was a victim of circumstance. A freak accident.,

Excellent point - and one that I think will be taken into account when analyzing the situation....

[Marbles]

Dan's car was a victim of circumstance. A freak accident.,

Respectfully Chicago, with the Dallara's propensity to become airborne and given the history of injuries and fatalities regarding it's pilots and considering Indycars refusal to acknowledge what has been known for years that high banked ovals are unsuitable for Indycars (at least in it's present "pack" set up) I'd hardly consider this outcome "freakish". Is there anyone in this forum here today truly shocked that his could have happened?


...but that's racing. Really, it is.

[IndyCarFan]

Several cars got airborne, many cars burst into flames, yet no serious injuries other than Dan.

So how many deaths does it take before action needs to be taken? How many close calls (Brack, Briscoe, etc.) do we need to have become fatalities before action needs to be taken? The bottom line is the IRL was created around oval racing and along the way someone decided that NASCAR-type wheel to wheel, pack racing was exciting and "hey, we need to do that too". But this type of open-wheel to open-wheel pack racing has been a recipe for disaster from the very beginning. What if we lost Dan and Will? Or what if we lost Dan, Will & Pippa? Then does action need to be taken? Every death (singular) should raise questions. At 200+ mph you can never make the cars, the tracks, the walls or the fences safe enough. You have to step back and ask "what are we trying to accomplish?" That question has so many layers it's beyond this thread. But if you think pack racing is the answer to what ails IndyCar then you need to take a closer look at the TV ratings, the attendance, etc. because it ain't been working for some time now. The IRL had pack racing, wheel to wheel races for years and never got big ratings outside of the Indy 500. Even after the split ended the pack races never seemed to garner much in the way of attendance or races. I submit to you that Texas and Vegas would have had just as much attendance and ratings if the races had not been pack races. Those races were marketed heavily. That's what got butts in the stands. Good marketing with good races. And good races don't have to be pack races.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Allow more power, take away the downforce and make drivers DRIVE around these ovals by actually using car control and skill, and 90% of the potential for a HUGE wreck will go away. Not sure how the new car is going to be on these ovals, but it cant be any worse than the Dallara.

[Chris R]

Guys, I don't know about the more power less downforce theory - I just watched some of the 1982 Miilwaukee race on Youtube.... That was a prime example of fast straights and slow turns - they were crashing left right and center when they had a top speed of 165 or so at that track... Granted - no injuries in the race (although Jim Hickman was killed in practice when his throttle stuck open).... I also have to say the parts of the race I was watching were none too exciting....

I admit, my first thought is to increase power and lower aero grip - but perhaps we should watch some of those old races today and see if that theory still holds water or if it is looking at "the good old days" through rose colored glasses....

Oh, and hte crowd was incredible - wow how times have changed.....

[numanoid]

So how many deaths does it take before action needs to be taken? How many close calls (Brack, Briscoe, etc.) do we need to have become fatalities before action needs to be taken? The bottom line is the IRL was created around oval racing and along the way someone decided that NASCAR-type wheel to wheel, pack racing was exciting and "hey, we need to do that too". But this type of open-wheel to open-wheel pack racing has been a recipe for disaster from the very beginning. What if we lost Dan and Will? Or what if we lost Dan, Will & Pippa? Then does action need to be taken? Every death (singular) should raise questions. At 200+ mph you can never make the cars, the tracks, the walls or the fences safe enough. You have to step back and ask "what are we trying to accomplish?" That question has so many layers it's beyond this thread. But if you think pack racing is the answer to what ails IndyCar then you need to take a closer look at the TV ratings, the attendance, etc. because it ain't been working for some time now. The IRL had pack racing, wheel to wheel races for years and never got big ratings outside of the Indy 500. Even after the split ended the pack races never seemed to garner much in the way of attendance or races. I submit to you that Texas and Vegas would have had just as much attendance and ratings if the races had not been pack races. Those races were marketed heavily. That's what got butts in the stands. Good marketing with good races. And good races don't have to be pack races.

