crews, fans or drivers, the *total number* of people killed in Nascar over a
sustained period is clearly way higher than F1.
> > Now Now Jan, We all don't drink beer here in the US you know!! We do
> > have cheap "Thunderbird Wine" too! It's even better in a brown paper bag
> > and especially while we're all*** on street corners gettin`
> > drunk...haha
> > Cheers Thom_j.
> > | Hey... that's not so bad. If the beer were any good, that is. <g>
> > |
> > | Jan.
> > | =---
> > | Don Chapman wrote...
> > | > <snip>
> > | > Yep, stupid American general public, we have nothing to watch
> > | > but Nascar and nothing to drink but beer.
> > | >
> > | >
> > |
> > |
You, Sir, are one inconsiderate, pompus ass.
You pretend to know what _I_ feel about this issue?
I'm gonna stop now before I lose control...
-Larry
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Don,
Your post was excellent, and well thought-out. Far more elliquent than mine
:)
Thanks :)
-Larry
> I find it unbelieveable that a fan of auto racing would have an opinion
like
> this. I am a fan of all motorsports and unfortunately they are all
> dangerous. Death is a possibilty in ALL motorsports. To think differently
is
> to be very, very naive. Yes, Nascar does need to look at safety issues,
and
> they need to do it quickly, but to make claims that Formula 1 is the
safest,
> and that they put safety first is ridiculous. No form of auto racing is
100%
> safe and never will be. Every day you drive your car, you are risking your
> own life to some extent. Hundreds(maybe thousands) of deaths happen
everyday
> on the highways of the world due to stupidity, lack of safety features,
> poorly designed roads and traffic signals, or just too much speed. Cars in
> general are very dangerous, yet we don't shut down the highways. You have
> obviously not been a fan of Forumla One for very long to make such
> unintelligent statements like this,
> "I LOVE F1, but if the drivers were dying I'd say close it down right
now."
> You think 1994 was a banner year for Formula 1? There was even a lawsuit
on
> that! You don't think that the FIA, FOCA, and the track owners made knee
> jerk reactions after the death of Senna? Yes, they made changes but it was
> AFTER the tragedy. The past 9 months have been very bad for Nascar.
However,
> do you know how many Winston Cup Nascar drivers had died before the year
> 2000? As far as Winston Cup in the 90's, I believe there were two: Neil
> Bonnet's death in 1994(Daytona) and J.D. McDuffie in 1991(Watkins Glen).
> This is the same number of drivers that died in F1 in the 90's. If you add
> in the Busch Series, Craftsman Trucks, and ARCA, then I think there were 3
> more(John Nemechek , Rodney Orr , Clifford Allison ). Formula 1 had two
> deaths in the 90's(Senna and Ratzenberger ). I do not know how many deaths
> could be attributed to the Formula One minor leagues such as Formula
3000.
> CART/IRL had 5 deaths in the 90's! Let's shut down the Indianapolis 500 as
> well!!(2 deaths in the 90's). How many deaths were there in Drag Racing,
> Rallying, Touring Cars, LeMans/Sportscars, Sprint cars, Cycling etc.? I
> don't know myself, but I will bet that there were deaths in every one of
> these series. You must not know your history well to believe that F1 is
all
> about safety. Please read this article about the death of Ronnie Peterson
at
> Monza in 1978. http://www.atlasf1.com/2000/ita/preview/peterson.html
> Another dark day in racing, Mario Andretti finally wins the F1
championship
> but loses friend and teammate Peterson. The lack of safety and poor
> respsonse from the safety teams here was appalling. This was nothing new
in
> F1, and Jackie Sewart and many other drivers had been fighting for safer
> tracks, cars, and rules for years.
> To say that the F1 drivers of the sixties were not brave, heroic, or
"real"
> drivers because "they raced knowing death was a real possibility" is just
> ludicrous!!! According to you, all race drivers from the past who helped
to
> build this sport to what it is today "were simply foolish people who
didn't
> value their lives very much." What kind of crap is this?!?!? I guess Juan
> Manuel Fangio, Mario Andretti, AJ Foyt, Richard Petty, Jackie Stewart,
> Emmerson Fittapaldi, Al Unser, Bobby Unser, Alberto Ascari, Aryton Senna,
> Alain Prost, Graham Hill, David Pearson, Gilles Villeneuve, Jody
Scheckter,
> Dan Gurney, Jochen Rindt , Stirling Moss , Ray Harroun, Wilbur Shaw, Bill
> Vukovich, Rick Mears, Jim Clark, Johnny Rutherford, Nigel Mansell, Niki
> Lauda, and Nelson Piquet were all simply foolish people! Not pioneers of
> motorsport? Without these heroes(and hundreds more that I failed to
mention)
> we would have no motorsport! Your lack of reasoning here boggles the
mind!!!
