I hope they are happy now...

The powers that be at NASCAR decided that Daytona "wasn't exciting enough", so they made mods to the cars madatory. So what do we have: - probably the most lead changes at Daytona ever - I don't even know, nor do I care - one of the most exciting - I guess if you like shattered dreams of over 20 drivers - a dead legend I was never a Dale fan, but I had/have ENORMOUS respect for the man and his accomplishments. Fucking bastards is the word that springs to mind when I think of the fat assed stuffed shirts that came up with the metal strip, restrictor plate mods, and sundry others. All in the name of evening the field. I guess it was the most exciting Daytona ever ---- until the end. And if you don't count half the field crashing out. I'm going to have a tough time watching that race again, and frankly I could give a shit wether the fucks that decided to "make it more exciting" just died and blew away with the garbage that is littering the track now. Sorry for the rant, but I figured someone here might be feeling the same things. ed

On Sun, 18 Feb 2001 21:20:52 -0500, "Ed Kloskowski" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (30 lines)

>The powers that be at NASCAR decided that Daytona "wasn't exciting enough", >so they made mods to the cars madatory. > >So what do we have: >- probably the most lead changes at Daytona ever - I don't even know, nor do >I care >- one of the most exciting - I guess if you like shattered dreams of over 20 >drivers >- a dead legend > >I was never a Dale fan, but I had/have ENORMOUS respect for the man and his >accomplishments. > >Fucking bastards is the word that springs to mind when I think of the fat >assed stuffed shirts that came up with the metal strip, restrictor plate >mods, and sundry others. All in the name of evening the field. > >I guess it was the most exciting Daytona ever ---- until the end. And if you >don't count half the field crashing out. > > I'm going to have a tough time watching that race again, and frankly I >could give a shit wether the fucks that decided to "make it more exciting" >just died and blew away with the garbage that is littering the track now. > >Sorry for the rant, but I figured someone here might be feeling the same >things. > >ed > >

Some of your points are valid, and I understand why right now there is a need to "vent". But let's not forget, motor racing is dangerous. People will die participating - Clark, Senna, Allison, Easrnhardt - no one is immune. Placing blame isn't the right thing to do just yet. DG

Agreed, good point. The danger is one of the things that gives this sport its edge. The fact remains though, ANY race that sees nearly half the field crashing out in this manner needs sucrutiny. It was said of the madatory mods to the cars that the playing filed was SO level that it was anyones race, literally anyones. I am a firm believer in the fact that the majority of drivers in the back of a pack are there for a reason... They are not "there" yet. Do I think Dale died today becuase of the mods - absolutely. NASCAR swung the pendulum TO FAR the other way. Last years race was broing by anyones account. Except for ONE key person, the drivers. The stuff I read said that most all contenders felt it was a nail biter, but the fans were dissapointed, the public was, the FOX deal was in the works, etc..... When you level a playing field by artifcially making lesser drivers better ones by DEcreasing the ability of the better ones you have upset a delicate balance and you put people in postions that they are unprepared to be in. This race was orchastrated to be slower (knock a few miles off the 190+ we can see at Daytona - if you can call that slower), more contenous, and "better TV". NASCAR needs to take a hard look at themselves. Seeing talent snuffed out like this and watching HALF the friggin field get mopped up is not my idea of a fun Sunday at the races. I like a crash as much as the next guy - today was almost surreal. ed "Disgruntled Goat" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Sun, 18 Feb 2001 21:20:52 -0500, "Ed Kloskowski" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >The powers that be at NASCAR decided that Daytona "wasn't excitingenough", > >so they made mods to the cars madatory. > > > >So what do we have: > >- probably the most lead changes at Daytona ever - I don't even know, nordo > >I care > >- one of the most exciting - I guess if you like shattered dreams of over20 > >drivers > >- a dead legend > > > >I was never a Dale fan, but I had/have ENORMOUS respect for the man andhis

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >accomplishments. > > > >Fucking bastards is the word that springs to mind when I think of the fat > >assed stuffed shirts that came up with the metal strip, restrictor plate > >mods, and sundry others. All in the name of evening the field. > > > >I guess it was the most exciting Daytona ever ---- until the end. And if

you > >don't count half the field crashing out. > > > > I'm going to have a tough time watching that race again, and frankly I > >could give a shit wether the fucks that decided to "make it moreexciting"

Quoted text (15 lines)

> >just died and blew away with the garbage that is littering the track now. > > > >Sorry for the rant, but I figured someone here might be feeling the same > >things. > > > >ed > > > > > > Some of your points are valid, and I understand why right now there is > a need to "vent". But let's not forget, motor racing is dangerous. > People will die participating - Clark, Senna, Allison, Easrnhardt - no > one is immune. Placing blame isn't the right thing to do just yet. > > DG

