[63Banshee]

Indy Car "crowd?" More like Indy Car gathering.

[Sidponcho]

I love her hair

[MikeNoun]

IndyCars start 3-wide at the Indy 500 because it's tradition. And even with that, everyone holds their breath. There have been several major accidents when the green flag drops (1973 being the worst). It's not because the drivers are less experienced drivers, it's more the fact they have less experience doing a 100 mph flying restart, something only done once a year, and 2-wide is just asking for problems. The cars just accelerate too fast, and at some tracks, the slightest misstep means disaster. In IndyCar, if the car in front doesn't move fast enough on a restart, the driver behind has a lane to swerve out and continue, and the car behind that car can swerve and continue too. It's just open wheel racing precautions, that's all. The human brain, and reflexes, can only react so fast. There's no bump drafting or fenders to bang on in an IndyCar or F1 restart, and if tires touch, cars fly. When someone checks up at Las Vegas in a NASCAR race, there's a wreck, and cars are bent up. When someone checks up at Las Vegas in an IndyCar race, people die.

These drivers grew up driving a certain way, and it's very hard to retrain themselves to drive something else. It's like when Michael Jordan, the greatest basketball player ever, tried to play baseball. With all his skills, he couldn't hit a curve ball.

[The Champ]

Mike

You're missing the point.

If they can start the race 3 wide, restarting the race 2 wide should be even easier/safer as it allows even more room.

When someone checks up at Las Vegas in a NASCAR race, there's a wreck, and cars are bent up. When someone checks up at Las Vegas in an IndyCar race, people die.

There have been 14 driver that have died from injuries while racing at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway. The first in 1919 and the last in 1973.

There have been 12 fatal accidents in NASCAR at Daytona. The first in 1965 and the last in 2001.

Over the same time period - 1959 (year Daytona opened) to present - only 3 fatalities at Indy, 12 at Daytona.

It appears that fatal accidents are much more frequent in NASCAR than Indy cars.

[MikeNoun]

They start 3-wide at Indy because it's tradition (as I stated before), not because it's what the drivers want. It's simply too dangerous to do 3-wide restarts.

You know (and everyone knows) that the slightest contact between two open wheel cars can result in cars flying, serious injury, or death. NASCAR cars make more contact with each other in one lap than than IndyCars make with each other in an entire season.

And please don't use the old tactic of selective statistics to prove a point.

The Indy 500 is run once a year, so the 14 deaths you quote is for approximately 54 races run between 1919 and 1973. That's approximately 1 death every 3.8 years, or one death every 3.8 races.

The 12 deaths you quote for Daytona between 1965 and 2001 is from approximately 700+ races held at Daytona in NASCAR, because that figure includes the top series (Grand National, Winston, Nextel, Sprint Cup), the next tier (Busch, Nationwide), ARCA, and NASCAR Trucks, they 2 races every year at the facility with a full field in each series, and they shorter 75-mile, 100-mile, and 125-mile shootouts or qualifiers with a full or partial field. So that's a ratio of about 1 death every 58 races.

IndyCars are far more dangerous, much faster accelerating, open-wheeled, and have virtually no driver protection compared to a NASCAR car. That's why they do the single file restarts. They succumbed to the double-wide restarts on 3 tracks to appease the fans. The drivers don't like it, it's too dangerous.

F1 has always used single file restarts, although in F1, there was no actual safety car (full course yellows) until 1993, after the FIA finally realized that a flaming wreck on the track, with a driver burning in the cockpit, actually required cars to slow down (look up the 1973 Dutch Grand Prix).

[ho428]

[QUOTE=The Champ;4936686]

If they can start the race 3 wide, restarting the race 2 wide should be even easier/safer as it allows even more room.

Why should they restart side by side?

If I'm 3 car lengths ahead of the next car when the caution comes out I'm ok with him starting on my bumper but he didn't earn the right to be beside me. That side by side restart was created to create chaos for the fans, not to make the racing better.
For the one or two cars that might be side by side when the caution comes out, well, deems da breaks.

[MikeNoun]

That's exactly right. The side-by-side was to appease the fans. It's ok for initial starts, but after a yellow flag, there's no reason to do a restart side-by-side.