> Using this logic, the heroes of the NASA space program, war veterans,
> firemen, poilcemen, emergency rescue workers, and the people who risk
their
> lives in coal mines are all "simply foolish people".
> Straight from Atlas F1(www.atlasf1.com), here is the list of drivers
killed
> in Formula One since 1950:
> "Among drivers who participated seriously in Formula One since the modern
> championship began in 1950, the list of those killed in racing cars looks
> something like this: Luigi Fagioli was killed in 1952. Felice Bonetto in
> 1953. Onofre Marimon in 1954. Alberto Ascari in 1955. Louis Rosier in
1956.
> Eugenio Castellotti and Alfonso de Portago in 1957. Peter Collins, Luigi
> Musso and Stewart Lewis-Evans in 1958. Jean Behra in 1959. Harry Schell in
> 1960. Wolfgang von Trips in 1961. Ricardo Rodriguez in 1962. Carel De
> Beaufort in 1964. Lorenzo Bandini in 1967. Jimmy Clark and Mike Spence in
> 1968. Lucien Bianchi and Gerhard Mitter in 1969. Jochen Rindt, Bruce
McLaren
> and Piers Courage in 1970. Jo Siffert and Pedro Rodriguez in 1971. Jo
> Bonnier in 1972. Francois Cevert in 1973. Peter Revson and Silvio Moser in
> 1974. Mark Donahue in 1975. Tom Pryce in 1977. Ronnie Peterson in 1978.
> Patrick Depailler in 1980. Gilles Villeneuve and Ricardo Paletti in 1982.
> Elio de Angelis in 1986. Aryton Senna in 1994. Roland Ratzenberger in
1994.
> Nicki Lauda was maimed in a fiery crash, Clay Regazzoni was crippled for
> life, Moss suffered an accident that ended his career and nearly his
life."
> Formula One absolutely does not have a "tremendous safety record". Based
on
> your logic, Formula One should not even exist today because it would have
> been shut down in the 1950s' when the average was at least one death per
> year!
> To stereotype Nascar as all "about beer and crashes" is to show your lack
of
> knowledge of motorsport in general. I've attended all forms of motorsport
> and was taught to appreciate them all at an early age. To say one form is
> superior is just showing uninformed prejudice. We are sad when someone
dies,
> because death itself is tragic no matter the cause. People pay tribute
> because they care and they feel loss. Death and/or the chance of death or
> serious injury is part of all forms of auto racing. Based on your
statements
> you may want to look into relocating to Switzerland where all forms of
> motorsport have been banned since 1955.
> I wish all forms of auto racing were 100% safe. If they were, we would
> probably all compete in them, instead of playing around with our computers
> and "toy" steering wheels thinking we are all high and mighty. However, it
> is not a safe sport. Neither are sports like mountain climbing, sky
diving,
> kayaking, surfing, skiiing, X-treme sports, and to some extent hockey,
rugby
> and football.(just to name a few). I sincerely hope that Nascar gets its
act
> togther and makes some serious changes, but your arguements and
accusations
> are just plain wrong.
> Normally, I would have just ignored a post like this assuming it was a
> troll. However, I have been around r.a.s for a long time, and I believe I
> have seen you make quality contributions to this group. I hope this was
just
> a misstep on your part brought on by the difficult feelings we as racing
> fans always experience after the death of one of our heroes. It makes you
> feel guilty, it makes you feel sad, it makes you feel angry, it makes you
> feel like giving it up. I do not know what the answer is for you, but I
> honestly feel you owe this group an apology if you want to maintain any
> respect here. You are entitled to your opinion, true, but I am trying to
> give you the benefit of the doubt. If this is in fact your honest opinion,
> then I will use your own words to sum it up, "Pathetic".
> Don Chapman
> David G Fisher <dav...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:DPHk6.464$Bf3.85907@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com...
> > I find it really ridiculous that people are acting as if the death of a
> > NASCAR driver is a tragedy.
> > You knew it was going to happen, and so did I. It happens almost every
> year.
> > Three times last year alone. When you support an activity that you know
> will
> > result in the death of someone, then it's not a tragedy. It's simply
> > disgusting.