On Sun, 18 Feb 2001 21:20:52 -0500, "Ed Kloskowski" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (29 lines)

>The powers that be at NASCAR decided that Daytona "wasn't exciting enough", >so they made mods to the cars madatory. > >So what do we have: >- probably the most lead changes at Daytona ever - I don't even know, nor do >I care >- one of the most exciting - I guess if you like shattered dreams of over 20 >drivers >- a dead legend > >I was never a Dale fan, but I had/have ENORMOUS respect for the man and his >accomplishments. > >Fucking bastards is the word that springs to mind when I think of the fat >assed stuffed shirts that came up with the metal strip, restrictor plate >mods, and sundry others. All in the name of evening the field. > >I guess it was the most exciting Daytona ever ---- until the end. And if you >don't count half the field crashing out. > > I'm going to have a tough time watching that race again, and frankly I >could give a shit wether the fucks that decided to "make it more exciting" >just died and blew away with the garbage that is littering the track now. > >Sorry for the rant, but I figured someone here might be feeling the same >things. > >ed >

This is just too sad. Dale Earnhardt is the reason I started watching NASCAR, and racing in general. It just seems everytime we artificially bring the cars closer and make a great show for the fans, tragedy strikes. One need only look at the first Handford device race in CART at Michigan... several fans lost their lives. This is truly a sad day for racing.

Nah...!! I just don't don't "buy" this line of reasoning.....that the "rules" changes for this year's Daytona 500 caused Dale's death, or the accident that took out half the field with 35 laps to go. These "rule changes" had nothing more to do with today's events then any of the other "rules" in the NASCAR Rules Book. In fact, the NASCAR Rules Book has saved hundreds of lives! That's the same "rule book" that dictates all the driver-safety construction that goes into a modern day Winston Cup race car. There have always been "chain reaction" accidents in NASCAR and other forms of oval racing. And, I've seen so many of these at the start of SCCA Regional road races it would make your head spin. I've been in a few them, too. And, I can promise you that if it were not for those "driver safety" rules and regulations, we wouldn't have been the only team to have cut corners on the money they cost.....to pursue speed and some other elusive competitive edge. How many accidents have we all seen that were so ugly.....they turned our stomachs? Only to see the drivers climb out of the carnage and walk away. Then, others......seemingly so docile and insignificant....take lives. How can that be the "fault" of the rules? Rules don't "guarantee" safety. Rules "promote" safety! There is one thing about racing that will never be changed by "rules." That is, the outcome of any race will be as much a matter of "luck" as any other factor....and usually outweighs skill, knowledge, cunning and experience. In racing, there's a saying about luck, "In any race, you'll always have 'luck' to contend with. Sometimes its 'good'.....and sometimes its 'bad'......but its always a part of the outcome!" Today, NASCAR racing lost one of its heros. And, one of its heros, lost a father....and a good friend. That's just plain and simple "bad luck." And, to try to blame it on something else.......just isn't realistic, in my opinion. Tom Pabst

I'm glad someone said what I was thinking. Like Senna would have said "that's racing" JS "Tom Pabst" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:eX1k6.7613$[email hidden]... > Nah...!!

On Sun, 18 Feb 2001 23:31:31 -0500, "Ed Kloskowski" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (29 lines)

>Agreed, good point. The danger is one of the things that gives this sport >its edge. > >The fact remains though, ANY race that sees nearly half the field crashing >out in this manner needs sucrutiny. > >It was said of the madatory mods to the cars that the playing filed was SO >level that it was anyones race, literally anyones. > >I am a firm believer in the fact that the majority of drivers in the back of >a pack are there for a reason... They are not "there" yet. > >Do I think Dale died today becuase of the mods - absolutely. NASCAR swung >the pendulum TO FAR the other way. Last years race was broing by anyones >account. Except for ONE key person, the drivers. The stuff I read said that >most all contenders felt it was a nail biter, but the fans were >dissapointed, the public was, the FOX deal was in the works, etc..... > >When you level a playing field by artifcially making lesser drivers better >ones by DEcreasing the ability of the better ones you have upset a delicate >balance and you put people in postions that they are unprepared to be in. >This race was orchastrated to be slower (knock a few miles off the 190+ we >can see at Daytona - if you can call that slower), more contenous, and >"better TV". > >NASCAR needs to take a hard look at themselves. Seeing talent snuffed out >like this and watching HALF the friggin field get mopped up is not my idea >of a fun Sunday at the races. I like a crash as much as the next guy - >today was almost surreal.

