rec.autos.simulators

How many have to die?

Jim We

How many have to die?

by Jim We » Tue, 02 Nov 1999 04:00:00


>(message now crossposted to r.a.s. , r.a.s.i, and r.a.s.f1)
>the wall is parallel to the track for the most part, except the last 30-50
>metres or so, where it curves around to the right - to a 45o to the track.

As someone else has posted, the wall is nowhere close to 45 degrees to
the track. The very high power telephoto lens makes lateral distance
changes seem much more abrupt than they really are.

It was nowhere near head-on, as the remaining forward speed after the
impact shows. Jumping to quick conclusions based on a single camera shot
is not the way to determine what would have been safer.

--


Electrical and Computer Engineering
Oklahoma State University

Rexv

How many have to die?

by Rexv » Tue, 02 Nov 1999 04:00:00



>: For crying out loud these machines are designed to be as safe as
>: reasonably possible and have proven that they are time and time again.

>  What is "reasonably possible" is surely a matter of opinion.  I think
>that it is easily possible that F1 and CART cars could both be made much
>safer without any ill effects to the "sport".

Okay, how much safer do you think they can make it?  If it ever gets
to the point of which there is no risk then you can bet it will be as
boring as watching Nascar lapping in single file.  What next? Airbags?
Car-covering rollbars? Ejection seats? Make the entire track out of
Nerf materials? Armco by ***maid?

Let's see, the odds of hitting the barrier on your head at that angle
is???  How many races do they hold each year and how many since the
track has been started?

If every driver has the same perception that a particular track has a
safety problem then they need to band together and say something about
it AS WELL as how to fix the problem.  If they don't then they are
squarely at fault.  No one holds a gun to their head to get in and
drive the cars and no matter how much pressure someone from my
marketting team wants to give me I'm not about to put a gun to my head
and bet on one of the empty cylinders coming up.  Your point about
motorsports past is a very valid one.  Perhaps in a few years the
engineers will have some miracle system to enhance driver safety but
there are limits as to what is practical.  

I can also agree with you here. I'm not interested in watching people
die. If I wanted to see that I'd simply go downtown on a few
particular nights of the year with camcorders and popcorn. It happens
plenty in these parts.  I don't mind watching the odd shunts here and
there but I do NOT like seeing them get injured or killed.

____________________
Try not to let your mind wander. It is too small to be out by itself!

Sky

How many have to die?

by Sky » Tue, 02 Nov 1999 04:00:00

Many people have objected to every call for increased safety in motor-racing
history, starting back with the people who felt that helmets and seat-belts
destroyed the macho "atmosphere" of the sport. Perhaps their opinions would
be different were they personally at risk ....

Fortunately theirs appears to be a minority opinion, or we'd be back in the
bad old days when a single racing class might see a death or serious injury
almost every race.

Sky




> : For crying out loud these machines are designed to be as safe as
> : reasonably possible and have proven that they are time and time again.

>   What is "reasonably possible" is surely a matter of opinion.  I think
> that it is easily possible that F1 and CART cars could both be made much
> safer without any ill effects to the "sport".

> : Freak accidents do occur and they can have tragic results leading up
> : to and including death.

>   When you're getting two a year can you really say they're
> "freak" accidents.  To me that indicates an unacceptable level
> of danger for the drivers.

> : Deal with it! He knew what he was doing when
> : he climbed into the car and I hardly think he could have made it as
> : far as he did without having a few serious carreer considering
> : accidents along the way. That said, he knew the risks, he died doing
> : what he wanted to be doing, and everything leadin up to and including
> : the crash was prepared to the best of everyone's given ability.

>   I'm sorry, but I disagree with you here.  There are circuits that
> all drivers dislike and consider unsafe.  They may "know what they're
> doing" but I bet also that most drivers would prefer to know that it
> was a bit safer.  You could make the same "own free choice" and "know
> what they're doing" argument at any period of motor sport and it would
> have been equally spurious.  Safety can (and should) be improved.  I
> don't want to watch a sport where I have a good chance of seeing one
> of the driver's killed.  I love watching most forms of motor-sport but
> I hate the idea that the drivers may be killed or injured, at the
> end of the day for my entertainment.

> --
> Richard G. Clegg       Only the mind is waving
>     Networks and Non-Linear Dynamics Group
>       Dept. of Mathematics, Uni. of York
>     www:  http://manor.york.ac.uk/top.html

Sky

How many have to die?

by Sky » Tue, 02 Nov 1999 04:00:00

After reading your over-the-top flame, I understand why so many people
(including sim-makers) avoid r.a.s as an eternal melee of vitriol for it's
own sake. You know, it is possible to disagree with people while maintaining
a modicum of civility, which usually gets your ideas taken a lot more
seriously (or at least not skipped after the first paragraph).