The various racing series are experimenting with different tactics to draw fans in. NASCAR leads in that arena. I wouldn't be surprised if someday we see a standing start in NASCAR like in Formula 1.

[Sirrotica]

If your on a hard to pass track the restart may be your only chance to get by the guy who is ahead of you, even though your faster you can't get by him. During my career on short tracks we always restarted 2 abreast and I have no problem with that type restart at all. With 24 cars single file on a 1/3 mile track they string out at least half way around the track so the last few cars have to look across the infield at the starter to see when the green comes out, or if the lineup isn't good the yellow comes out. It gives the guys in the rear at least some chance of working their way to the front starting 2 abreast rather than single file.

The local tracks in Ohio restart single file during their weekly shows, however when the Allstar sprints run special events they restart 2 abreast. Open wheel cars that can get launched into the air if the tires come together the wrong way. I myself being a former driver like the 2 abreast restarts myself, whether I'm driving or watching. I really don't care how the other people in the stands want too see a restart done. Each sanctioning body/promoter has their own way of doing the restarts and have their own reasons for the way they do them.

I really don't believe it's done for sensationalism either to see more wrecks because the one thing I hate to see is anyone wreck and the different sanctioning bodies know how much it costs to replace or repair torn up equipment, really don't see them cutting their own throats by losing some of the field to wrecks and possible higher insurance rates for themselves as promoters. It also promotes closer racing so that's what I come to see, not the field all strung out with 5 cars on the lead lap.

In my world the 2 abreast restart is what I'd rather see, and I don't believe there's a conspiracy to do it just because some fans like to see wrecks. Wrecking race cars benefits absolutely no one.

[arbys]

I like to see close racing and not see the same winner week after week.. I really don't like see wrecks but I like to see the drivers push it all the way to the limits. I also like to see the wreck that that didn't happen. Again pushing everything to the limits.

[63Banshee]

I wish Dale Sr. was around to give his perspective... and left front in her right rear until she grew a pair.

[The Champ]

Originally Posted by MikeNoun

They start 3-wide at Indy because it's tradition (as I stated before), not because it's what the drivers want. It's simply too dangerous to do 3-wide restarts.

It's no more dangerous to do a restart 3 wide than it is to do the original start 3 wide. Probably safer because they quite possibly are fewer cars. Remember - they only run 33 cars at Indy.

NASCAR starts 43 cars 2 wide and restarts up to 43 cars 2 wide.

You know (and everyone knows) that the slightest contact between two open wheel cars can result in cars flying, serious injury, or death. NASCAR cars make more contact with each other in one lap than than IndyCars make with each other in an entire season.

Yeah, and at Daytona there are times when 2 cars don't even touch and yet one or both will go flying, which can cause serious injury or death.

And please don't use the old tactic of selective statistics to prove a point.

The Indy 500 is run once a year, so the 14 deaths you quote is for approximately 54 races run between 1919 and 1973. That's approximately 1 death every 3.8 years, or one death every 3.8 races.

Talk about being selective...

You just eliminated all the races that haven't had a fatality since 1973 from your statistics. You also eliminated the earlier years of the 500 prior to the first fatality in 1919.

Bottom line - 1 death in the Indy 500 race since 1970 that may or may not have occurred due to actual injuries sustained in the crash.

Swede Savage didn't die at the Indy 500 - he died at the hospital on July 2nd (more than a month after the crash during the 500) - and it may have been due to a contaminated blood transfusion - not from the actual injuries sustained.

From 1970 to present there has been 1 driver killed in the actual Daytona 500.

Also, safety improvements for both series has improved dramatically over the years. But the NASCAR Cup fatality was in 2001 - the Indy Car fatality was in a much more primitive era.

IndyCars are far more dangerous, much faster accelerating, open-wheeled, and have virtually no driver protection compared to a NASCAR car. That's why they do the single file restarts. They succumbed to the double-wide restarts on 3 tracks to appease the fans. The drivers don't like it, it's too dangerous.

Indy Cars are not nearly as dangerous as you portray them to be. Facts are facts - and the Indy 500 is their premier event and hasn't had a fatality 100% attributable to the actual race since years before 1970.