Knee jerk reactions are not what we need right now. We need a thorough analysis of the crash and try to determine if there is a systemic problem that needs to be fixed. There were easily a dozen contributing factors to Wheldon's death. If you think that the primary issue is that cars launch too easily, then it has been addressed already with the new car and the wheel bumpers. If you think pack racing is the problem, then you need to find evidence to show that it is a systemic problem and not a one time accident. If it does come to eliminating pack racing, then they need to look at how to do this.

[call_me_andrew]

Guys, I don't know about the more power less downforce theory - I just watched some of the 1982 Miilwaukee race on Youtube.... That was a prime example of fast straights and slow turns - they were crashing left right and center when they had a top speed of 165 or so at that track... Granted - no injuries in the race (although Jim Hickman was killed in practice when his throttle stuck open).... I also have to say the parts of the race I was watching were none too exciting....

I admit, my first thought is to increase power and lower aero grip - but perhaps we should watch some of those old races today and see if that theory still holds water or if it is looking at "the good old days" through rose colored glasses....

Oh, and hte crowd was incredible - wow how times have changed.....

Oh sure! When you eliminate the wide-open style of racing, you lose the spectacle. But what's more important: the challenge or the spectacle?

EDIT: You're supposed to pick "the challenge."

[Mark in Oshawa]

Knee jerk reactions are not what we need right now. We need a thorough analysis of the crash and try to determine if there is a systemic problem that needs to be fixed. There were easily a dozen contributing factors to Wheldon's death. If you think that the primary issue is that cars launch too easily, then it has been addressed already with the new car and the wheel bumpers. If you think pack racing is the problem, then you need to find evidence to show that it is a systemic problem and not a one time accident. If it does come to eliminating pack racing, then they need to look at how to do this.

Listen, if you think pack racing ISNT part of the problem, you have obviously not watched enough plate races in NASCAR. No room for error, everyone on top of each other leads to multiple car wreck fests. To separate them, you need to force the inequality of driver skill (no one is going to dispute that this is a bad thing, there is no way in hell some of the people in that race on that fatal day can hold a candle to guys like Kanaan, Franchitti and yes Wheldon).

To show this inequality, you have to put the car back in the hands of the drivers. Make them harder to drive. Lack of downforce and more power means guys will be fast down the straight, and braking and using feel to hand onto the car. We may have one car accidents go up, but a one car wreck or maybe a two car is unlikely to cause guys to be launched into the fence like missles and the soft walls, better construction and HANS devices means guys are not getting seriously hurt any more in one car wrecks unless they are total flukes. Separate the cars, you make it safer and you are idenfying as well the skilled drivers, which when you think of it is what we want.

[Dr. Krogshöj]

Insightful article on the subject of pack racing, quoting Alex Zanardi: Zanardi hits out at pack racing in IndyCar following Wheldon's death - IndyCar news - AUTOSPORT.com (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/95688)

[fan-veteran]

A slipstream type of overtaking is needed, but how to achieve it - with or without "Handford device"? I personally do not like the idea of artificially increasing drag. But anyway, without Handford device - a very high speeds are needed to benefit considerably from "tunelling" or slipstreaming/drafting behind another car, maybe not less than 240 mph. In Indy i think we need not less than 250 mph top speed at the end of the long straights and no more than 225 mph in corners. But in this case a spec series car with carefully thought aerodynamics is needed.

[call_me_andrew]

Tony Stewart says criticism of IndyCar safety is unfair - IndyCar news - AUTOSPORT.com (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/95600)

[chuck34]

A slipstream type of overtaking is needed, but how to achieve it - with or without "Handford device"? I personally do not like the idea of artificially increasing drag. But anyway, without Handford device - a very high speeds are needed to benefit considerably from "tunelling" or slipstreaming/drafting behind another car, maybe not less than 240 mph. In Indy i think we need not less than 250 mph top speed at the end of the long straights and no more than 225 mph in corners. But in this case a spec series car with carefully thought aerodynamics is needed.