Chris


> No, what pissed me off is people like you (politicians are famous for
> this crap) are always so wise after the fact -- armed with 20/20
> hindsight..  You shake your head gravely and act like the rest of us are
> such morons for not catching this earlier.  Well I didn't see your post
> on Friday or earlier in the week.  I read it yesterday, and I haven't
> seen you campaigning for waterbarriers on ovals before yesterday.  Why
> yesterday?  You're damned right.  You put your hindsight glasses on and
> proclaimed instant expertise on the subject.

> You jumped on a tragedy and inflicted your condescending drivel on the
> rest of us as if we haven't a clue how to go about tying our own shoes
> never mind looking at the incident rationally to work to keep it from
> happening again.  Your boorish "When will you Americans ever learn"
> approach certainly didn't help, but your overall approach was like
> walking into a funeral and criticizing the family for buying the car in
> which the kid killed himself.

> Now is the time to start campaigning for CART to start racing in padded
> tubes with closed circuit TV so the spectators can watch.  That will not
> only protect the drivers from crashing into walls, but protect the
> spectators as well.

> We can start working on wrap-around crash cages so that the chance of
> anyone getting hurt by car-to-car collisions within the tubes is
> reduced.  Fire can be eliminated by piping high pressure foam and inert
> gasses into the tube at the first sign of smoke, and the drivers can be
> suspended in high-tech padding inside their cars with room left for foot
> and arm movement.  All other controls can be taken care of by telemetry
> from the pits as a driver requests it based on the information displayed
> on his helmet HUD.  Racing in tubes will also eliminate sun glare.

> The most dangerous time in a race is during high-speed passing, so why I
> don't understand why the rules of engagement aren't changed.  Perhaps
> when Michael wants to pass Paul, Mike calls the officials on his helmet
> radio and asks for permission to pass Paul.  The official can roll a die
> and, based on a chart, can decide whether or not Mike can pass Paul.  If
> so, then Paul must allow the pass in the safest manner possible while
> still providing a show for the fans.

> Get the point yet?


> > On Mon, 01 Nov 1999 05:29:39 GMT, "Kevin Anderson"

> > >You guys will always find something to fight about

> > I don't think anyone ( well 98% )  disagrees with the fact that we
> > could do with more safety - what pissed people of was my use of
> > "americans"

> > --

> > Cheers
> > RP

> > E-mail: rp at post1 dot com

> --
> Bob Curtin
> Worcester Area Strategy & Tactics Exchange
> http://www.tiac.net/users/ten10ths/
> "If God had intended men to join the Army he would have given us green,
> baggy skin"

Supama

How many have to die?

by Supama » Tue, 02 Nov 1999 04:00:00

You have a good point.  But people look toward racing as being "bad" and
all, but why don't we ban *** and smoking and guns and everything in the
world that is dangerous?  People really need to look at the big picture.
The accident was a freak accident.  Some things might have been able to
prevent it such as gravel traps or a "less prone to flipping" substance put
in the infield but slowing the cars down to 200MPH wouldn't have helped in
the same situation and tires wouldn't have helped either.  Just some things
happen in rare incidents and though some can be prevented, others just
happen.

JB


> No, what pissed me off is people like you (politicians are famous for
> this crap) are always so wise after the fact -- armed with 20/20
> hindsight..  You shake your head gravely and act like the rest of us are
> such morons for not catching this earlier.  Well I didn't see your post
> on Friday or earlier in the week.  I read it yesterday, and I haven't
> seen you campaigning for waterbarriers on ovals before yesterday.  Why
> yesterday?  You're damned right.  You put your hindsight glasses on and
> proclaimed instant expertise on the subject.

> You jumped on a tragedy and inflicted your condescending drivel on the
> rest of us as if we haven't a clue how to go about tying our own shoes
> never mind looking at the incident rationally to work to keep it from
> happening again.  Your boorish "When will you Americans ever learn"
> approach certainly didn't help, but your overall approach was like
> walking into a funeral and criticizing the family for buying the car in
> which the kid killed himself.

> Now is the time to start campaigning for CART to start racing in padded
> tubes with closed circuit TV so the spectators can watch.  That will not
> only protect the drivers from crashing into walls, but protect the
> spectators as well.

> We can start working on wrap-around crash cages so that the chance of
> anyone getting hurt by car-to-car collisions within the tubes is
> reduced.  Fire can be eliminated by piping high pressure foam and inert
> gasses into the tube at the first sign of smoke, and the drivers can be
> suspended in high-tech padding inside their cars with room left for foot
> and arm movement.  All other controls can be taken care of by telemetry
> from the pits as a driver requests it based on the information displayed
> on his helmet HUD.  Racing in tubes will also eliminate sun glare.

