Indy safety vs other formulae (e.g. F1)
Discussion
I've moved my question from the other thread so that we can separate the general themes of safety from the sad death of DW.
Dropping the speeds would drop the energy; if you did that whilst dropping the grip (it would keep the "loose" look of the racing) and upping the survival cell requirements?
Are Indy specs similar in terms of safety technologies to F1?Thoughts?
zaphod42 said:
Melvin Udall said:
So, what can they do about the catch fencing?
Not sure.Dropping the speeds would drop the energy; if you did that whilst dropping the grip (it would keep the "loose" look of the racing) and upping the survival cell requirements?
Are Indy specs similar in terms of safety technologies to F1?
I think the chassis was nearly 10 years old however I dont think it was a huge contributing factor here, not a lot the car could have done as it was a massive smash and it seems he went into the catch fencing and/or wall on its side so much like Greg Moores accident. Maybe the roll over protection should have done more but with the amount of force going on i'm not sure an F1 car would have offered anymore protection.
I'm amazed there was no more serious injuries and fatalaties to be honest I think the cars stood up quite well, especially given their age.
I'm amazed there was no more serious injuries and fatalaties to be honest I think the cars stood up quite well, especially given their age.
Edited by robmlufc on Monday 17th October 12:09
Henry Fiddleton said:
Not sure; open wheeled racing and high speeds like that is a disaster waiting to happen.
Other than that, the amount of fuel tanks that rupture is alarming.
I was going to say about the fuel tanks as well, I can't remember the last time I saw a fuel tank rupture in F1. Other than that, the amount of fuel tanks that rupture is alarming.
I think there are a number of layers to the safety aspect.
1 Reducing risk of an incident - balance of experienced drivers and rookies, and the volume of them
2 The energy entering a crash driven by speed
3 The structures involved in the crash (e.g. walls vs run off vs impact barriers)
4 The structure of the vehicle and regulations given 1/2/3
5 The facilities on track to provide support
1 Seems to be a real issue on a track of this size and with, what was it, 34 drivers?
2 I know speeds have been reduced, but the racing could be as exciting at 180 or 200mph as 220mph and a reduction in energy increases survivability, though maybe not in this case given the nature of the impact
3 Walls are part of oval racing; I can't see an alternative; though this might drive some new techs for an outer layer on the wall, and changes in catch fences.
4 Improved survival cells / tubs? Longer cars? Higher roll hoop? I'll wait for the accident investigation in DW's case.
In the case of Indy racing, (5) seems to be okay. Impressive facilities and world class marshals, medical, etc.
1 Reducing risk of an incident - balance of experienced drivers and rookies, and the volume of them
2 The energy entering a crash driven by speed
3 The structures involved in the crash (e.g. walls vs run off vs impact barriers)
4 The structure of the vehicle and regulations given 1/2/3
5 The facilities on track to provide support
1 Seems to be a real issue on a track of this size and with, what was it, 34 drivers?
2 I know speeds have been reduced, but the racing could be as exciting at 180 or 200mph as 220mph and a reduction in energy increases survivability, though maybe not in this case given the nature of the impact
3 Walls are part of oval racing; I can't see an alternative; though this might drive some new techs for an outer layer on the wall, and changes in catch fences.
4 Improved survival cells / tubs? Longer cars? Higher roll hoop? I'll wait for the accident investigation in DW's case.
In the case of Indy racing, (5) seems to be okay. Impressive facilities and world class marshals, medical, etc.
I believe the survival cell of the current IRL car passes tests that exceed those of current F1 and looking at some of the huge accidents its been involved in, I dont think it can be accused of being an unsafe design when compared to other forumlae.
The issue is that you arguably need a safety cell A LOT stronger than F1 to make accidents like Dan's survivable simply because of the speeds involved and the types of accident triggered on congested ovals. That said it is a concern that the rollhoop failed so I hope it's something Dallara will look at and learn from, possibly even by next year when the new car (ironically developed by Wheldon) replaces the current car. This new car should also reduce the likelyhood of the following car being launched as Wheldon was because it has a full width rear crash structure so wheels of cars following won't ride up over the rear wheels of the car they hit.