Tragic is the word i'd use. But let me ask you this - and it isn't a criticism of you or your reasoning - but lets say Buckshot Jones had died today (random choice, he was the first "nobody" driver to pop into my head) instead of Dale Earnhadt - would you be so mad? I'm not having a dig. It's just that alot of people forget that, back at Imola in '94, Roland Ratzenburger died as well, not just the great Senna. I guess it is understandable, i'm just thinking aloud is all. I'm still kind of stunned - it was the first thing I saw when I got up this morning. I woke up, turned on the TV and because of rain delay, got to see the last 30 or so laps before work. It was some great racing, and I was so happy seeing Waltrip win, hearing his brother get so emotional in the booth.... then the accident.... then I realised it was taking a little longer than usual to get him out of there.... then it clicked. Earnhardt is dead. Seeing that ambulance drive away slowly, seeing Jr. running to the medical centre.... not the best way to start a day. Sorry, i'm rambling and have got way off of the topic I started on. I'm still in shock, I guess. DG

Its not "rules" I was talking about. its the artificial eveing of a field. I'll let it go. Its not really relevant now. Like JS said "that's racing"... I suppose To answer D.S. about ould I be pissed if it was a nobody. yep. I was pissed when I read of the madatory car mods. I'm not alone in that plenty of drivers and pundits have come out against them. ed "Tom Pabst" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:eX1k6.7613$[email hidden]... > Nah...!! > > I just don't don't "buy" this line of reasoning.....that the "rules"changes > for this year's Daytona 500 caused Dale's death, or the accident that took > out half the field with 35 laps to go. These "rule changes" had nothing > more to do with today's events then any of the other "rules" in the NASCAR > Rules Book. In fact, the NASCAR Rules Book has saved hundreds of lives! > That's the same "rule book" that dictates all the driver-safetyconstruction > that goes into a modern day Winston Cup race car. > > There have always been "chain reaction" accidents in NASCAR and otherforms > of oval racing. And, I've seen so many of these at the start of SCCA > Regional road races it would make your head spin. I've been in a fewthem,

Quoted text (8 lines)

> too. And, I can promise you that if it were not for those "driver safety" > rules and regulations, we wouldn't have been the only team to have cut > corners on the money they cost.....to pursue speed and some other elusive > competitive edge. > > How many accidents have we all seen that were so ugly.....they turned our > stomachs? Only to see the drivers climb out of the carnage and walk away. > Then, others......seemingly so docile and insignificant....take lives.

How > can that be the "fault" of the rules? > > Rules don't "guarantee" safety. Rules "promote" safety! > > There is one thing about racing that will never be changed by "rules."That > is, the outcome of any race will be as much a matter of "luck" as anyother

Quoted text (7 lines)

> factor....and usually outweighs skill, knowledge, cunning and experience. > In racing, there's a saying about luck, "In any race, you'll always have > 'luck' to contend with. Sometimes its 'good'.....and sometimes its > 'bad'......but its always a part of the outcome!" > > Today, NASCAR racing lost one of its heros. And, one of its heros, lost a > father....and a good friend. That's just plain and simple "bad luck."

And,

Quoted text (7 lines)

> to try to blame it on something else.......just isn't realistic, in my > opinion. > > Tom Pabst > > >

"Ed Kloskowski" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:96pvpc$orf$[email hidden]... > Fucking bastards is the word that springs to mind when I think of the fat > assed stuffed shirts that came up with the metal strip, restrictor plate > mods, and sundry others. All in the name of evening the field. While it would be easy to pile on and agree with you, I disagree. The restrictor plates were to slow the cars down, not to make the field even. The alternative is to have a 4000 pound car going airborne at 240mph and spiraling into the grandstands. Remember Allison at Dega? Or Petty at Daytona? That is why they implemented the restriction. Period. Now if you were talking about the Hanford device in CART, I would totally agree with you. I still think that was what killed Greg Moore. -- [email hidden]

You are right, and I said that before. the restrictor plate mods were to slow the car down. I am not anti-Restrictor plate. I didn't mean it to sound like that. ed "Greg Cisko" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ly9k6.116871$[email hidden]... > "Ed Kloskowski" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:96pvpc$orf$[email hidden]... > > Fucking bastards is the word that springs to mind when I think of thefat

Quoted text (21 lines)

> > assed stuffed shirts that came up with the metal strip, restrictor plate > > mods, and sundry others. All in the name of evening the field. > > While it would be easy to pile on and agree with you, I disagree. > The restrictor plates were to slow the cars down, not to make the > field even. The alternative is to have a 4000 pound car going airborne > at 240mph and spiraling into the grandstands. Remember Allison > at Dega? Or Petty at Daytona? That is why they implemented the > restriction. Period. > > Now if you were talking about the Hanford device in CART, I would > totally agree with you. I still think that was what killed Greg Moore. > > -- > > [email hidden] > > > > >