> The most dangerous time in a race is during high-speed passing, so why I
> don't understand why the rules of engagement aren't changed.  Perhaps
> when Michael wants to pass Paul, Mike calls the officials on his helmet
> radio and asks for permission to pass Paul.  The official can roll a die
> and, based on a chart, can decide whether or not Mike can pass Paul.  If
> so, then Paul must allow the pass in the safest manner possible while
> still providing a show for the fans.

> Get the point yet?


> > On Mon, 01 Nov 1999 05:29:39 GMT, "Kevin Anderson"

> > >You guys will always find something to fight about

> > I don't think anyone ( well 98% )  disagrees with the fact that we
> > could do with more safety - what pissed people of was my use of
> > "americans"

> > --

> > Cheers
> > RP

> > E-mail: rp at post1 dot com

> --
> Bob Curtin
> Worcester Area Strategy & Tactics Exchange
> http://www.racesimcentral.net/
> "If God had intended men to join the Army he would have given us green,
> baggy skin"

DAVI

How many have to die?

by DAVI » Tue, 02 Nov 1999 04:00:00

Not really he wieghed the risk to the satifaction derived from it and
decided it was worth the risk.  Each and everyone of us do that everyday.
Sometimes the risk is not as great, but we do the exact same thing.  I am
not saying that the safety should not be looked at and in this day and age
it should get better and better every day.

Dave

Supama

How many have to die?

by Supama » Tue, 02 Nov 1999 04:00:00

Dude, you are in the wrong sport if you feel racing has unacceptable risks.
If it didn't then everyone would be doing it.  Maybe we should ban driving
cars on the road because more than 2 deaths occur each year due to driving.
Or ban airplanes.  Too much risk.  We can't go around saying everything is
bad.  There would be no fun in life.  We would turn into that planet from A
Wrinkle in Time (whoa that takes me back).

JB




> : For crying out loud these machines are designed to be as safe as
> : reasonably possible and have proven that they are time and time again.

>   What is "reasonably possible" is surely a matter of opinion.  I think
> that it is easily possible that F1 and CART cars could both be made much
> safer without any ill effects to the "sport".

> : Freak accidents do occur and they can have tragic results leading up
> : to and including death.

>   When you're getting two a year can you really say they're
> "freak" accidents.  To me that indicates an unacceptable level
> of danger for the drivers.

> : Deal with it! He knew what he was doing when
> : he climbed into the car and I hardly think he could have made it as
> : far as he did without having a few serious carreer considering
> : accidents along the way. That said, he knew the risks, he died doing
> : what he wanted to be doing, and everything leadin up to and including
> : the crash was prepared to the best of everyone's given ability.

>   I'm sorry, but I disagree with you here.  There are circuits that
> all drivers dislike and consider unsafe.  They may "know what they're
> doing" but I bet also that most drivers would prefer to know that it
> was a bit safer.  You could make the same "own free choice" and "know
> what they're doing" argument at any period of motor sport and it would
> have been equally spurious.  Safety can (and should) be improved.  I
> don't want to watch a sport where I have a good chance of seeing one
> of the driver's killed.  I love watching most forms of motor-sport but
> I hate the idea that the drivers may be killed or injured, at the
> end of the day for my entertainment.

> --
> Richard G. Clegg       Only the mind is waving
>     Networks and Non-Linear Dynamics Group
>       Dept. of Mathematics, Uni. of York
>     www:  http://manor.york.ac.uk/top.html

don hodgdo

How many have to die?

by don hodgdo » Tue, 02 Nov 1999 04:00:00

Ronnie, I will agree that any sort of energy absorbing device is preferable
to nothing, I am just stating that, as an eyewitness to the incident, and
after many years working races, IMO, Greg didn't have a chance once the car
began to turn over.

Rip out the friggin' grass, smooth and pave over the infield and combine
that with an energy absorbing barrier. I may not have saved Greg, but it may
help someone else in the future.

I'm through with ovals, I hope CART never returns to Indy or any other
superspeedway. I know I won't.

--
don

[|]-(_)-[|]


> On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 16:46:07 -0800, "don hodgdon"

> >The way the car hit, water barrels or tire walls
> >wouldn't have made any difference.

> Can we agree on the fact that the impact when hittin a tirewall as not
> as *** as when hitting a clean wall.

> In adition to that, we could start talking about why we have all that
> grass all over the place, asphalt or even a graveltrap would be much
> better en stoping the cars, and asphalt wouldn't flip the cars over...

> --

> Cheers
> RP

> E-mail: rp at post1 dot com

Gary Sanfor

How many have to die?

by Gary Sanfor » Tue, 02 Nov 1999 04:00:00




>>(message now crossposted to r.a.s. , r.a.s.i, and r.a.s.f1)
>>the wall is parallel to the track for the most part, except the last 30-50
>>metres or so, where it curves around to the right - to a 45o to the track.