You do not need to be going 240mph to take advantage of a slipstream. Karters do it all the time at about 40mph.

[nigelred5]

Just a WAG, but if you can't ensure there is somewhere in the 5 mph speed diff available from somewhere, we're never going to see anything but pack racing on any of the high banked ovals. Is that engine output, aerodynamic, driver skill? I don't know.

[fan-veteran]

Take a look at this:
1994 CART Michigan Robby Gordon Onboard
1994 CART Michigan Robby Gordon Onboard - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmbUGOKKTOI)
at 0:45 - a successful draft from ordinary 225-232 mph to 237 mph. A drafting at 250mph should be more intense.

[chuck34]

Take a look at this:
1994 CART Michigan Robby Gordon Onboard
1994 CART Michigan Robby Gordon Onboard - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmbUGOKKTOI)
at 0:45 - a successful draft from ordinary 225-232 mph to 237 mph. A drafting at 250mph should be more intense.

That really depends upon a lot of factors drag, horsepower, turbulence, aerodynamic sensitivities, tire load sensitivities, etc.

Is your argument that IndyCar should be running at 250 everywhere?

[fan-veteran]

Is your argument that IndyCar should be running at 250 everywhere?I have only an assumption that a drastic increase in top speeds (at the end of straights) combined with carefully thought over aerodynamics (in terms of mutual influence between trailing cars) + another factors like preventing marbles from tyres + decreased cornering speeds should increase passing possibilities. These possibilities should come from increased draft conditions and complicated breaking.

On one hand increased top speeds may lead to worsen safety but it is not difficult to form required run-off safety zones at the end of the straights, on the other hand decreased speeds at cornering lead to better safety. Together with (supposed) enhanced design of the cars in terms of energy absorbing and their cell strength + enhanced racing circuit safety layout it should not lead to an increased hazard in crashes as a result of too much speed (breaking mistakes). Hazards of cars getting airborne exist at any time, but i cannot see a big difference between 200 and 230 mph on straight on a road circuit.

About speed.
Nowadays at Indy500 qualifications cars could go flat-out with 225mph and more. Experience shows (from quite a lot of accidents) that such speeds could be regarded as 'safe', in terms of racing. So cornering speeds at Indy should not be faster than 225mph. (Maybe this is practically the limit of safety, history in last 25 years shows that fatal accidents begin to happen when cornering speed goes above 230mph). How fast should they run on straights? Top speed without drafting at least 240 mph in racing conditions; in qualifications more than 245mph; drafting should add 5-10 more. We may go even further - a top limit of about 265mph with drafting; which is about the same as Bugatti Veyron; remember that Bugatti Veyron Supersport and SSC Ultimate Aero which are street legal cars are faster.

[chuck34]

I have only an assumption that a drastic increase in top speeds (at the end of straights) combined with carefully thought over aerodynamics (in terms of mutual influence between trailing cars) + another factors like preventing marbles from tyres + decreased cornering speeds should increase passing possibilities. These possibilities should come from increased draft conditions and complicated breaking.

All these things can happen well below 250. You seem to think that drafting, braking for corners, passing, etc can only happen at 250, or am I misunderstanding you?


On one hand increased top speeds may lead to worsen safety but it is not difficult to form required run-off safety zones at the end of the straights, on the other hand decreased speeds at cornering lead to better safety. Together with (supposed) enhanced design of the cars in terms of energy absorbing and their cell strength + enhanced racing circuit safety layout it should not lead to an increased hazard in crashes as a result of too much speed (breaking mistakes). Hazards of cars getting airborne exist at any time, but i cannot see a big difference between 200 and 230 mph on straight on a road circuit.

How are you going to create run off zones on an oval, particularly Indy?

No increased hazard due to braking mistakes? Are you serious? Did you miss the TK/Helio deal at Baltimore? Now add the 20+mph you seem to be advocating and think what could have happened.


