WhiteBlue wrote:Do you honestly think that the loved ones of killed drivers will make a difference if the man was killed in practise or the race itself? That is BS, man. Practise is part of the public show.
Then they should go play online poker. You ask EVERY driver in motorsport if they know they risk and EVERY one of them will say yes. They CHOOSE to race, and as you've already mentioned about JV, the can CHOOSE NOT TO. Where you get your arrogance in that they don't know better than you do about what is safe is amazing. These guys aren't children you need to coddle because you think you are smarter than them. Get off your high horse WB, you aren't as smart and as rational as you think you are. Oh and I'd greatly appreciate if you'd not call Indy fans a pack of blood thirsty animals. I don't know you, you don't know me,and you don't know every single Indy fan individually, so kindly keep that ignorant --- to yourself.
WhiteBlue wrote:The report is detailed and the amount of time to write it seems appropriate.
WhiteBlue wrote:Those relevant findings were available within hours of the accident and could have been published. They were not. As previously assumed the reason for this is the attempted white wash and delaying the publication into a time when the attention of the public had moved to other issues and the season was over.
So which is it? An appropriate amount of time to gather and analyze data before it was published or not? Because you seem to not be able to make up your mind. EVERYONE new that Dan was killed when he hit the fence, there was no need to state the obvious and the report wasn't strictly to tell everyone that very obvious cause of his death.
WhiteBlue wrote:Particularly it does not look into probability figures and how they are influenced by the conditions created by the track type....
Actually it does. There's quite a bit of talk about how the repaving of the track created a condition of being able to run at 100% throttle anywhere on track where that capability did not exist before. They also talked about how the cars were fast and had so much grip that they couldn't drive away from one another. You missed this critical part of the report because....
WhiteBlue wrote:It fabricates a myth about the particular race not creating "racing grooves" which are otherwise common in Indycar racing.
...you obviously have zero
knowledge of every type of race car to take to an oval track on dirt, asphalt, or concrete. Basing your opinion on ignorance leads you to incorrect assumptions. There is no myth about racing grooves disappearing on newly paved high banked ovals, it a widely known fact amongst all oval racing series and its teams/drivers. There is no myth about this not existing on dirt tracks either. Some tracks have grooves and some don't. Maybe you should learn more about oval racing and its intricacies before you pass judgement because your knowledge of the basis of the accident, the track type and how Indy cars race on them, seems very limited at best.
The report uses absolute language:
"... this incident could have occurred at any track at any time .."
. This is an obvious lie.
No it is not. You yourself say in a later post:
Tony Renna – (October 22, 2003), Firestone private testing session.
Lost control due to unknown reason, got airborne and was killed by collision with safety fence pole
Make up your mind. It either does or doesn't happen at any track or any time. Tony was killed on an open track at a tire test, not a crowded track with other cars inches away. I'm inclined to believe that it will happen "anywhere/anytime", because as racing accidents go, they are called "accidents" for a reason. So again, you need to have a consistent point instead of saying one thing and proving that statement false in a later post. You also need to quit perverting what happened to fit your needs. His death was not caused by hitting one pole on the fence, it was caused by hitting the fence at that speed and the forces enacted on him. Dan was hit in the head by one or more poles directly. The fact is, what they said is true. It could've happened anywhere to any driver. Has in the past and probably will in the future. You can't make a racetrack of any kind completely safe. Hell, Webber had almost the exact same accident in Valencia. Just so happened his car didn't hit the sign cockpit first. Chance.
WhiteBlue wrote:Paul Dana – (March 26, 2006), 2006 Toyota Indy 300 practice session.
Was involved in accident. Due to banked track the wreckage slided down into the racing groove and was T-boned by a following car at racing speed
Paul Dana hit Ed Carpenter at racing speed because of his own inexperience. He was told over the radio to go low but failed to slow to a safe speed like he should have, unlike the other cars around him. He hit Carpenters car at 176mph, while other cars around him slowed to a safe speed to pass the driver on the apron of the track, and Carpenter was admitted to the hospital and released the next day. Dana died of his injuries caused by his own incompetence, not the car, the track, or the series. He died because he made a mistake and Carpenter is lucky he wasn't killed because of Dana's stupidity. If you are going to provide examples in your defense you need to do your fact checking and not pervert events to support your stance. You've left out critical details as to the cause and result of the accident.
WhiteBlue wrote:Scott Brayton – (May 17, 1996), 1996 Indianapolis 500 practice session.
Had a tyre failure at high speed and was killed colliding with the safety barrier
This does not support any of your arguments. He wasn't in a pack of cars, he wasn't avoiding an accident, and he didn't get into a crash due to a packed track and bad circumstances. He had a tire failure and hit the wall, NOT the retaining fence. Why you provided and example that has absolutely nothing to do with the contents of the report, the circumstance to what caused the accident that led to Dan's death, and has pretty much no bearing on the discussion at hand is pointless. This doesn't support your argument because the reasons he died were in no way related to Dan's death. In fact, the walls he hit have already had a fantastic impact absorbing device has been added and arguably prevented more severe injuries.