>As someone else has posted, the wall is nowhere close to 45 degrees to
>the track. The very high power telephoto lens makes lateral distance
>changes seem much more abrupt than they really are.

>>Unfortunately, any car that would be likely to lose control in that turn
>>would come off the track, and impact that section of the wall HEAD-ON. As

>It was nowhere near head-on, as the remaining forward speed after the
>impact shows. Jumping to quick conclusions based on a single camera shot
>is not the way to determine what would have been safer.

What forward speed after the impact? I have it on tape and at no point
did the car proceed  further than the wall after the initial impact.
While the path of the car may have not been exactly 90 degrees to
the wall, it was close to it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary Sanford
Email here only:

Jim We

How many have to die?

by Jim We » Tue, 02 Nov 1999 04:00:00





>>>(message now crossposted to r.a.s. , r.a.s.i, and r.a.s.f1)
>>>the wall is parallel to the track for the most part, except the last 30-50
>>>metres or so, where it curves around to the right - to a 45o to the track.

>>As someone else has posted, the wall is nowhere close to 45 degrees to
>>the track. The very high power telephoto lens makes lateral distance
>>changes seem much more abrupt than they really are.

>>>Unfortunately, any car that would be likely to lose control in that turn
>>>would come off the track, and impact that section of the wall HEAD-ON. As

>>It was nowhere near head-on, as the remaining forward speed after the
>>impact shows. Jumping to quick conclusions based on a single camera shot
>>is not the way to determine what would have been safer.

>What forward speed after the impact? I have it on tape and at no point
>did the car proceed  further than the wall after the initial impact.

The forward speed that caused it to roll and then slide toward camera
for nearly five seconds after the impact. You can't judge how far it moved
down the wall from a highly compressed telephoto shot like that. Watch
your tape again (I just did) and remember that top to bottom on your
screen is a far greater distance than left to right on the screen, and
note how long it continues to move toward the camera.

No, it wasn't. Don't try to judge things from a first impression on a
video taken from a very deceiving angle.

--


Electrical and Computer Engineering
Oklahoma State University

Gary Sanfor

How many have to die?

by Gary Sanfor » Tue, 02 Nov 1999 04:00:00



snip....

I'm not judging it from the accident footage. I'm looking at the
overhead blimp shot that show Hearn's and Moore's paths into
the wall.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary Sanford
Email here only:

Jim We

How many have to die?

by Jim We » Wed, 03 Nov 1999 04:00:00


>I'm not judging it from the accident footage. I'm looking at the
>overhead blimp shot that show Hearn's and Moore's paths into
>the wall.

Please see my post in the "Bottom line, CART safety" thread. I couldn't find
a blimp shot that showed the paths into the wall in the tape of the broadcast,
only the shot from turn two that showed the skid marks on the track that
were also highly distorted by telephoto compression. If better blimp
view is available please let me know where to get it.

--


Electrical and Computer Engineering
Oklahoma State University

George M. Smile

How many have to die?

by George M. Smile » Wed, 03 Nov 1999 04:00:00


> I've never said that Americans are stupid. But you have to
> agree with me on the fact that you do have some of the
> most dangerous tracks in use today.

Actually our tracks pale in comparison to the Isle of Man
'track' with respect to dangerous venues for motorsport.

 - George (who hopes to turn laps in anger at the TT)

Target

How many have to die?

by Target » Wed, 03 Nov 1999 04:00:00

Cars typically hit the outside wall more often than the inside wall.
Racer X
Veteran Sim Racer
Victory Lane-
http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Speedway/1423/

ssra

How many have to die?

by ssra » Wed, 03 Nov 1999 04:00:00

 This From Mario Andretti on CNN.com

                                  Begin
Mario Andretti, a retired open-wheel star, began racing in a more
perilous era.

"I buried a lot of my friends in Formula One," he said. "Back then,
the cars were just plain dangerous.

"Now, drivers expect to have long careers and retire with everything
intact," added Andretti, whose two sons followed him into racing.
"Now, we have fuel cells and crushable sidepods and improved helmets
and lots of other things for the safety of the drivers.

"But the human body was never meant to be smashed into walls at high
speed. With everything that's being done to protect them, drivers are
still only human and vulnerable."

                              END

 It just shows that no matter how far auto racing has come it still is
a damn dangerous sport, and that is why (deep down) we watch it

 BTWY: I will ask in this group too, why no canopies? it seems like a
hell of a logical safety factor (look at F1 boats after they put them
in)


rec.autos.simulators is a usenet newsgroup formed in December, 1993. As this group was always unmoderated there may be some spam or off topic articles included. Some links do point back to racesimcentral.net as we could not validate the original address. Please report any pages that you believe warrant deletion from this archive (include the link in your email). RaceSimCentral.net is in no way responsible and does not endorse any of the content herein.