About speed.
Nowadays at Indy500 qualifications cars could go flat-out with 225mph and more. Experience shows (from quite a lot of accidents) that such speeds could be regarded as 'safe', in terms of racing. So cornering speeds at Indy should not be faster than 225mph. (Maybe this is practically the limit of safety, history in last 25 years shows that fatal accidents begin to happen when cornering speed goes above 230mph). How fast should they run on straights? Top speed without drafting at least 240 mph in racing conditions; in qualifications more than 245mph; drafting should add 5-10 more. We may go even further - a top limit of about 265mph with drafting; which is about the same as Bugatti Veyron; remember that Bugatti Veyron Supersport and SSC Ultimate Aero which are street legal cars are faster.

"history in the last 25 years"? Really history starts in 1986? Tell that to the vast majority of those who lost their at the Speedway, going much slower than 230.


Now please understand that I am not totally against raising speeds (particularly at Indy). I just would not advocate, as you seem to be, that it will be in any way, shape, or form safer. I just don't understand that. Perhaps I am completely misunderstanding your arguments though? I'll give you the benifit of the doubt on this one.

[garyshell]

I think some folks here are confusing the call for increased horsepower as being a call for increased speeds. The two are not necessarily the same thing.

Gary

[fan-veteran]

You seem to think that drafting, braking for corners, passing, etc can only happen at 250, or am I misunderstanding you?
No, it can happen at 180 also, but at higher speeds is more effective. Obviously.

How are you going to create run off zones on an oval, particularly Indy?
My thoughts were about road courses, drastically increased top speed should not be a problem. At INDY i think the problem lies in corner speeds, they should be kept from raising, as i said many times - no more than 220-225mph. Also with SAFER barriers and supposed enhanced design of cars losing control at the end the straight while braking (lowering the speed) at 250-260mph and consecutive spin and hitting the wall should not present a serious danger.

The crash of Helio at Baltimore was not heavy (quite scary thought) and 30mph more would not present a much difference.

Of course increased speed leads to increased danger, it is absolutely obvious. But i separate increased speed while moving straight and while cornering and propose that cornering speeds are much more critical. And it should be possible to increase speeds while moving straight while keeping cornering speeds within a safety frame, without sensible safety concerns.

[Anubis]

And when a car has a jammed throttle, tyre failure or brake failure whilst approaching a corner at those speeds?

[BDunnell]

Now please understand that I am not totally against raising speeds (particularly at Indy). I just would not advocate, as you seem to be, that it will be in any way, shape, or form safer. I just don't understand that. Perhaps I am completely misunderstanding your arguments though? I'll give you the benifit of the doubt on this one.

I think this is an interesting element of the discussion, relating not just to Indycars but motorsport in general. Quite aside from the fact that I don't consider outright speed to be the be-all and end-all, common sense, surely, shows us that it is neither desirable nor practical for speeds to go on rising inexorably, and that therefore, much to the chagrin of drivers and some fans, it is on occasion necessary to reduce outright speeds. I heard Allan McNish talking about this recently in relation to sportscar racing, and saying that while he thought it a shame to cut the speed of the cars, he recognised that they could not carry on going up. The question is, at what point is that desirable limit reached? Or is this notion entirely wrong, and can speeds just be allowed to go on rising?

[wedge]

I think this is an interesting element of the discussion, relating not just to Indycars but motorsport in general. Quite aside from the fact that I don't consider outright speed to be the be-all and end-all, common sense, surely, shows us that it is neither desirable nor practical for speeds to go on rising inexorably, and that therefore, much to the chagrin of drivers and some fans, it is on occasion necessary to reduce outright speeds. I heard Allan McNish talking about this recently in relation to sportscar racing, and saying that while he thought it a shame to cut the speed of the cars, he recognised that they could not carry on going up. The question is, at what point is that desirable limit reached? Or is this notion entirely wrong, and can speeds just be allowed to go on rising?

I don't think rev-limiters are the way to go. Even with the push-to-pass/over rev function I still hate those damn things. Perhaps akin to restrictor plates its a nanny device that encourages pack racing.

