> Yeah, but if no one was watching and they didn't get paid big bucks to
> do it, they wouldn't race and wouldn't die. Just because someone is
> willing to risk their lives for money and fame, we dont have to
> contribute to it by supporting it. When people die in the name of fun
> and sport, something is wrong..
--
Fester
>Incorrect. Have you ever heard of amateur racing? The SCCA?
Rarely to none.
> >So, you never watch auto races?
> Rarely to none.
>See how simple that was?
Screw you
See how simple that was?
> You mean the same you did from the flight-sim NG where people
> get sick and tired of your crap? I guess they haven't got wind of you yet here...
Having watched this debate for a while, though my better instinct
advises against it I feel compelled to step in and say that to some
extent I agree with David.
For sure his tone and words were provocative, intentionally or
otherwise, but I think NASCAR really does need to stop and take a long
hard look at itself. IMO Dale's impact really didn't look that bad
compared to some where the driver just dusted himself off and walked
away. So why was he killed?
As you said, NASCAR now is, from an on-track point of view, where F1
was after Imola. Drivers dead, drivers hurt, worldwide shock. Where it
differs seems to be in the off-track reaction to that. I shouted
against a lot of the changes made to F1 in 1994 as "knee-jerk", nd
unnecessary, and oerhaps they were over the top. But they worked. You
will never make motorsport 100% safe, but if you've made it 99% safe
you can make it 99.1 or 99.2.
After Imola the FIA seemed to disregard "the show" and say "how do we
make these guys safe?". In some of the posturing earlier in the thread
there was the usual comparison about "F1 doesn't run side by side",
and "NASCAR doesn't do Eau Rouge". Remember that Eau Rouge was GONE in
1994 because it was thought too unsafe - would NASCAR ban side-by-side
if they thought it unsafe? That's a crazy statement, but nothing
should be considered sacrosanct when thinking how to make things safe.
Now the cars are safer in F1, both Villeneuve and Zonta have had HUGE
shunts at Eau Rouge, both walked away without a scratch. If it
happened pre 1994....? I dread to think. Villeneuve is one of the most
"gung-ho" drivers in F1, yet in a recent interview he says "If I'm
honest I'm very happy with the current level of safety in F1, because
you can have a big crash, get knocked about a bit and walk out OK.
That's fantastic". If the F1 drivers say that the FIA have been doing
their job. If the NASCAR drivers are saying the opposite of that,
shouldn't the governing body be listening?
The man who coined that phrase died in a Hockenheim forest 23 years
ago, and we all agree it was a tragedy. However between then and now
wee have shown that it is possible to reduce the danger massively
while reducing the appeal only a slightly. The downside is you make it
safe enough for drivers like Senna, Schumacher (and Earnhardt) to put
other drivers in situations where before it would have been hugely
dangerous, but that's the rub.
The point is that thanks to the changes of the past we can say it is
massively less likely froom one decade to the next, even no from one
season to the next. If, however, it did, I would expect instant action
to redress whatever caused the problem. From each accident you mention
knowledge was gleaned, and put to use to ensure no repeat, and I hope
the same will be done in NASCAR.
But how to react? Should HANS be mandatory? Perhaps not from what I've
read of it, but it should be looked at. Should there be a maximum age
of drivers? Should tactics like Earnhardt's be more clearly outlawed?
Should the rules allow more advanced materials for a survival cell for
the driver? Should the walls be reviewed, perhaps with a crumple zone?
The difficulty I see for NASCAR is that a lot of it's appeal lies in
the "good old boy" stakes, where it is macho, it is big, bruising
machines at incredible speeds, it doesn't have space-age technology of
that hi-falutin' F1 stuff and so on. It makes it difficult to adapt
the show for safety whie maintaining that appeal, but it would be
enormously disrespectful to the drivers who have died if that played
any part in the decision making process, and I don't think it will.
The forces involved CAN defeat all efforts in retention. Okay, so you
can't tether all of the wheels all of the time, but if you can tether
most of the wheels most of the time that's massively reduced the
potential for injury. Such is the way of safety. You don't look for
the one big step to Utopia, you kaizen it.
I'm not a big fan of NASCAR, and I hope that doesn't come across in
this post. However I am a big fan of motorsport, and I was as shocked
about Earnhardt as about any other tragedy in the sport. No
entertainer should have to put their life at risk just to be a part of
a show, without knowing that everything possible was done to minimise
the risk, and I feel the time is long overdue to review oval safety. I
was reading yesterday about Clark's races in the Indy 500, and how in
the race when he finally won two drivers were killed in the opening
laps - we've come a long way since then, but have we done everything
possible, or even everything reasonable? As fans we have a lot of say,
and if we are in any way unsatisfied owe it to the drivers we like and
the sport we love to let the bosses know, let the TV channels know,
and vote with our wallets and our feet.
John
Posts like that help nothing.
Look at Senna and Mansell at Barcelona, 1991. The cars are as close as
any NASCAR race - if they touch, both cars flip at 200mph. If a NASCAR
touches.....nothing happens. So who would you say are the pansies?
If you don't like another sport fair enough, but I don't think I'm a
pansy, and I don't think you are either - but I know neither of us
could do that in an F1 car or a NASCAR.
John
John
> On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 01:27:24 +0000, Graeme Nash
> >So are you saying that in F1, there is zero potential of a fatal
> >accident?
> Are you saying in climbing down the stairs in your house there is zero
> potential of a fatal accident? If you can't sy that, how can you
> possibly contrast with motorsport in such a black and white manner?
> John
Best
Gerry
"Just put me in your kill file." -- David G Fisher
Ummm... re-read the thread :-)
--
Cheers!
Graeme Nash
<snip>
Surprise surprise, the correct answer was a! :)
Andre
Andre
"Michael feels the same way about safety in auto racing as I do. Great minds
think alike." - David G Fisher
BB
>NASCAR = four deaths in nine months.
>F1= zero deaths in seven years.
>NASCAR fans find these stats acceptable by continuing to support this form
>of motor racing "as is". The people who run the sport accept these stats.
>That's why I, and many others, see this as a poor form of auto racing. Add
>in the fact that the drivers are often old and chubby, and that they run on
>tracks where turning left is the only requirement, and the cars are low tech
>boats, and drinking lots and lots of beer is a requirement of the fans,
>then you begin to understand our views.
You seem to have very strange views on Nascar. How you originally formed these
opinions, I don't know. It might make a great psych paper. But you come here,
slam the race series AND its fans, and wonder why people get pissed at you?!?
Amazing.
Eldred
--
Dale Earnhardt, Sr. 1951-2001
Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett
GPL F1 hcp. +28.67...F2 +151.26...F3 hcp. +373.73
Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you
with experience...
Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.
La lala lala... <plugging ears>
He caaaan't heeeear yooooou! :)
Strict adherence to your sig sure would have killed this thread
early. :|
"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
>>I have given stats.
>>NASCAR = four deaths in nine months.
>>F1= zero deaths in seven years.
Perhaps US-drivers should be shut-down.
Matt