On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 07:56:10 -0600, "Greg Cisko" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (15 lines)

>"Ed Kloskowski" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:96pvpc$orf$[email hidden]... >> Fucking bastards is the word that springs to mind when I think of the fat >> assed stuffed shirts that came up with the metal strip, restrictor plate >> mods, and sundry others. All in the name of evening the field. > >While it would be easy to pile on and agree with you, I disagree. >The restrictor plates were to slow the cars down, not to make the >field even. The alternative is to have a 4000 pound car going airborne >at 240mph and spiraling into the grandstands. Remember Allison >at Dega? Or Petty at Daytona? That is why they implemented the >restriction. Period. > >Now if you were talking about the Hanford device in CART, I would >totally agree with you. I still think that was what killed Greg Moore.

But, Greg, what's the difference between the Handford device and the Daytona/Talladega roof strip? None. It makes the car cut a bigger hole through the air to enhance drafting. That leads to more passing, more cars in close contact with each other, and more chances for incidental contact. Back in the "bad old days", Richard Petty might win a race by two laps (or more) and spend a very small percentage of the race in close contact with other cars. Today we have a "better show" when they race the last half of the race three-wide. ;( "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

Earnhardt is partly to blame for his death due to his driving style. But NASCAR is also to blame for letting him get away with it during his entire career. If NASCAR had been enforcing the rules evenly and appropriately when required, then maybe Earnhardt would not have been 'blocking' during the final lap of the 500. Yes I agree with you, NASCAR has killed one of it's stars but I'm not sure what they did for this race is what killed him. It's what they didn't do in the past. They can also be blamed for not requiring the HANS device for each and every driver. Although I'm sure that's going to change awfully quick.

Good point Jeff, and you said what I was trying to. NASCAR prompted a "style" of racing that otherwise might not have been so exaggerated or emphasized. ed "Jeff Vincent" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 07:56:10 -0600, "Greg Cisko" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > >"Ed Kloskowski" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >news:96pvpc$orf$[email hidden]... > >> Fucking bastards is the word that springs to mind when I think of thefat > >> assed stuffed shirts that came up with the metal strip, restrictorplate

Quoted text (25 lines)

> >> mods, and sundry others. All in the name of evening the field. > > > >While it would be easy to pile on and agree with you, I disagree. > >The restrictor plates were to slow the cars down, not to make the > >field even. The alternative is to have a 4000 pound car going airborne > >at 240mph and spiraling into the grandstands. Remember Allison > >at Dega? Or Petty at Daytona? That is why they implemented the > >restriction. Period. > > > >Now if you were talking about the Hanford device in CART, I would > >totally agree with you. I still think that was what killed Greg Moore. > > But, Greg, what's the difference between the Handford device and > the Daytona/Talladega roof strip? None. It makes the car cut a > bigger hole through the air to enhance drafting. That leads to more > passing, more cars in close contact with each other, and more chances > for incidental contact. Back in the "bad old days", Richard Petty > might win a race by two laps (or more) and spend a very small > percentage of the race in close contact with other cars. Today we > have a "better show" when they race the last half of the race > three-wide. ;( > > "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

They need to do something, for certain, but that was one of the slowest fields in close to twenty years. It was a bloodbath, comparatively speaking in the early sixties when the cars were much slower. There are no easy answers nor quick solutions. Sometimes fate simply has a hand in these things. If Kenny Schrader's car had been farther back, Dale's car wouldn't have been turned so sharply and decellerated at such a high rate, possibly saving him the fatal injury. Had Kenny's car been two feet farther forward beside Dale, it wouldn't have turned his car and, additionally, acted as somewhat of a cushion, absorbing some of the energy of the impact by crushing of the forward compartment. I'm still trying to resolve the force vectors, but I suspect that Dale's car *did* virtually come to a stop from 180 MPH and that the lateral motion was contributed by Kenny's car alone. If that is the case, he didn't have a prayer of surviving and the utility of the HANS device is questionable. It might've "saved his neck" buy he may have been left with nearly fatal brain injuries from it ricocheting off the inside of the skull. Maybe Schumacher's new light-weight kevlar/carbon-fiber, custom-fit helmet is a positive step as it works to reduce the mass of the head under such circumstances. Just my thoughts and, yes, I'm angry and sad, too. Regards, Brett C. Cammack brettDOTcammack@worldnetDOTattDOTnet (remove the DOTs from my return address to reply privately)

I wonder if the HANS (sp?) device would have helped....seems to me it would. Didn't Nascar refuse to implement them this year while virtually all other series did? They'll have a lot to answer for, if so.