[BDunnell]

I don't think rev-limiters are the way to go. Even with the push-to-pass/over rev function I still hate those damn things. Perhaps akin to restrictor plates its a nanny device that encourages pack racing.

I agree completely.

[fan-veteran]

And when a car has a jammed throttle, tyre failure or brake failure whilst approaching a corner at those speeds?
Jammed throttle looks very dangerous, but such situation may be completely eliminated by suitable electronics design (recognition and fast shifting out of gear/neutral) or by quick driver's response to shift to neutral.

Tyre failure is dangerous at all high speeds, but much more during cornering where speeds should be kept in reasonable frame.
Brake failure danger also could be eliminated to some extent by suitable brake design.
Take a look at this (Sebastien Buemi Crash China 2010)
Tires breaking off at 300 km/h (185 mph) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek3ybBIqBb4&feature=fvwrel)

[Anubis]

Jammed throttle looks very dangerous, but such situation may be completely eliminated by suitable electronics design (recognition and fast shifting out of gear/neutral) or by quick driver's response to shift to neutral.

Tyre failure is dangerous at all high speeds, but much more during cornering where speeds should be kept in reasonable frame.
Brake failure danger also could be eliminated to some extent by suitable brake design.
Take a look at this (Sebastien Buemi Crash China 2010)
Tires breaking off at 300 km/h (185 mph) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek3ybBIqBb4&feature=fvwrel)

Not sure what you're trying to demonstrate with the Buemi clip? That's neither a tyre failure nor a brake failure, rather a component failure under load, so none of your solutions would've prevented it. Secondly, even though the car stopped and the driver was unharmed, the tyres didn't (despite tethers), both continuing and clearing the safety fencing, which is clearly a major safety concern. The only way to mitigate that is much, much larger runoff, so major circuit re-engineering at any venue Indycar visits. Even if that happened, the extra costs for the circuits would simply be passed on in a) higher ticket prices and b) higher sanctioning fees, both of which would have a negative impact on the series. If anything, that clip is a great advert for lowering speeds, not increasing them. Higher speeds mean harder braking, which means more force put through components at more points on the lap, which gives more risk of that sort of catastrophic failure and more need to design both cars and circuits accordingly. Who pays for that? That clip ably demonstrates even F1 teams can't always account for every failure mode, and with the greatest respect to the Indycar teams, especially lower down the grid, they've got nothing like the resources F1 teams have at their disposal. Increasing speeds to the levels you suggest would add so many more variables that even for a spec series, the development costs of the car would increase to a level where the smaller teams would simply be driven away, leaving an already weak series with weak coverage at the mercy of a few mega-teams sat on a diminished grid wondering why they bother. Bad for the fans and certainly bad for the accountants, who like it or not have a large say in matters. From Dallara's point of view, they'd have all that extra development cost to produce a car half the field couldn't afford before it had even turned a wheel in anger, which is clearly ROI suicide.

[fan-veteran]

Not sure what you're trying to demonstrate with the Buemi clip?
That even such failure was not fatal because it was on a straight part of the circuit. And therefore it is the part of the circuit where increasing of speed is not so much dangerous. I am talking about increasing top speed say at Road America from 200 mph to 230mph and there is enough run-off zone there. Yet i'm not sure if such increase in speed will assist aerodynamic draft to a new level.
There is another accident - tyre failure at more than 200mph. And many similar could be found.
Fromel1 Mika Häkkinen Crash (Hockenheim 1999) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxDUgKcYaec)


The only way to mitigate that is much, much larger runoff, so major circuit re-engineering at any venue Indycar visits.
Circuit re-engineering ALWAYS should be considered if there is an inadequate danger for drivers, it improves the quality of racing in any cases.

[Phoenixent]

Circuit re-engineering ALWAYS should be considered if there is an inadequate danger for drivers, it improves the quality of racing in any cases.

So you would re-engineer Indianapolis Motor Speedway? There should be more tracks like Indy with the banking as low....

[BDunnell]

Circuit re-engineering ALWAYS should be considered if there is an inadequate danger for drivers, it improves the quality of racing in any cases.