> > I keep hearing the phrase, "Death is a part of auto racing, and these
> > drivers understand that but want to do it anyway." 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. They have the top
> > experts in the world in charge of the safety of it's drivers. NASCAR is
a
> > joke and the modern equivalent of the galdiator races.
> > 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. I LOVE F1,
but
> if
> > the drivers were dying I'd say close it down right now. I have said on
> this
> > newsgroup before that I didn'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.
> > There is NO reason why drivers have to die in NASCAR. It's simply a
POORLY
> > run, bush league type of auto racing with fans that apparently don't
TRULY
> > care about the safety of it's drivers. It's an embarrassment. Drivers
> still
> > have the choice of wearing open-faced helmets? Drivers have the choice
to
> > wear a neck brace that obviously could have saved the lives of previous
> dead
> > drivers?
> > If F1 can have such a
read more »
Please give me some specific examples here. I am working on it now, but many
of the changes to***pit, helmets, and tracks that are used in F1 were
designed and implemented by US companies and/or manufacturers competing in
"American" racing, whatever that means. I am doing my research now to give
you the facts. Please do the same before posting that american racing does
not evolve.
It's dull for the drivers? Again, please show me some quotes from any
drivers who say that oval racing is dull for them. Oh, and by the way,
Jacques Villenueve won the Indy 500 after being 2 laps down early in the
race. In 1966, Jimmy Clark came in second(some people still say he won) in
the Indy 500 after spinning out 3 times. Danny Sullivan won the 500 after a
full 360 spin. Yes, if you hit the wall its usually over, but that is true
in ALL forms of racing. In fact, in Nascar on many tracks, brushes with the
wall cause no problems at all and the drivers still go on to win. The
fragile cars of F1 can take virtually no contact with wall or any other car
and they are out of the race entirely. Also, I'm sure its very exciting for
the Minardi's to run alone several laps down every race only worrying about
clearing the way for the leaders every few laps. Not that sounds boring.
This is just not a valid arguement on your part.
Oh my, you really think that the most important thing in F1 is safety and
not the show, or circus, as most people call it. Look, I love F1 and I have
obvioulsy been following it alot longer than you have. Please go read some
history books on F1 to discover how ridiculous this statement is. Better
yet, call Jackie Stewart. It is not acceptable to have death in any form of
racing, but the possibility will always be part of it!!!!! I guess it must
be pretty stupid of F1 to have allowed the "show" to come back to the US and
run at Indy at the OVAL. Oh my! This completely blows your arguement out of
the water. If oval racing should be banned because it is unsafe, and the FIA
is only concerned about safety for Formula One races, then it surely seems
stupid of them to come to Indy and run backwards on the oval between (gasp)
concrete walls at 200mph. Oh yeah, they ran this in the RAIN for pete's
sake! Even Nascar and CART/IRL are not that dumb. Please! You know why they
came, because it was the biggest money maker of the year, and the highest
atteneded Formula One race EVER! This is proved by the fact that the FIA
awarded Indy the event of the year. Oh yeah, and the races are not boring in
F1 because of safety regulations! They are boring because there is so much
disparity between the top teams and the rest of the field. Lastly, if FIA
was so concerned about safety, they would do something about the standing
starts which have to be the most dangerous 60 seconds in all of motorsport.
Uh, if you read my full post you would have seen a list of almost 40 drivers
who died in Formula One racing. Not on an oval!!. Racing deaths are not
limited to ovals! In the past 5 years, CART unfortunatley lost 3 drivers.
Only one of those deaths happened on an oval. Please do not post again until
you have your facts straight.
Don Chapman
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 13:26:10 GMT, "Simon Brown"
>> I suppose to your view of the world only driver deaths count, do they?
>> Are the officials who have died in connection with your beloved F1
>> since '94 not important enough to call for it to be shut down?
>> Like the ticket says, " Motor racing is dangerous"
>> To paraphase Clark, if it wasn't dangerous any moron, including
>> Fisher, could do it.
If you haven't figured it out yet, autoracing is dangerous no matter what
form of it you enjoy or watch.
--
Scott B. Husted
PA-Scott
The Pits: PowerSims Magazine (http://www.theuspits.com)
> Four dead in NASCAR in the past season + one race this year.
> NASCAR is a badly run auto racing series. F1 is light years ahead of it.
> David G Fisher
> > > If F1 can have such a tremendous safety record, then there is NO
excuse
> > for
> > > NASCAR's terrible one. It's THAT simple.