No the Hans device helps protect against the WHIPPING motion of a crash. While it certainly can't hurt, this alone most likely wouldn't have saved Earnhardt. I beleive the doctors at the scene and hospital have already stated the HANS device 'probably' wouldn't have saved him. Nascar has NOT refused to implement the device, but have left it up to the individual drivers. Kyle Petty wears one, but Dale and most of the other drivers resisted. Remember Dale had serious injuries not only to his head but also his neck and chest. About the only thing that could have saved his life would have been NOT RACING at all....and for a person like DE....is that living? dave henrie "Phasor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:kHck6.164702$[email hidden]... > I wonder if the HANS (sp?) device would have helped....seems to me itwould. > Didn't Nascar refuse to implement them this year while virtually all other > series did? They'll have a lot to answer for, if so. > >

Yup, the restrictor plates killed him. His open faced helmet that he so stubbornly refused to give up had nothing to do with it. JB "Ed Kloskowski" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:96pvpc$orf$[email hidden]... > The powers that be at NASCAR decided that Daytona "wasn't excitingenough", > so they made mods to the cars madatory. > > So what do we have: > - probably the most lead changes at Daytona ever - I don't even know, nordo > I care > - one of the most exciting - I guess if you like shattered dreams of over20 > drivers > - a dead legend > > I was never a Dale fan, but I had/have ENORMOUS respect for the man andhis

Quoted text (7 lines)

> accomplishments. > > Fucking bastards is the word that springs to mind when I think of the fat > assed stuffed shirts that came up with the metal strip, restrictor plate > mods, and sundry others. All in the name of evening the field. > > I guess it was the most exciting Daytona ever ---- until the end. And if

you

Quoted text (12 lines)

> don't count half the field crashing out. > > I'm going to have a tough time watching that race again, and frankly I > could give a shit wether the fucks that decided to "make it more exciting" > just died and blew away with the garbage that is littering the track now. > > Sorry for the rant, but I figured someone here might be feeling the same > things. > > ed > >

"Brett C. Cammack" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> They need to do something, for certain, but that was one of the > slowest fields in close to twenty years. It was a bloodbath, > comparatively speaking in the early sixties when the cars were much > slower. There are no easy answers nor quick solutions. > > Sometimes fate simply has a hand in these things. If Kenny > Schrader's car had been farther back, Dale's car wouldn't have been > turned so sharply and decellerated at such a high rate, possibly > saving him the fatal injury. Had Kenny's car been two feet farther > forward beside Dale, it wouldn't have turned his car and, > additionally, acted as somewhat of a cushion, absorbing some of the > energy of the impact by crushing of the forward compartment. >

I was thinking that just a bit of difference in the position of Schrader's car would've probably vastly changed the outcome. Or if Earnhardt had let the car spin when he first lost the air off the spoiler - he probably would've spun to the infield or backed up into the wall at a slower speed, but probably would've taken out most of the pack behind him.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> I'm still trying to resolve the force vectors, but I suspect that > Dale's car *did* virtually come to a stop from 180 MPH and that the > lateral motion was contributed by Kenny's car alone. If that is the > case, he didn't have a prayer of surviving and the utility of the HANS > device is questionable. It might've "saved his neck" buy he may have > been left with nearly fatal brain injuries from it ricocheting off the > inside of the skull. >

I'm in full agreement here. Many are saying that DE went from 185 to about 70 mph, bad enough. But I think that in the forward vector, he was damn near stopped and as you say, only moved then by Schrader's car. And I too think that the HANS device would've kept his neck and / or skull from fracturing, but that it would've done NOTHING for his brain slamming into his skull at 150-185mph. > Maybe Schumacher's new light-weight kevlar/carbon-fiber, custom-fit > helmet is a positive step as it works to reduce the mass of the head > under such circumstances. > > Just my thoughts and, yes, I'm angry and sad, too. > Same here. > Regards, > Brett C. Cammack > brettDOTcammack@worldnetDOTattDOTnet > (remove the DOTs from my return address to reply privately) -- Ken's Sig 3.2 "Who is the more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows him?" - Obi-Wan Kenobi volksy(at)yahoo(dot)com Go #43, #44, #45! R.I.P Adam, Kenny, Tony, and Dale