The bulk of the fatalities at Indy occurred long before we were born and long before there was a Daytona 500. Safety improvements have been a good thing for all.

[The Champ]

Originally Posted by ho428

Why should they restart side by side?

If I'm 3 car lengths ahead of the next car when the caution comes out I'm ok with him starting on my bumper but he didn't earn the right to be beside me. That side by side restart was created to create chaos for the fans, not to make the racing better.
For the one or two cars that might be side by side when the caution comes out, well, deems da breaks.

On the other hand, racing is about competing. There are times when the caution comes out that several cars (2, 3 or more are "side by side").



Why shouldn't they restart "exactly" as they were on the track at the time of the caution.

Caution flag just came out - let's get them restarted "just as they were"...



How about if the caution came out at this point of the Indy 500?



As I stated earlier, if the original start is done 3 wide, why don't they be consistent and do all the starts/restarts in the same manner?

[MikeNoun]

Champ, they do a 3-wide start at Indy because it's TRADITION, not because the drivers like it. The Indy 500 is a spectacle, the biggest single automotive event in the world, and with it goes pageantry.

And my stats aren't off. There's a death every 3.8 years at Indy, and that's JUST THE INDY 500, whereas your selective stats include over 700 races between all series that run Daytona since 1959, including the "big boys" of Grand National/Winston/Nextel/Sprint, and the lesser series of Busch/Nationwide, plus the the hundreds of shootout races, qualifiers, and ARCA races held at Daytona. They're all considered "NASCAR".

You also include practice and qualifying session deaths in your stats, which I didn't do. That sways the dangers of the Indy 500 even further towards my point.

There have been another 25 deaths at the Indy 500 during practice, testing, and qualifying. So that's 39 deaths at the Indy 500, plus another 12 died when drivers used to ride with mechanics on board (pre-war).

Grand total of 51 deaths at Indy since 1913, or one death every 2 years.

Open wheel racing is more dangerous (obviously) when wheel-to-wheel contact occurs, plus the fact IndyCars don't have roll cages, or metal all around the driver to absorb the impact.

Formula 1 is a different animal. The F1 cars and drivers are so far above NASCAR it's like comparing a rotary telephone to a SmartPhone.

[David Holmberg]

[quote=ho428;4936883]

Originally Posted by The Champ

Why should they restart side by side?

If I'm 3 car lengths ahead of the next car when the caution comes out I'm ok with him starting on my bumper but he didn't earn the right to be beside me. That side by side restart was created to create chaos for the fans, not to make the racing better.
For the one or two cars that might be side by side when the caution comes out, well, deems da breaks.

Absolutely on a road course, or large track.

This started in NASCAR because they had small tracks. Have you ever seen a 43 car single file start on a 1/2 mile track?

Not saying its right or best, just saying why it started.

[The Champ]

Originally Posted by MikeNoun

Champ, they do a 3-wide start at Indy because it's TRADITION, not because the drivers like it. The Indy 500 is a spectacle, the biggest single automotive event in the world, and with it goes pageantry.

Indy is what Indy is. Once again, if they can start the race 3 wide, they can restart the race 3 wide.

And my stats aren't off. There's a death every 3.8 years at Indy, and that's JUST THE INDY 500, whereas your selective stats include over 700 races between all series that run Daytona since 1959, including the "big boys" of Grand National/Winston/Nextel/Sprint, and the lesser series of Busch/Nationwide, plus the the hundreds of shootout races, qualifiers, and ARCA races held at Daytona. They're all considered "NASCAR".

You also include practice and qualifying session deaths in your stats, which I didn't do. That sways the dangers of the Indy 500 even further towards my point.

Did you even read my last post on the topic? Obviously not...

Your 3.8 years stat is extremely selective - it only counts the years from the first fatality to the last fatality. It ignores the years before the first fatality and the 41 years since the last one.

In the last 41 years there has not been a single fatality during the Indy 500. That's a very good thing. But by your claimed statistic of one death every 3.8 years - there should have been another 10.8 fatalities. But there hasn't even been a single ONE.

How do you justify your continued claim of 3.8? You can't. To even post that was an attempt to hide from the truth.

