rec.autos.simulators

Being a spectator at a race is NOT dangerous. Yes, the event that
happened in Michigan was a horrible tragedy and my heart goes out to the
families and everyone else involved but lets be realistic here. It was a
fluke. These were the first spectator fatalities in major U.S. motor
racing in eleven years. Get the attendance figures for all CART and
NASCAR races during the past eleven years and add em up. what do you
get, 10 million?, 20 million? Now get your calculator and divide the
number 3 by 10 million and tell me the percentage. I'll take those odds
any day. This is not and never will be a perfect world. We cannot
foresee and therefore prevent every bad that is ever going to happen.

Probably more people got killed on the roads in car accidents going to
attend these races than fatalities by tyres gone haywire....

uwe
--
 Spam-proof e-mail: Uwe Schuerkamp <hoover at telemedia . de>
http://www.telemedia.de/~hoover ////// Phone: +49-5241-80-10-66
    Best of Scottish Folk: http://home.pages.de/~nsg
  >>> Blue Ribbon Campaign:  Support Free Speech on the Internet <<<

Monaco, like Indianapolis, is a tradition, so I think it goes on.
I will admit, I love to watch the Monaco GP. Much of Monaco is low
speed compared to the ovals, but you are exactly right about it having
no runoffs.
I wonder how the FIM and drivers actually feel about Monaco?
If a new round was proposed in a similar setting, do you think the FIM
and drivers would approve it? I don't.

--

 http://www.users.fast.net/~fusion1
 (dirt bikes, rat bikes, rental car abuse...)

I didn't quote you out of context.
You consider that the cars used in 1967 were overpowered and that the
design of the circuits meant that the speeds were too high?  Is that
correct?

If that  is what you meant then I say that the drivers would have much
preferred to race *their* cars on *those* tracks rather than race todays
cars on todays tracks.

This fact is born out by several drivers of "The School of 1967" stating
exactly that.  These drivers include the likes of Sir Jack Brabham, John
Surtees, Dan Gurney, Phil Hill and Chris Amon, not to mention a more
recent Champion, Alan Jones. Add to that the comments of current
drivers, including Jacques Villeneuve and Gerhard Berger, who have
blasted the attitude today of designing circuits that are more a
collection of chicanes and squiggles rather than using flowing, natural
contours.

It is easy to be wise in hindsight:  back in 1967 that was the
situation....we didn't have a crystal ball that enabled us to look ahead
to 1998 and see how boring and totally commercialised the sport would
become.  If we *had* been able to see into the future then you can bet
that we wouldn't have let the sport fall into the grasp of a few
megalomaniacs, that's for sure!! :o)

If Monte Carlo were applying for a round of the F1 season today it is
extremely unlikely that the track would be rejected simply on the
grounds of safety, or lack of it.
The circuit is not "unsafe", due to its predominently low-speeds (all
things being relative, of course!!) and safety enhancements have been
made over the past several years.

It is more likely that the circuit would be rejected on the grounds of
"boredom"!

As far as what the drivers think, you need go no further than the likes
of Martin Brundle, Alan Jones, Jacques Villeneuve, etc, to understand
that they dislike racing there...because the "racing" is almost
non-existent and finishing positions are usually based on where one
qualified and who drops out in the race.

Most of them, however, understand the prestige of winning there and most
want to win there, at least once in their careers.

Then they have to run the risk of leaving the circuit in a coffin. Just
like Lorenzo Bandini, Jimmy Clark, Bob Anderson, Carel Godin de Beaufort,
Jochen Rindt, Graf Wolfgang von Trips, Francois Cevert, John Tayor and all
those others.

They are the lucky ones, that survived, partly because of skill, partly
because of luck. They will surely look back to time that gave them
fantastic sport, but I am sure that they will also look back in grief when
they think of the good friends they lost.

Jackie Stewart once considered how many man with whom he
raced F2 were still alive and found out that about half of them had been
killed.  

They should consider that chicanes aren't there for nothing. Besides,
Berger was the first man that talked about more safety after the
Imola-tragedy.

The boredom is surely not caused by the chicanes and improved safety.
I remember last year's races at Imola and Hockenheim as being the most
boring, but the races on the so-called Mickey-Mouse circuits offered a lot
of e***ment (Hungary, Monaco, A1-ring last week)

You're right that the commercialism is killing the sportbut that has
nothing to do with improved safety

Greetings,
Han Monsees

                                        Cruyff over van Gaal

This message is transmitted on 100% recycled electrons

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mike

While it is none of your business how I would choose to raise my
child, yes, if my child wanted to attend these events I would let
him/her.  If you can not accept the risks involved for your child then
don't allow them to attend.  Perhaps you should not let them
participate in any aggressive spiorts either...they may get hurt.  I
regularly take my nephew sailing...there are risks involved in this,
in fact the odds are much higher that he will die while sailing than
he will die while attending a car race.  I suppose you feel that I am
an evil uncle for exposing him to this horrible risk?

And so it is...but it is not zero.

Really, they know that?  I would bet that they do not know that.  No
one does until a fatality happens...even then, they are usually freak
accidents, not caused by an unsafe track.  You need to understand the
statistics involved here...figure out how many spectators have died
during all forms of motorsports events over the last (pick a number)
years compared to the number of spectators who have attended; however,
I'm sure you will get your wish...these types of things always make
the human species overreact in a pathetic attempt to protect us from
ourselves.  I'm sure before too long, they will decrease the speeds to
perhaps 20 kph or so.  Then we can all feel really safe, the drivers
too...and still, somewhere, someday, something will happen and there
will be tragedy.

Mike

I`m not saying we need to drastically improve spectator safety, in my
opinion it`s very good and as long as we learn something from the
Michigan tradegy and try to prevent it from happening again, I`m content
with that.

I just don`t agree that being spectator at a motorsportevent is
basically dangerous and that you should expect to be injured if you
attend

Beers and cheers
(uncle) Goy
UncleGoy on TEN

   This is how it happens ;

   Front right wheel makes impact and tears off car. At this point the wheel ricochets off
the wall upwards and slightly inwards. Had this been on a straight the wheel would have
simply landed on the track or infield. But because the curvature of the track was greater
than the inward effect of the ricochet, this meant the wheel passes over the fence some
100 yards or so down the track from the initial impact at around 200mph no doubt. This is
what enables the wheel to clear the angle and lip of the fence. After viewing the replay
and thinking about it it becomes quite obvious I suppose.

  So at the end of the day you need either an extremely high fence or a lip that
practically acts as a roof over the whole track. Either way, once again, you now have a
structural/monetary nightmare and probable spectator view issues both for TV coverage and
particularly at the track. At the end of the day the m***to the story is "Go to the
races, take your chances!"

-TJ-
"Wear your heart on your sleave, but never sell your soul."

--
Marc J. Nelson
The Sim Project - http://www.simproject.com

* No animals were harmed in the making of this e-mail *