Greg Cisko wrote: > Now if you were talking about the Hanford device in CART, I would > totally agree with you. I still think that was what killed Greg Moore. I agree 110% with this about Greg. Most people look at me sideways when I suggest this, but it's true. In the case of DE, I *absolutely* blame the very same restrictor plate racing he always decried. It's what had that field so bunched up in the first place. With a spread out field it never would have happened. I was further enraged today by the media reports here in Detroit. I don't know if the media elsewhere is playing it the same way or not but I'd bet they are. To paraphrase, they were saying there is a safety device out there, DE refused to wear it & he ended up dying. A shrug of their shoulders as if to indicate what could we do? Blame the victim time. I hope the other drivers are paying attention & seeing just how fast backs will get turned on them & fingers of blame thrust in their direction if, God forbid, anything tragic ever happens to them. To steal a very accurate quote from an article I read earlier today... the NASCAR officials have blood on their hands. I hope they rot in Hell. Can you tell I still pissed? -- Fester

Absolutely dead on Tom. My very first race at Watkins in the SCCA I 'wrecked' by myself in turn 1. (We won't go into it <G>) Although it was nowhere near violent... It made me realize I had to accept the risks or not race. Simple as that. No amount of safety equipment or rules could guarantee I would not die while racing. -- Scott B. Husted "PA-Scott" ICQ# 4395450 "Tom Pabst" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:eX1k6.7613$[email hidden]... > Nah...!! > > I just don't don't "buy" this line of reasoning.....that the "rules" changes > for this year's Daytona 500 caused Dale's death, or the accident that took > out half the field with 35 laps to go. These "rule changes" had nothing > more to do with today's events then any of the other "rules" in the NASCAR > Rules Book. In fact, the NASCAR Rules Book has saved hundreds of lives! > That's the same "rule book" that dictates all the driver-safety construction > that goes into a modern day Winston Cup race car. > > There have always been "chain reaction" accidents in NASCAR and other forms > of oval racing. And, I've seen so many of these at the start of SCCA > Regional road races it would make your head spin. I've been in a few them, > too. And, I can promise you that if it were not for those "driver safety" > rules and regulations, we wouldn't have been the only team to have cut > corners on the money they cost.....to pursue speed and some other elusive > competitive edge. > > How many accidents have we all seen that were so ugly.....they turned our > stomachs? Only to see the drivers climb out of the carnage and walk away. > Then, others......seemingly so docile and insignificant....take lives. How > can that be the "fault" of the rules? > > Rules don't "guarantee" safety. Rules "promote" safety! > > There is one thing about racing that will never be changed by "rules." That > is, the outcome of any race will be as much a matter of "luck" as any other > factor....and usually outweighs skill, knowledge, cunning and experience. > In racing, there's a saying about luck, "In any race, you'll always have > 'luck' to contend with. Sometimes its 'good'.....and sometimes its > 'bad'......but its always a part of the outcome!" > > Today, NASCAR racing lost one of its heros. And, one of its heros, lost a > father....and a good friend. That's just plain and simple "bad luck." And, > to try to blame it on something else.......just isn't realistic, in my > opinion. > > Tom Pabst > > >

>From: "AndrewS" >They can also be blamed for not requiring the HANS device for each and every >driver. Although I'm sure that's going to change awfully quick. The human body simply wasn't designed to withstand the G-forces that Earnhardt suffered in that crash. I don't believe that the HANS device, a lightweight helmet, or any other such device would have made a difference. It was the brain crashing against the inside of the skull and the internal organs hitting the inside of the rib cage that killed him. George Adams "From the rockin' of the cradle to the rollin' of the hearse, the goin' up was worth the comin' down." ___Kris Kristofferson "The Pilgrim/Chapter 33"