In the modern day era (1970 - present - selective - but fair to both sides based on safety improvements made to both sports) there has not been a fatality during the Indy 500 (see previous post about Swede Savage), but there has been a fatality during the Daytona 500.

There have been another 25 deaths at the Indy 500 during practice, testing, and qualifying. So that's 39 deaths at the Indy 500, plus another 12 died when drivers used to ride with mechanics on board (pre-war).

Grand total of 51 deaths at Indy since 1913, or one death every 2 years.

Most of those deaths occurred before Daytona was even built. When you questioned my numbers I boiled things down to just the actual race, but now you want to add practice in. Okay, fine... But let's also be fair any at least use a semblance of current day safety...

Modern day era:

Indy 500 Race

1973 - Swede Savage (died in hospital July 2, death may have been from contaminated blood transfusion rather than directly from the crash)

Indy 500 Practice/Qualifying

1972 - Jim Malloy
1973 -Art Pollard
1982 - Gordon Smiley
1992 - Jovy Marcelo
1996 - Scott Brayton

Daytona 500 Race

2001 - Dale Earnhardt

Daytona 500 Practice/Qualifying

1972 - Friday Hassler
1980 - Ricky Knotts
1994 - Neil Bonnett
1994 - Rodney Orr

Open wheel racing is more dangerous (obviously) when wheel-to-wheel contact occurs, plus the fact IndyCars don't have roll cages, or metal all around the driver to absorb the impact.

While they have been 2 more deaths since 1970 at the Indy 500 (and the practice/qualifying for the race) in the modern day era - I don't thing you can "obviously" determine that Indy Cars racing is more dangerous.

They are different.

[The Champ]

Originally Posted by David Holmberg

This started in NASCAR because they had small tracks. Have you ever seen a 43 car single file start on a 1/2 mile track?

If they started 43 cars single file at Bristol, they'd still be closer together than 30 or fewer cars starting single file at the Indy 500...

During most Indy 500 single file restarts there are cars on the still on the backstretch when the leader takes crosses the bricks. 2.5 mile track - has to be about a 1 mile headstart...

[MikeNoun]

Originally Posted by The Champ

it only counts the years from the first fatality to the last fatality. It ignores the years before the first fatality and the 41 years since the last one.

Umm...I think that's how you calculate stats, from the first one to the last one. Darn it, and I have a degree in Computer Science and wasted my time in Statistical Analysis.

In the last 41 years there has not been a single fatality during the Indy 500. That's a very good thing. But by your claimed statistic of one death every 3.8 years - there should have been another 10.8 fatalities. But there hasn't even been a single ONE.

So eliminate the past 41 years, that means there was a death every 1.3 years up to 1970 at Indy. Wow, that sounds safe to me.

In the modern day era (1970 - present - selective - but fair to both sides based on safety improvements made to both sports) there has not been a fatality during the Indy 500 (see previous post about Swede Savage), but there has been a fatality during the Daytona 500.

Again, you missed the entire point. There have been over 700+ RACES at Daytona since 1959, there's been 54 races at Indy. Easy math, a death is 12 times more likely at Daytona than at Indy.

But there's been 2 more deaths at the Indy 500 than at Daytona since 1959.

CONCLUSION : Indy is more dangerous than Daytona.

And again, you can't compare drivers between the two sports. IndyCar drivers are more talented, and F1 drivers are on a different level.

In NASCAR, if you miss you're turn-in mark, you correct and continue, but you've lost a second on the leader. At Indy, if you miss you're turn-in mark, you're in a wall.

IndyCar drivers can make the transition to NASCAR, but a NASCAR driver can't make the transition to IndyCar. Why is that?

And I'm not talking about successful transitions, just merely being able to drive an IndyCar through an entire race without crashing.

The IndyCar and F1 drivers that have crossed over to NASCAR (which they did for money) have struggled on ovals because there's little driving involved. Montoya, Patrick, Hornish (who is doing much better), Raikkonen, Allmendinger, they have all struggled because most of the NASCAR schedule are 1.5 ovals or superspeedways.

But note how the true talent rises to the top when they have to actually DRIVE the car, as on a road course.