The fire although dramatic wasnt a contributing factor to any of the injuries AFAIK, Im sure they use similar specification bag tanks and the only reason F1 hasnt seen similar fireballs is simply because cars rarely if ever collide when one is travelling at 220mph and the other perhaps half that, and the survival cell generally stays attached to the engine and fuel tank so doesn't rupture. The only time you might see similar in F1 is if there was an incident like the Petrov / Schumacher shunt yesterday but with a brake failure on the Renault meaning little speed was scrubbed off.
The issue is that you arguably need a safety cell A LOT stronger than F1 to make accidents like Dan's survivable simply because of the speeds involved and the types of accident triggered on congested ovals. That said it is a concern that the rollhoop failed so I hope it's something Dallara will look at and learn from, possibly even by next year when the new car (ironically developed by Wheldon) replaces the current car. This new car should also reduce the likelyhood of the following car being launched as Wheldon was because it has a full width rear crash structure so wheels of cars following won't ride up over the rear wheels of the car they hit.
The fire although dramatic wasnt a contributing factor to any of the injuries AFAIK, Im sure they use similar specification bag tanks and the only reason F1 hasnt seen similar fireballs is simply because cars rarely if ever collide when one is travelling at 220mph and the other perhaps half that, and the survival cell generally stays attached to the engine and fuel tank so doesn't rupture. The only time you might see similar in F1 is if there was an incident like the Petrov / Schumacher shunt yesterday but with a brake failure on the Renault meaning little speed was scrubbed off.
Oval racing has always been very dangerous. Lots of speed. lots of kinetic energy, surrounded by a big wall.
Cars just brush the wall and gather serious damage. When a car gets airborne, it really is pot luck as to how it hits the wall or what / who else it hits on the way there. And with the amount of cars on this small track, the risks were higher.
But the bottom line is, the Americans like their oval racing and although it is left, left, left, left to some of us, the speed and proximity of other cars and the wall makes it a high risk series compared to our tracks - it always has done.
I am not sure that there is much that can be done without destroying the sport. You have to ask, would a driver in an F1 car have got away with that accident even with FIA safety standards? Without knowing the true cause of Dan's loss, it is difficult to say, but after seeing the footage, I would doubt it.
A very sad loss indeed.
Cars just brush the wall and gather serious damage. When a car gets airborne, it really is pot luck as to how it hits the wall or what / who else it hits on the way there. And with the amount of cars on this small track, the risks were higher.
But the bottom line is, the Americans like their oval racing and although it is left, left, left, left to some of us, the speed and proximity of other cars and the wall makes it a high risk series compared to our tracks - it always has done.
I am not sure that there is much that can be done without destroying the sport. You have to ask, would a driver in an F1 car have got away with that accident even with FIA safety standards? Without knowing the true cause of Dan's loss, it is difficult to say, but after seeing the footage, I would doubt it.
A very sad loss indeed.
The major thing with these cars is the open nature of them.
One has to weigh up the cost of having open cockpits against the safety of having a canopy.
As was proven in that video of a wheel and tyre being fired at a jet fighter canopy, the technology is there.
I think a more serious look will now be taken at this.
Not saying that I'm for it as a feature, but from a safety point of view I can think of 3 well known accidents that it may have helped in within the last 3 years.
Like I say, I'm against this on principle, but I don't want to see another driver get injured/killed.
The other thing that could be looked at is the design of the catchfencing. I'm not sure what would be better, apart from a solid concrete wall going quite high which would stop trackside spectating.
One has to weigh up the cost of having open cockpits against the safety of having a canopy.
As was proven in that video of a wheel and tyre being fired at a jet fighter canopy, the technology is there.
I think a more serious look will now be taken at this.
Not saying that I'm for it as a feature, but from a safety point of view I can think of 3 well known accidents that it may have helped in within the last 3 years.
Like I say, I'm against this on principle, but I don't want to see another driver get injured/killed.
The other thing that could be looked at is the design of the catchfencing. I'm not sure what would be better, apart from a solid concrete wall going quite high which would stop trackside spectating.
I wonder if some of the problem is with the high reliance on ground effect for downforce. Compared to F1, the Indycar wings are very small and there is a much higher proportion of downforce from the underneath of the car.
This is great for draughting as it allows cars to run close to each other but if the car gets lifted even slightly the CoP moves massively and throws the car out of control. It's like an F1 car suddenly losing its rear wing.
So, if the front of the car is lifted, the flat underside causes it to fly towards the fencing and flip upside down.