I don't agree. After all, it may be considered as an unnecessary knee-jerk reaction. 1994 could have seen the end of Eau Rouge at Spa as we know it, due to the introduction of a chicane. Thank goodness it wasn't made permanent, because it was clearly deemed unnecessary.

[Phoenixent]

I agree that there is a lot of knee-jerk reactions after such a tragedy. They ruined Monza by putting the chicane at tamburello curve instead of figuring out a mechanical fix at that time. Hope that cooler heads prevail on this one and s proper solution is found....

[00steven]

Simple solution, increase horsepower and reduce downforce. Make the guys drive them again.

[monadvspec]

Is that Dan on top of Viso? 5his has to be before he hit the fence. I am totlly surprised that he was that far down the track. So too with Will Power. Look where Will is;below the white line and he still went airborne. Must have hit the Coyne car.

Miss you Dan. Always will. So sad for his wife and children

[DexDexter]

I agree that there is a lot of knee-jerk reactions after such a tragedy. They ruined Monza by putting the chicane at tamburello curve instead of figuring out a mechanical fix at that time. Hope that cooler heads prevail on this one and s proper solution is found....

There is no corner called Tamburello at Monza and there has never been one. It's Imola you're talking about. :rolleyes:

[Phoenixent]

There is no corner called Tamburello at Monza and there has never been one. It's Imola you're talking about. :rolleyes:

You are correct and sorry for my mistake on the tracks...

[Anubis]

That even such failure was not fatal because it was on a straight part of the circuit. And therefore it is the part of the circuit where increasing of speed is not so much dangerous. I am talking about increasing top speed say at Road America from 200 mph to 230mph and there is enough run-off zone there.

I can recall more than one CART / Indycar accident at the end of the front stretch at RA that resulted in a car turning over (Parker Johnstone or Townsend Bell?), and a GT car recently cleared the fence entirely at a much lower speed after suffering brake failure. Adding speed is really not the answer. The Buemi clip wasn't injurious to the DRIVER, but the wheels cleared the fencing and could have gone absolutely anywhere. F1 has seen two marshall deaths in recent years due to flying debris from crashes into heavy braking zones (Melbourne and Monza), so adding MORE speed on the approach to a heavy braking zone is asking for trouble. Also doesn't address the development cost or the circuit safety question.

[Bob Riebe]

I can recall more than one CART / Indycar accident at the end of the front stretch at RA that resulted in a car turning over (Parker Johnstone or Townsend Bell?), and a GT car recently cleared the fence entirely at a much lower speed after suffering brake failure. Adding speed is really not the answer. The Buemi clip wasn't injurious to the DRIVER, but the wheels cleared the fencing and could have gone absolutely anywhere. F1 has seen two marshall deaths in recent years due to flying debris from crashes into heavy braking zones (Melbourne and Monza), so adding MORE speed on the approach to a heavy braking zone is asking for trouble. Also doesn't address the development cost or the circuit safety question.
It is racing, a competitive endeavour.

If other concerns are more importan, shut it down entirely or quit whining and deal with it.

Bumper cars are fun and it seems that is what too many emotionally unstable fans want once was racing to become.

[Anubis]

It is racing, a competitive endeavour.

If other concerns are more importan, shut it down entirely or quit whining and deal with it.


Oh I'm aware of that, and I'm not saying we shouldn't have close racing, just suggesting that approaching road course turns at 230mph doesn't constitute racing IMO. Already an entire discipline dedicated to going fast in a straight line, and they're not without their own concerns.

[garyshell]

If other concerns are more importan, shut it down entirely or quit whining and deal with it.

Once again it's all or nothing, make no changes or shut it down? Ridiculous.

Gary

[Bob Riebe]

Oh I'm aware of that, and I'm not saying we shouldn't have close racing, just suggesting that approaching road course turns at 230mph doesn't constitute racing IMO. Already an entire discipline dedicated to going fast in a straight line, and they're not without their own concerns.