"Ed Kloskowski" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:96pvpc$orf$[email hidden]... > The powers that be at NASCAR decided that Daytona "wasn't excitingenough", > so they made mods to the cars madatory. [snip] But consider the other side: it's no fun if one team was able to produce a better car and win consistently. Look at all the other races around the world. WRC has virtually identical cars (300 HP, 4WD) on superspecial stages. BTCC and STCC have 300 hp cars on road courses. Those races feature VERY even racing. Grand Prix also had several revisions prior to Ayrton Senna's death. They took out traction control, active suspension, and more, in order to put the emphasis on the driver. > Fucking bastards is the word that springs to mind when I think of thefat > assed stuffed shirts that came up with the metal strip, restrictorplate > mods, and sundry others. All in the name of evening the field. I don't think that's what killed Mr. Earnhardt. I personally think it's a serious lack of safety equipment in the car. As any one looking at the replay can see, the impact doesn't SEEM that serious. Most likely, Mr. Earnhardt hit his head and chest on the steering wheel and died from that. IMHO, NASCAR should implement airbags. Yes, AIRBAGS. The weight of an airbag system would be trivial in a NASCAR Winston Cup racer or even a Busch Grand National racer. If the car departs normal motion (i.e. the car's nose is more than 30-45 degrees off the direction of travel) the airbag(s) will deploy. At 180+ mph you can't rely on the collision to deploy the airbags. > I guess it was the most exciting Daytona ever ---- until the end. Andif you > don't count half the field crashing out. That WILL happen if you have tight racing. It's a part of the "game". You don't see serious injuries except that big one involving Ayrton Senna in European racing because they race smaller cars with less horsepower on road courses. It's only Americans who are obsessed with extreme high speed racing, and it's the drivers who are at risk to please us, the fans. There's also a big debate on "who" is at fault with Senna's death. There's several theories, including bad steering shaft (the wreckage shows that the shaft had broken, but can't tell if it's before or after impact), cold tires (the pace car, an Peugeot, was NOT up to the task), rules change (instead of a true restart they did "yellow flag" laps), debris on the track (that could have punctured the tire), bad track design (the track was raised off the ground, so when Senna lost control he was airborne, unable to slow down until he hit the wall), Senna's state of mind (one of his fellow driver friends had died in practice the day before on a practice lap), and more. I'm sure all the NASCAR officials and consultants will study that replay to see if there's ANY WAY we could have prevented that tragedy. I'd suggest airbags, and it may be a part of the solution. We shall see. --KC

> The human body simply wasn't designed to withstand the G-forces thatEarnhardt > suffered in that crash. I don't believe that the HANS device, alightweight > helmet, or any other such device would have made a difference. It was thebrain > crashing against the inside of the skull and the internal organs hittingthe > inside of the rib cage that killed him. True, but I'd still like to see every effort made to protect the safety of the driver. I haven't been following racing too long, but it seems as if more strides need to be made. NASCAR isn't the worst though, it amazes me that more people aren't killed in and by rally cars.

I was stunned and shocked, like everyone else, when I heard the news. But please, don't forget, that Earnhardt was always the first one to say that what they had been doing at Daytona- and all the restrictor plate tracks - the last few years wasn't racing. He was a proponent of taking off the restrictor plates and letting em' run. He once asked, rhetorically, why the open wheelers could run at 220+ at the ovals, but NASCAR couldn't. The "mods" where designed to "punch" a bigger hole in the air, enhancing drafting and allowing drivers to pass instead of dropping all the way to the back when they pulled out of line, while they opened the restrictor plate just a touch to allow more horsepower for overtaking. This was supposed to accomplish two things, allow for passing instead of just dropping back, and to break up the field into smaller running groups. Nascar failed miserably in the second part. Some of the drivers said that they actually had to get on the brake to stop from hitting another car from behind due to the "vaccuum" that was pulling them forward. This is truly the "draft," the way it used to be, and takes a considerable amount of experience to get a handle on. Thats why running at the superspeedways was always frought with danger for rookies, because they didn't have the drafting experience to win. And to be honest, the draft is still no where near what it was even 15 years ago. There are still many aspects to be worked on and there always will be. It is a continuing battle. Lastly, its not all NASCAR, Earnhardt just may have been able to help himself by wearing a full face helmet and using the new HANS device, who knows. Maybe it wouldn't have saved him, but then again, it might have given him a fighting chance. Be sure, no matter what, they know the ramifications of stepping into the car. He will be missed. Respectfully, Michael Loos

"Jeff Vincent" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > the Daytona/Talladega roof strip? None. It makes the car cut a > bigger hole through the air to enhance drafting. That leads to more Now that you mention it, there is no difference. I was talking strictly restrictor plates (which I think they should eliminate). To be honest the roof strip is so new I totally forgot about it. It could very well be the NASCAR version of the Hanford device. Except for hte fact that the roof strip does not make the following car ballistically fast like the Hanford device does in CART. -- [email hidden] > passing, more cars in close contact with each other, and more chances > for incidental contact. Back in the "bad old days", Richard Petty > might win a race by two laps (or more) and spend a very small > percentage of the race in close contact with other cars. Today we > have a "better show" when they race the last half of the race > three-wide. ;( > > "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

"George Adams" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > >From: "AndrewS" > > >They can also be blamed for not requiring the HANS device for each andevery > >driver. Although I'm sure that's going to change awfully quick. > > The human body simply wasn't designed to withstand the G-forces thatEarnhardt > suffered in that crash. I don't believe that the HANS device, alightweight > helmet, or any other such device would have made a difference. It was thebrain > crashing against the inside of the skull and the internal organs hittingthe > inside of the rib cage that killed him. Correct. I heard the blood vessels in his brain were severed and the base of his skull of very very damaged. It seemed like a phase 12 concussion or something. -- [email hidden]