Although Indy tubs are very strong, once the car is spinning upside down the drivers chances are severely reduced. It can be (just about) survivable like Kenny Bracks accident but the driver is in the the hands of fate.
This is great for draughting as it allows cars to run close to each other but if the car gets lifted even slightly the CoP moves massively and throws the car out of control. It's like an F1 car suddenly losing its rear wing.
So, if the front of the car is lifted, the flat underside causes it to fly towards the fencing and flip upside down.
Although Indy tubs are very strong, once the car is spinning upside down the drivers chances are severely reduced. It can be (just about) survivable like Kenny Bracks accident but the driver is in the the hands of fate.
I remember seeing Greg Moore's crash live, and actually Jeff Krosnoffs too all those years ago and I do not believe that there are any safety measures which will prevent the horror of what happened in Las Vegas yesterday ***when cars become airborne***.
With specific mention of Indy racing, yes the cars are faster, yes the racing more dramatic, yes the drivers more risk taking (less professional?), yes the circuits more dangerous. However, you can attempt to mitigate all these factors but then it wouldn't be Indy racing any more - and even then I still think you won't be able to prevent accidents like yesterday's - at 230mph, off the ground, these cars cease to remain cars and simply become projectiles, carrying an oh-so-fragile human being inside...
Terrible gut-wrenching stuff but that's the way it's always been. That's Indy racing.
With specific mention of Indy racing, yes the cars are faster, yes the racing more dramatic, yes the drivers more risk taking (less professional?), yes the circuits more dangerous. However, you can attempt to mitigate all these factors but then it wouldn't be Indy racing any more - and even then I still think you won't be able to prevent accidents like yesterday's - at 230mph, off the ground, these cars cease to remain cars and simply become projectiles, carrying an oh-so-fragile human being inside...
Terrible gut-wrenching stuff but that's the way it's always been. That's Indy racing.
Edited by Murcielago_Boy on Monday 17th October 13:25
Jerry Can said:
i think the problem in this instance was, inappropriate track - too fast/small, too many cars,
solution, don't use the short ovals, or limit the number of cars to say 15. Maybe have heats and final if there are more than 15 entries.
I agree with this.solution, don't use the short ovals, or limit the number of cars to say 15. Maybe have heats and final if there are more than 15 entries.
Unfortunately something like this was inevitable given the large number of cars on such a small track. The track is for NASCAR where the cars are much more suited to close pack racing.
Jerry Can said:
i think the problem in this instance was, inappropriate track - too fast/small, too many cars,
solution, don't use the short ovals, or limit the number of cars to say 15. Maybe have heats and final if there are more than 15 entries.
Inexperience or not I think the above is the real issue in this particular case.solution, don't use the short ovals, or limit the number of cars to say 15. Maybe have heats and final if there are more than 15 entries.
The teams and the series organisers seems to have ignored safety concerns due to wanting to collect a buck. That, if true is shameful to start with, but to ignore the more experienced drivers expressed concerns is even worse.
It may be a history in the IRL and predecessor series to allow entrants over and above the norm for flagship events like Indy500 but there are tiems when tradition has to be by-passed for the future of the sport.
Listening to Mark Blundell on the radio this morning, it seems to him at least that oval racing in this type of car is always going to be too dangerous and it's all to do with the track.
These car are utterly reliant on downforce for grip so you've got dozens of them, travelling at 220mph creating huge amounts of downforce that, only needs a few degrees of turn to be upset and suddenly grip is greatly reduced, plus if something as terrible as this happens and a car flips and it basically becomes a plane.
This coupled with open cockpits and minimal bodywork...
These car are utterly reliant on downforce for grip so you've got dozens of them, travelling at 220mph creating huge amounts of downforce that, only needs a few degrees of turn to be upset and suddenly grip is greatly reduced, plus if something as terrible as this happens and a car flips and it basically becomes a plane.
This coupled with open cockpits and minimal bodywork...
I'm not having a go at anyone here having a discussion, so I hope I don't offend anyone.
This feels a bit like rubber necking at the scene of a major accident. Only we know the outcome and the bitter price a person and his family have paid. Is it a little too early to be having these sorts of conversations on forums?
This feels a bit like rubber necking at the scene of a major accident. Only we know the outcome and the bitter price a person and his family have paid. Is it a little too early to be having these sorts of conversations on forums?
Edited by spunkytherabbit on Monday 17th October 13:36
Forums | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff