rec.autos.simulators

The approach was just a little bumpy. ;)

Actually, since Colin's San Remo accident last year(where he broke his
jaw), he and Carlos Sainz began running with integral helmets.
Recently I saw several other WRC drivers doing the same here at the
Swedish Rally.

/Magnus
GPLRank hcp: -41.66

   You didn't address field size, which is included in the death per
man-miles stats.  Having twice as many drivers in a field puts twice
as many drivers at peril, increasing the risk (not even taking into
account the potentially higher risk from more traffic).

   David proposes to evaluate safety based upon an arbitrary season
length (or calendar period, to be more precise), despite a vastly
different number of races and race lengths.  And ignoring the fact
that he is comparing three NASCAR series with some 110 or so drivers
to the 22 drivers in F1.

   The point is, using the death per man-miles stat is an attempt to
*remove the variables* of disparate field size and season/race length.
OTOH, David's "stats" ignores those variables.

   BTW, using the "no more dangerous" logic, 95% or so of the NASCAR
races last year were "not dangerous", only the races that drivers died
in were "dangerous".  I don't think that definition of "dangerous" is
terribly useful.  There were probably more dangerous tracks where
nothing happened (Indy, for instance) and the fatalities may have
happened at less dangerous tracks (perhaps Texas).

   That's the way real life is.  Statistics are a mathematical
abstraction to understand the "lumpiness" of real life events.
Standing out in a lightning storm is dangerous (statistically
speaking), but that doesn't mean you'll get hit by lightning.  Over a
sufficient period of time, these "lumps" will even out, and real life
will approach the statistical model.

   That's why I contend that deaths per man-miles is a more relevant
measure of safety than comparing the number of deaths over an
arbitrary calendar period in two radically-different-sized series.

"But in a way, fear is a big part of racing, because if there was
nothing to be frightened of, and no limit, any fool could get into
a motor car and racing would not exist as a sport." -- Jim Clark

Sure helps when you dodge anything with coherent thought applied to it.

-
 Alan

                                           Dale Earnhardt, 1951-2001:
                                            "The Last American Hero"
                                                            R.I.P.

HANS device mandatory.

Full helmets mandatory.

Driver moved to the middle of the car. <<

Geeze, David God, the next thing you know you'll be asking the FIA, ACO,
SCCA, and every sanctioning body that runs GT, sedan, rally and closed
prototypes to do the same thing. Check out LeMans, BPR, DTM, BTCC, WRC,
ALMS, Grand Am...well, I think you get the picture -- every sanctioning
body that runs closed cars with full windshields allows open-faced
helmets, seating wherever the guy who designed the car put it, and very
few sanctioning bodies have made the HANS device mandatory. Wonderful
things that they are, neither a HANS device that he didn't have nor the
full-face helmet that he did could have prevented Senna's freak accident
at Imola.

Your gibbering about NASCAR drivers not using brakes is the purest
banana oil, as you well know: it would be exceptionally hard to get
around Bristol, let alone Sears Point and Watkins Glen, without
judicious use of the brakes. Ever see the brakes in a Cup car? No,
they're not carbon/carbon (neither are those of CART/IRL), but they ARE
monstrous whopping Wilwood or similar calipers clamping huge rotors with
amazing force. I'd have to say that Dale Sr and Jr coming in second in
the Daytona 24 this year argues persuasively that they know how to
drive, as does the many stellar performances by Mark Martin, Robby
Gordon, John Andretti and many other NASCAR regulars who've done very
successful stints in other forms of racing

