Looks like those investigating Dan's death don't feel that 34 cars on a small oval was a contributory factor in his death. I somehow feel that the governing body will use this to bury their heads in the sand until someone else dies. Obviously his death was caused by blunt trauma but come on, it was clear that the number of cars in that amount of space was a disaster waiting to happen!
I get the feeling that the crashes are an expected part of the entertainment sadly. The inquest will quite likely be more focused not on avoiding the crashes but making them survivable.
Very much so... (from the BBC article) ...officials say the starting field of 34 cars was "deemed to be acceptable" and that the accident could have occurred with "any size starting field at any track". Indeed it could have but the accident occurred because 34 cars were bunched up together. I do hope they have drivers representation and the likes of Dario Franchitti and other drivers rally for changes. Interesting to know the FIA assisted with the investigation. I'm sure professor Sid Watkins and the likes of Jackie Stewart will not be impressed with the findings.
But waht can they change? Part of Indycar racing is high speed ovals? They are dangerous by their nature and always have been. If you restrict the speeds, everyone gets more bunched up NASCAR styles as everyone will be 'flat-out'. So the only option is to ban these kinds of ovals? Never going to happen. It was a tragic death but lets not have any knee-jerk reactions please.
The format of the sport may not need changing, but the crash protection around the outside of the tracks may need improving.
It's hard to make it 100% safe. They need the catch-fencing, so need poles to hold it up. It is probably one of those things that happened to Senna. 6 inches difference and the objects wouldn't have hit their heads and they'd both still be with us.
There are other ways to support the crash fencing though, for example the poles could be on the inside of the track, and tethers used to support the fencing. Then any impact wouldn't result in hitting a post.
I did think whether that was an option, but would the fence still have enough strength and rigidity to hold a car?
I'm no structural engineer, or physicist for that matter, but I thought (not too sure) that the poles were set back anyway to give some flexibility, so wouldn't it be the same? I guess support could come from the front and back really, have a wire running across the track, and then posts behind the stands with the same wires, to provide support in both directions.
To be fair, that could happen with 10 cars on a track. With more cars though, you increase the risk of a mistake and therefore more chance of a crash. Ovals are incredibly dangerous, the only way to be truly safe is to stop racing on them I'm afraid.
The problem is you need a fence to absorb the impact, and not spring back, throwing any cars back into the chaos. There are ways to fully remove such solid posts, but the sad part is they cost more. Apparently there is a cost to life.
I am not suggesting banning ovals but concerns have been raised about the size of the track at Las Vegas and the number of cars in the race. There has to be a compromise somewhere. Maybe have higher perimeter walls and a minimum standard for Indy ovals dictating width of track and minimum track length.
I'm certainly not saying they should ban oval racing, but whatever you have as catching will pose some kind of risk with open cockpit racing unfortunately. If there are solutions that pose less of a risk, then they should clearly be used though.
The trouble with ovals is if it goes a bit out of shape you don't have any run off to speak of, or a gravel trap, or tyres or even a hay bale, you have a solid brick wall with a wire fence and poles in it, the same as when the cars did 100mph and didn't leave the ground, this is the problem, the cars have progressed the tracks have not, and until the drivers dig their heels in the track owners are never going to put their hands in their pockets.
Very true. There's changes in the chassis coming but maybe not so much in the tracks. The question is what can be done to make them safe? With such high speed and so little run off, it seems to me like its almost impossible to make ovals truly safe... but whatever can be done, should be done. As you say, maybe the drivers can chip in and get things done.
It has to be the drivers as no one else will do it, why should they spend money they dopn't have to? Would F1 be safe if the drivers hadn't turned around in the 70's and said 'screw you, we're sick of dying because you won't stick your hands in your pocket to make your tracks safe, we're not going to race, see how much money you make then'. These people don't care how many die, in fact probably the reverse is true, as nothing brings the crowd like an 'entertaining' death. Indycar is probably the last leagl gladiatorial sport, it's truly a crime that such talented and brave people die in such a needless way, simply so the profit margin is bigger.
I agree on what you say about the drivers, but not so much about the crowds. I honestly don't believe anybody was entertained by that crash. It was sickening to watch and people were quickly aware that it was a bad situation.