WhiteBlue wrote:There are tracks that are deliberately designed to avoid such risks. They are called F1 circuits.
Except for Valencia and possibly Montreal. How there was no protection from the spot Kubica hit was a massive screw up as well. But, it could also be a matter of chance in that particular spot. Another contradiction. Also, you're comparing apples to oranges, tracks are designed to meet different needs and different types of racing.
WhiteBlue wrote: All corners with high cornering speed or following straits with high speed have the safety barriers removed from the immediate track limit. This helps any car becoming airborne to come back down on the tarmac or gravel surface and scrub speed off in order to minimize damages at the final impact with the safety barriers. Ovals do not have such features.
Again, you have limited knowledge of oval racing. Tell me, how exactly would they move back the barriers on an oval? I seem to remember that Monza had a simple guardrail on it. The walls or "barriers" at those tracks have SAFER barriers installed to reduce the severity of impact with the wall and they have worked wonders. Comparing a road circuit with an oval is apples to oranges, they require different layouts and different safety design considerations. I'm not saying the fencepoles being on the inside wasn't an extremely stupid idea, but comparing that barrier to the ones on Formula 1 tracks isn't fair. They have very little chance of getting the cars into the stands. That risk isn't limited to just Indy cars either.
WhiteBlue wrote:No more than 20 cars, top speed limits well under the current type of cornering speed, fence posts only outside the fence and if possible removed from the fence fabric. Fence fabric on the inside covered with one inch thick polycarbonate panels which are secured to the fence fabric. The polycarbonate plating to be six foot high and start at the top edge of the safer barrier....
These examples I agree with, except for the top speed limit and the polcarbonate pieces. The top speed is irrelevant if you can keep them on the ground and only a new car design that had closed wheels would solve that. Also, having more corner speed can get you away from other slower cars and reduce packs as well. That and you'll never be able to make the cornering speeds equal without control parts and some teams will always be able to make better use of what they have and we'll be right back where we are in terms of cornering speeds.
While NASCAR cars don't reach those speeds on that small of a track, they stay on the ground even at the speeds they do travel. The main reason Michael McDowell got airborne at Texas in his car is because of how he hit the wall, and even with the severity of the impact the SAFER barrier absorbed alo tof it and he walked away without any major injury. Alot of research and money was spent of keeping them on the ground at the really big tracks and barring hitting another car and causing a weight shift or hitting a break from asphalt to grass, they've pretty much stopped going airborne. Having some sort of system to spill the air from the underside of the car to the top would help that I'm sure. There was even a thread here (that I can't find at the moment) where this was mentioned and I think that should be explored more. Having big sheets of ballistics grade plastic in the fences seems like a bad move because one of them could possibly come loose and land on track where it could do more damage than it prevents. Much like my aversion to canopies on the cars, I don't believe that solutions solves more problems than it could introduce.
WhiteBlue wrote:The report in my view is nothing but a white wash and full of lies.
I think it tries to gloss over a few things that could be changed, but it's not full of lies. You gave examples that have shown that to be untrue. They didn't need to state the obvious when the accident happened, everyone knew hitting the fence cockpit first was what killed Dan, but they didn't deny that's what happened. Considering the other cars that hit the fence in that wreck and many more over the years they are correct saying that he hit the fence in the worst way possible. Past accidents where cars hit the fence without major injury are a testament to the strength of those cars. Why everyone keeps saying they are unsafe after that has been proven to be a totally false statement time after time shows that they are either ignorant of the ins and outs of Indy cars, and they are just baying for blood overreacting to this accident. Yes, a participant being killed is a terrible thing but to lay all the blame on the car manufacturer, Brian Barnhart, or any number of other people is "rubbish and a mockery of the young man who lost his life."
Every one of those drivers could have walked away and not raced, you gave two examples of drivers who have done exactly that, one even for this specific race. It's a terrible thing to have happen but you aren't making it any better shooting off at the mouth and making false accusations and calling for peoples head on a pike.
WhiteBlue wrote:With sufficient asphalt crash zone the car would have stopped clear of the safety barrier or it would have been gently stopped by the barrier without any part being ripped of the car.
That's nothing more than supposition. You assume
that nothing would happen, but we've seen tires and wheels come off car in much less severe impacts, and in the case of Torro Rosso in China, both
wheels and tires came off at once without the car hitting anything. One even hit a photographer even with the very tall fence in front of him. --- happens. I'm not saying that you shouldn't improve safety where problems can be identified, but you are making assumptions and accusations when there is hard evidence to refute your claims.
What would you have done in the case of Liuzzi and Schumacher having their accident in Abu Dhabi last year? It was a chance accident and the only similar one I can think of is the accident in Melbourne between Wurz and Coulthard. Both of which their cars came together just right to have the accidents they did. Neither one of those will probably happen in either of our lifetimes and we shouldn't overreact to them.
Formula 1 isn't the safety darling you make it out to be. Sure no fatalities makes for a wonderful headline, but there are safety problems that they can fix. Namely the two accidents that I just mentioned that have not been even addressed nor measure taken to prevent them in the future. Your overreacting and calling for heads on a pike is counterproductive.