The worst part of your
troll-that-tried-to-become-a-rational-argument-and-utterly-failed is
your statistical nonsense. No comparative statistical models of
death/injury in different arenas of motorsport can be made without
taking into account the number of man-miles drive (n drivers X n races
of n laps of n miles per season) and then the variables of how many and
which sections of those races are at what speeds -- as far as I know, no
one has died clouting the barrier at Ste. Devote in Monaco, which is
taken at a ridiculously slow speed, while Spa, for instance, has taken
many a soul in its long, high-speed sweeps. Just like you wouldn't
expect many life-threatening incidents at Martinsville, while Talladega
and Daytona, restrictor plates and high-drag body mods notwithstanding,
are still 180+mph with a 3500-pound mass. Simply saying "four dead in
NASCAR since the beginning of last season and none in F1 since 1994" is
anecdotal, not statistical. I would be willing to bet that even a simple
statistical model, based on man-miles alone, of motorsport over the last
25 years, would show that NASCAR is as safe as, or safer than, any other
form of racing you can name. You want statistics? Ask Doug Milliken --
he hangs around in here from time to time. He and his father and their
colleagues have worked at the Cornell Labs in the most extensive and
exhaustive statistical  and test modeling of vehicular accidents ever
done on the planet. Get the REAL story before you spout your drivel.

The most telling part of your hysterical rant is your characterization
of NASCAR fans as the original ***us Americanus, drowned in beer and
eager for "Dukes of Hazzard"-style wrecks and a whiff of ***. That's
just uninformed and stupid, and reflects *your* bias and nothing else.
I'm an old geeze, and I've been to every kind of automotive event you
can imagine, from the Pebble Beach Concours to a stage of the
Pirelli/Mobil Rally in England to a local dirt track in the wilds of
Upstate New York to every USGP held at Watkins Glen from 1962 until they
went bust, Formula 500O and TransAm at Mosport, IMSA GT and WSC at Lime
Rock, vintage races all over the east coast and west, and yes, NASCAR --
at Darlington, Dover, Watkins Glen, and The Brickyard. Race fans are the
same everywhere. I've seen dead-drunk puds at the USGP burning a
chartered bus in the Bog and I've had long and interesting conversations
with engineers in the stands at Darlington. The crowds are all the same
everywhere -- the lager louts and the gentleman sportsmen and every
shading of the human condition in between. NASCAR has its problems (and
what sanctioning body doesn't?), but it is an essentially well-run
machine with people that truly care just as deeply about racing as
anyone you'll find at Ferrari or Williams. Don't forget that in the
'80s, F1 and World Sports Cars had a spate of dead and maimed drivers
and mechanics; that in the late '80s an entire class of rally cars --
the aptly-yclept Killer Bees -- were outlawed because of spectator
deaths. And especially don't forget that 25 laps before Dale Earnhardt
was killed helping his teammate Michael Waltrip win his first Cup
victory in 463 tries, Tony Stewart was in a wild airborne ride during
which he hit at least four cars at very high speed, and the outer skin
of his car was pretty much completely torn off. Would you have wanted to
have been in an accident like that in an F1 car, or an Indy car? You
could have HANS devices attached to every member of your body and a
full-face helmet made of Kryptonite, and I don't think you would have
walked away, as Stewart did, with a simple dislocated shoulder.

NASCAR has a problem with retaining walls, just as CART/IRL does.
Whatever your wearing on your head, you simply cannot decelerate a
3500-pound car from 180mph to zero in 2 feet and not get your eggs
scrambled. Period. In fact, if Earnhardt had been wearing a full-face
helmet, the added mass would have broken the base of his skull even MORE
massively, and I don't think a HANS device would have done much good --
people are regularly killed on the highway in high speed/short crush
decelerations just by the mass of their brains impacting the interior of
their cranial cavity. Somebody's got to find a solution to retaining
walls that's better than concrete. Look at the short runoff and
retaining wall at Imola (because of the river behind it) that killed
Senna, look at the into-the-wall accidents that have plagued CART and
the IRL for years.

If you actually believe the nonsense you've spouted here on this
subject, I pray you never pass your driver's test and get a license
(apparently won't have to worry about that for another 5 or 6 years,
judging from your writing).

You can pick up your F.M.M. Golden Turd award at Frankie Menard's
chateau in suburban Montreal at your convenience...

Bart Brown

But I understand what you are saying, I think. The longer the season the
greater the chances of something happening but is that increasing the
danger or the odds?

Maybe I just don't understand exactly what you mean, I don't know. Maybe
we are talking about the same thing but on different wavelenghts. I'm
not sure.

Hehe.