Montoya, Allmendinger, Hornish, even Danica, seem to have a totally different car and team when they run a road course. They typically run in the top 5, or qualify in the top 5, where as the rest of the season they settle for top 20 finishes.

[The Champ]

Originally Posted by MikeNoun

Umm...I think that's how you calculate stats, from the first one to the last one. Darn it, and I have a degree in Computer Science and wasted my time in Statistical Analysis.

Well, I guess if they stopped racing at Indy after the 1973 500, your statistics would mean something. Personally, I think a 41 year stretch with ZERO fatalities during the actual race is a worth of taking into consideration.

But I don't have a degree in statistical analysis - so maybe the last 41 years just really don't exist.

So eliminate the past 41 years, that means there was a death every 1.3 years up to 1970 at Indy. Wow, that sounds safe to me.

You want to only count the dark ages. All I know is that there aren't any deaths at all during the Indy 500 from 1974 to present. That does sound safer now than back then.

Again, you missed the entire point. There have been over 700+ RACES at Daytona since 1959, there's been 54 races at Indy. Easy math, a death is 12 times more likely at Daytona than at Indy.

Actually, you're the one missing the point - twice now. After you correctly pointed out that I was including different series, I extracted everything but the Daytona 500 for my post at 7:28 PM last night.

Then this morning, when I realized that you hadn't taken the time to READ and COMPREHEND my post from last night before you went on a diatribe and started including practice and qualifying for the Indy 500, I took the time to list all race, practice and qualifying fatalities for only the 44 Daytona 500's, along with practice and qualifying for the Daytona 500 since 1970 and the same for the Indy 500.

Which sure doesn't add up to 700 NASCAR RACES as you've mistakenly claimed twice now.

And again, you can't compare drivers between the two sports. IndyCar drivers are more talented, and F1 drivers are on a different level.

Your opinion.

This thread is about a driver that has had her best success driving Indy Cars and most of us realize that she really is in over her head trying to make it on the NASCAR circuit.

There have been many failed attempts by Indy Car drivers to make it in NASCAR. The best success story is Tony Stewart - but he has been successful in every venue he has chosen to compete in.

IndyCar drivers can make the transition to NASCAR, but a NASCAR driver can't make the transition to IndyCar. Why is that?

And I'm not talking about successful transitions, just merely being able to drive an IndyCar through an entire race without crashing.

I guess you've never heard of Donnie Allison...

Donnie Allison finished fourth and was named Rookie of the Year at Indy in 1970. His first race ever in an Indy Car - he not only didn't crash - he was a serious contender for the win.

Once again, you're wrong...

The IndyCar and F1 drivers that have crossed over to NASCAR (which they did for money) have struggled on ovals because there's little driving involved. Montoya, Patrick, Hornish (who is doing much better), Raikkonen, Allmendinger, they have all struggled because most of the NASCAR schedule are 1.5 ovals or superspeedways.

Isn't the Brickyard an "oval"?

Montoya, Allmendinger, Hornish, even Danica, seem to have a totally different car and team when they run a road course. They typically run in the top 5, or qualify in the top 5, where as the rest of the season they settle for top 20 finishes.

To keep this short - I'm only going to deal with the touring queen... As this post is about her:


6/23/2012 Sargento 200 Road America - started 10th, finished 12th

8/11/2012 Zippo 200 at The Glen Watkins Glen International - started 23rd, finished 43rd

8/18/2012 NAPA Auto Parts 200 Circuit Gilles Villenueve, Montreal, started 4th, finished 27th

8/20/2011 NAPA Auto Parts 200 Circuit Gilles Villenueve, Montreal - started 25th, finished 24th

Average start - 17 Average finish - 26.5... That's pretty close to what she's doing this year at ovals.

Maybe she isn't quite as good as you thought...

[63Banshee]

This is getting deep for a Panica sucks conversation.

[hurryinhoosier62]

Mike,

You're trying to make a point I'm been trying to make with die-hard NASCAR fans for years. They want to discount the difficulty in driving a 1700lbs, 1,000hp 250+mph race car compared to a 3500lbs., 750hp(on non-restrictor plate tracks), 200 mph race car.
If you add sprint cars into the mix, their eyes glaze over.