Yes it IS part of racing. Racing fans are capable, despite some self-appointed experts who say otherwise, determing the difference between cars going one hundred and eighty and cars going two hundred and twenty.
At Road America is was easy to see the difference, just in the way a car reacted to the road, between a large sedan approaching a corner with only ten miles an hour difference.

Visual speed is exciting to watch.

[BDunnell]

Yes it IS part of racing. Racing fans are capable, despite some self-appointed experts who say otherwise, determing the difference between cars going one hundred and eighty and cars going two hundred and twenty.
At Road America is was easy to see the difference, just in the way a car reacted to the road, between a large sedan approaching a corner with only ten miles an hour difference.

Visual speed is exciting to watch.

You write as though all motorsport enthusiasts MUST think this. They don't. I for one get much pleasure from watching much lower-powered formulae. Outright speed is not the be-all and end-all. Speed in motorsport cannot go on rising and rising and rising.

[garyshell]

You write as though all motorsport enthusiasts MUST think this. They don't. I for one get much pleasure from watching much lower-powered formulae. Outright speed is not the be-all and end-all. Speed in motorsport cannot go on rising and rising and rising.

You are wasting your breath. The self appointed expert who wrote this will most certainly tell you how wrong you are and that if any changes are called for we should just shut down racing.

Gary

[BDunnell]

You are wasting your breath. The self appointed expert who wrote this will most certainly tell you how wrong you are and that if any changes are called for we should just shut down racing.

Gary

Well, as you, I and hopefully others realise, there is a happy middle ground that can be found. I am certainly not in favour of knee-jerk reactions regarding safety in any form of motorsport — as I have said many times, it is impossible in any activity in life to guarantee 100 per cent safety, nor is it desirable to do so — but nor do I feel that outright speed can go up forever.

[call_me_andrew]

Simple solution, increase horsepower and reduce downforce. Make the guys drive them again.

I've done some research and I'm afraid this is impossible. Actually, Hoop did the research.

http://www.motorsportforums.com/indycar/136514-comparing-indy-texas.html

The crapwagons could run at Texas with no wings and still not lift in the turns.

[Bob Riebe]

You write as though all motorsport enthusiasts MUST think this. They don't. I for one get much pleasure from watching much lower-powered formulae. Outright speed is not the be-all and end-all. Speed in motorsport cannot go on rising and rising and rising.Many self-appointed experts, like Shell on many forums have said the spectators are too stupid or inept to be able to tell the difference in car lap speeds.
I say all are capable, right or wrong, as not being the equivalent of being bar flies following the in-thing of the moment but being there because they want to be, as they are informed on what is happening.
I say you are in the minority, or motorsport rag writers would not have made increased speeds the part of headlines for so many decades.

Now whether or not you are of the Chicken-Little brigade like Shell, I have no idea.

[Bob Riebe]

Well, as you, I and hopefully others realise, there is a happy middle ground that can be found. I am certainly not in favour of knee-jerk reactions regarding safety in any form of motorsport — as I have said many times, it is impossible in any activity in life to guarantee 100 per cent safety, nor is it desirable to do so — but nor do I feel that outright speed can go up forever.Yeah but Shell's bumper-car racing series would really be boring.

There is a limit of physics, depending on car configuration.
Speeds went up by twenty miles an hour at indy with the introduction of true wings. Take them off and see what happens.

[garyshell]

Many self-appointed experts, like Shell on many forums have said the spectators are too stupid or inept to be able to tell the difference in car lap speeds.

If you are going to attribute something to me use a quote. I have not said this at all. I have talked about the subject, but not in the way you are portraying the discussion.

Gary

[garyshell]

Yeah but Shell's bumper-car racing series would really be boring.

Again, attribuiton with any quote? I have not suggested anything close to a "bumper-car".

Gary

[Bob Riebe]

If you are going to attribute something to me use a quote. I have not said this at all. I have talked about the subject, but not in the way you are portraying the discussion.

GaryYou aim your posts at me and I will aim mine at you.
What goes around comes around.