  David proposes to evaluate safety based upon an arbitrary season

There is a flaw in that I agree. You do get a distorted view of things.
NASCAR has increased odds of things happening but it doesn't nessesarly
mean it is more dangerous except that they do have more drivers.

To be honest I don't know what is more dangerous and I don't really
care. I just like to see racing organizations coming out with new
technology be it performance or safety or anything else new.

You can use it if you want. ;) But they are both dangerous and it
doesn't really matter which is better or worst. I'm not much of a stats
man myself.

The way I see this is the danger is always there even if there was no
results(wrecks/injury). It is a constant varible. It is just a matter of
odds before something happens. This would be alot easier if they ran on
one track 20 times over,hehe. ;)

I agree with you on this. It is dangerous either way you look at it, you
are playing with odds and it will get you sooner or later.

You could use that method to get a rough idea I guess and it would
"level the playing field" but there are still a lot of varibles. Was it
a safety issue that caused the death or was it something else such as a
health issue or driver error or poor judgement or maybe mechanical
breakage like Shummey's at Monaco which could of tossed him in for a big
drink out of the tunnel. There are some wrecks that NASA couldn't even
help prevent a death. That kind of death doesn't make it unsafe, that is
just bad luck. Or do you consider every death a knock against safety?  

My brain is starting to hurt,hehe. Not even sure what this debate is
about,hehe. getting late.

You can respond if you want, Jeff. But I'm done with this thread.
You do have a point and it could give you an idea of the ratio between
each series.

So did the drivers in the race. Who the hell are you to tell them what
risks they should be allowed to take?

Joe McGinn
_____________________
Radical Entertainment

I think the fact that NASCAR is comprised of three independant series as
opposed to F1's single is one of his key points as well.

                                           Dale Earnhardt, 1951-2001:
                                            "The Last American Hero"
                                                            R.I.P.

Joe McGinn
_____________________
Radical Entertainment

-thinks its one of the best posts he's ever read-
 Alan

                                           Dale Earnhardt, 1951-2001:
                                            "The Last American Hero"
                                                            R.I.P.

Please desist in this silly argument by statistics. As many such
counter-examples have already shown, your selective statistics are
meaningless.

Joe McGinn
_____________________
Radical Entertainment

"There are lies, damnable lies, and statistics."

Joe McGinn
_____________________
Radical Entertainment

Try a different angle.

How about we try skydiving example, forget motor racing.

22 Skydivers, 1 giving the previous diver a 10-20 second freefall break
before he jumps. They come into contact occassionally with each other
briefly during small periods of the freefall. They jump once every few
weeks.

42 Skydivers, jumping simultaneously merging with small groups and
doing tricks. Majority of the freefall skydivers are often very close
to other divers. They jump once a week.

Both have similar associated risks as their parachute not opening and
hitting the ground at high speed.

However, the statistical risk would suggest the 2nd group of skydivers
would be more likely to result in injury or fatality than the first.
Based on volume of divers, regularity of the dive, contact between other
divers and causing an accident.

Cheers,
Rod.

"Bullshit. It isn't a part of all types of auto racing. Just NASCAR. Formula
1 hasn't had a driver die since 1994. Before that it was 1982. NASCAR is
about beer and crashes. Safety is a science in F1, and their record proves
it."

and

" If you support NASCAR, then you support the INEVITABLE death of it's
drivers. How the hell are you then sad when one dies? Turns my stomach when
I read or see the melodramatic tributes to a fan favorite"

These are the irrational, prejudiced and uniformed statements I was
disputing. Let me tell you about safety in F1. You seem to be harping on the
HANS device which I agree should be mandated in all forms of auto racing.
But let's see, how many major racing series have required this device? NONE
until this year, 2001. This will be the first season that it is mandated in
F1, CART, and I believe the IRL. But guess what, Robert Hubbard invented the
HANS Device with Jim Downing in the early 1980's!! The early 1980's!! So why
is F1 just now implementing this device twenty years later if they are all
about safety!! From Autoracing1.com:

"Perhaps the most compelling fact about the HANS? Device is that not a
single driver who has worn one in a crash has suffered a neck or head
injury. With more than 250 units currently in use, the HANS? Device works
every time according to its co-creator Bob Hubbard."