> > Uh LOL sure David everybody is entitled to his opinion, whatever
rationale
> > it is.. ;)
> > Did you scream that babbling in 1994 when Senna and Ratzenberger both
died
> > the same weekend, when Wendlinger got a severe crash at Monaco, when
> > Barrichello had a death-defying crash from the lack of safety in Imola's
> > track configuration, etc..?
> > Racing is dangerous. People have, are and will continue to be killed or
> > severely injured. Deal with it, or stop watching it.
> > --
> > -- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard>
> > -- May the Downforce be with you...
> > -- http://www.ymenard.com/
> > -- People think it must be fun to be a genius, but they don't realise
how
> > hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.
It's hard to compare apples to oranges. But better that than
apples and fruitcakes...
One thing to consider is the man-mileage accumulated. The 2000 F1
season consisted of 3214 miles. With 22 drivers, the season consisted
of about 70,700 man-miles (actually less, due to drivers dropping out
of races, but this assumption actually favors more accumulated milage
in F1 than NASCAR).
The 2000 NASCAR Winston Cup season was about 13,500 miles. With 43
drivers, the season consisted of 580,000 man-miles, or about 8.2 times
the length of the F1 season. Also, since you want include BGN and CTS
deaths to pad your argument, we've got to include the mileage as well.
Let's pick arbitrary numbers of 8100 miles (60% distance) times 38
drivers for ~308,000 BGN man-miles, 6750 miles (50% distance) times 32
drivers for ~216,000 CTS man-miles.
So for 2000, we have F1 running 70,700 man-miles with no driver
fatalities (but one racing official fatality). We have NASCAR
WC/BGN/CTS running 1,104,000 man-miles with four fatalities (I'm
giving you this year's Daytona as a freebie) or one fatality per
276,000 man-miles.
If you extrapolate F1's man-mileage numbers back to 1994 (seven
years, 1994-2000), you get two driver fatalities over 495,000
man-miles, or one fatality per 248,000 man-miles.
So, David, one more time, which series is it that "safety is a
science" and which series "is a joke and the modern equivalent of the
galdiator races"? Sorry, but from the numbers I'm having trouble
making the crystal-clear distinction that you seem to be able to
divine.
"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
> Fine. I'll retract my call for it to be shut down.
> From now on I'll just continue to call it a ***form of auto racing that
> has far more in common with the WWF than anything else.
> 49 year old drivers? Artificial close racing? Dead bodies? Beer, beer, and
> more beer.
--
Fester
Restrictor plate racing killed Dale Earnhardt.
Only because Senna died. Find something else to do.
-
Alan
Dale Earnhardt, 1951-2001:
"The Last American Hero"
R.I.P.
Two words: Nigel Mansell.
Pocono last year was artifical? Was Bristol? Martinsville?
CART just pulled 2 out in 1999, and F1 had a course worker killed.
There's no beer in Europe? Damn, a lot has changed since I was there in 1992.
-
Alan
Dale Earnhardt, 1951-2001:
"The Last American Hero"
R.I.P.
> > well, the sotry of the brown paper bag is typical of the american way of
> > thinking, it's okay to get drunk on the street as long as you hide it in
a
> > paper bag, even if everybody knows what's in the paperbag.
> > It's okay to *** your secretary if you go to church on the sunday
morning
> > with your loving wife and kids
> > > Now Now Jan, We all don't drink beer here in the US you know!! We do
> > > have cheap "Thunderbird Wine" too! It's even better in a brown paper
bag
> > > and especially while we're all*** on street corners gettin`
> > > drunk...haha
> > > Cheers Thom_j.
message
> > > | Hey... that's not so bad. If the beer were any good, that is. <g>
> > > |
> > > | Jan.
> > > | =---
> > > | Don Chapman wrote...
> > > | > <snip>
> > > | > Yep, stupid American general public, we have nothing to watch
> > > | > but Nascar and nothing to drink but beer.
> > > | >
> > > | >
> > > |
> > > |
> >well, the sotry of the brown paper bag is typical of the american way of
> >thinking, it's okay to get drunk on the street as long as you hide it in
a
> >paper bag, even if everybody knows what's in the paperbag.
> >It's okay to *** your secretary if you go to church on the sunday
morning
> >with your loving wife and kids
> Note to group:
> Any other questions as to why France is not a prime vacation choice?
> > in Le mans they built chicanes in the
> >straight because people in very low and wide cars were reacing 400 kph,
in
> >Nascar they drive almost as fast with a ***ing WALL with ABSOLUTELY no
> >protection about 50 cm from the cars...silly isn't it ?
> Exciting, isn't it?