Ok, so it sounds great, and again I agree it should be mandated and it may
have prevented the Nascar deaths of the past nine months, but again, if it
is that cut and dry then why is F1 just now requiring the use of this
device?? After Tony Roper died in the truck race at Texas last year, a bunch
of the drivers went and got fitted for the device and ran with it at
Fontana. So, even though it was not mandated, the drivers were smart enough
to realize the necessity of this device. How many F1 drivers used the HANS
device last year? I don't know, I'm asking. I saw every F1 race last year
and I do not believe I ever saw Michael Schumacher using the HANS device.
Maybe I am wrong. I have seen in your other posts that you are championing
Michael Schumacher as some kind of safety king who can do no wrong and may
be the greatest driver of all time. First off let me state that I am a huge
Formula One fan and I have been following it since the early 70's. Let me
also state that I am somewhat of a Michael Schumacher fan. However, I also
have enough commen sense to be able to make unbiased judgements when it
comes to Forumula One, Nascar, CART, IRL, and its drivers. Let's talk about
Michael Schumacher and safety in racing. I think he may be one of the
greatest "driving" technicians. However, his "racing" abilities are very
questionable. He punted Damon Hill out of his chance for the championship in
1995 and tried to do the same thing to Jacques Villinueve in 1997. Last year
he pulled a blocking move on Mikka that if not for Mikka's amazing reflexes
could have resulted in a terrible accident for both of them. He blocked
Coulthard, and he caused a pile up on a re-start and blamed others when his
late breaking tactics resulted in an accident. He could not even race wheel
to wheel with his own brother without crashing into him. The point is, this
is not safe driving. This is very unsafe driving and there are drivers in F1
who think Michael should have been put on probabtion for some of these
moves. Did F1A put him on probation, no!

 "I don't think the F1 drivers of the '60's as modeled in GPL were brave,
heroic or "real" drivers because they raced knowing death was a real
possibility. I think they were simply foolish people who didn't value their
lives very much."

So you understand that based on this statement, all race drivers are foolish
people. ALL race drivers race knowing death is a real possibility. ALL of
them! Do you really think the Formula One drivers today think they are
immune to death in their sport? If you really think this, then there is
really no reason for me to even continue with this post. You do understand
that auto racing would not exist today if people had not been willing to
risk life and limb. You do understand that sports like mountain climbing,
skiing, skydiving, surfing, and kayaking(to name a few), produce deaths
every year as well. Are these just foolish people also? Do you drive a car?
Do you understand that you risk possible death every time you drive that
car? Please go tell AJ Foyt, Mario Andretti, Dan Gurney and Jackie Stewart
that they are foolish people who were not "real" drivers. Was Michael
Schumacher not a real driver in 1993 when the possibility of death in F1
still existed? I think the "real" F1 drivers of today would love to hear
from you that ...

read more »

NASCAR fans can continue to make up statistics to try to defend the sorry
state of their motor sport, but the facts are that F1 has a much more
advanced way of handling driver safety than NASCAR. F1 is cutting edge. F1
has a more advanced way of handling almost everything involved in their
series compared to NASCAR. They seek out the world's experts on car and
track safety. They spend millions researching safety. F1 has a 100+ member
emergency medical crew that travels to each race. F1 has a board of safety
that deals (surprise) solely with safety issues. F1 inspects each track
itself, instead of leaving it up to the track owners as in NASCAR. Extremely
high high standards must be met or there is no race.

The above is just general information. Anyone who wants to do some serious
research into NASCAR and F1 safety is free to do so. They will be amazed to
see how much of a difference there is between the two series.  They will
also find out the real reasons why four have died in NASCAR recently, and
none in F1 in seven years. They will find out that F1 will not tolerate the
sh*t that's happened in NASCAR this past year. They will find out that fans
of F1 wouldn't tolerate the sh*t that's happening in NASCAR. They will
understand why, "Death is a part of racing" is such a bullsh*t line, and
they'll realize what a bush league sport NASCAR is.

David G Fisher