No it wouldn't. That device is primarily to help with lateral G forces. Dale Sr hit straight on at probably over 40 G's. All his organs were totally disrupted probably. -- [email hidden] "Phasor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:kHck6.164702$[email hidden]... > I wonder if the HANS (sp?) device would have helped....seems to me it would. > Didn't Nascar refuse to implement them this year while virtually all other > series did? They'll have a lot to answer for, if so. > >

On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 17:42:31 GMT, "Wosco" <[email hidden]> wrote: >His open faced helmet that he so >stubbornly refused to give up had nothing to do with it. Correct. His open faced helmet had NOTHING to do with it... -- The downside of being better than everyone else is that people tend to assume you're pretentious -- Despair, Inc.

"AndrewS" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:VKak6.346$[email hidden]... > If NASCAR had been enforcing the rules evenly and appropriately > when required, then maybe Earnhardt would not have been 'blocking' during > the final lap of the 500. I'm sorry but that's BS! but I'm sure any and every driver in the top 3 of the Daytona 500 would be trying to block the driver behind him in the last laps. That was not Earnhardt's driving style and no amount of enforcing rules would prevent a driver from doing that. In fact, I don't think it's even a rule! The fact is that NASCAR did lose one of it's greatest drivers, but all drivers race with the knowledge that they may die in a crash. Now don't get me wrong, I don't like what NASCAR did with the aero package and i'm sure it contributed, but it's not all of NASCAR's fault. Rest in Peace Dale Rob Roy

The Hans Device limits travel in all directions. In a lower Gee loading accident it would have helped. The accident here I do not think it would have helped. And well if it would have helped well the rapid deceleration of the rest of the organs in the chest would have been fatal. Either way yesturday just flat sucked. Dave Greg Cisko <[email hidden]> wrote in article <egik6.117322$[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> No it wouldn't. That device is primarily to help with lateral G forces. > Dale Sr hit straight on at probably over 40 G's. All his organs were > totally disrupted probably. > > -- > > [email hidden] > > > "Phasor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:kHck6.164702$[email hidden]... > > I wonder if the HANS (sp?) device would have helped....seems to me it > would. > > Didn't Nascar refuse to implement them this year while virtually all

other > > series did? They'll have a lot to answer for, if so. > > > > > > >

1. They have to have restrictor plates to keep the cars out of the stands. 2. Racing series everywhere (except maybe F1) have tightened up. The bottom of the field is a heck of a lot better than it used to be. There will be close racing, without or without aero packages. 3. HANS would have saved at least some of the NASCAR drivers we've recently lost. bob

The drivers know what they're getting into. But NASCAR entices them to risk their lives, so it shares the responsibility for eliminating unnecessary risks. NASCAR is reactive. In 1963 its rules disallowed Ralph Moody's fuel cell. After Ned Jarret pulled Fireball Roberts out of a flaming car the next year, NASCAR allowed them. Neil Bonnett, Clifford Allison, Adam Petty, Kenny Irwin, Dale Earnhardt. What's it going to take for NASCAR to react? Crumple zones, soft walls, HANS--there's no silver bullet. If there is one, it's money. Brett Bodine said, "We spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to make the car go faster. To not look at safety the same way we look at performance seems pretty stupid to me." Crumple zones will make the cars more expensive. They might put Dave Marcis and Brett Bodine out of business. But if you can't race safely, should you race at all? "Tom Pabst" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>Nah...!! > >I just don't don't "buy" this line of reasoning.....that the "rules" changes >for this year's Daytona 500 caused Dale's death, or the accident that took >out half the field with 35 laps to go. These "rule changes" had nothing >more to do with today's events then any of the other "rules" in the NASCAR >Rules Book. In fact, the NASCAR Rules Book has saved hundreds of lives! >That's the same "rule book" that dictates all the driver-safety construction >that goes into a modern day Winston Cup race car.

-- Jon Willeke <[email hidden]>

**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com **** Closed face helmets are mainly to protect from fire injuries. If the driver gets into contact where having an open-face helmet makes a difference, then a closed-face one wouldn't help either. It's only a lexan shield... -Larry "Stormrider" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 17:42:31 GMT, "Wosco" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >His open faced helmet that he so > >stubbornly refused to give up had nothing to do with it. > > Correct. His open faced helmet had NOTHING to do with it... > > -- > The downside of being better than everyone else > is that people tend to assume you're pretentious > -- Despair, Inc.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= *** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! *** http://www.usenet.com -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

In article <ly9k6.116871$[email hidden]>, "Greg Cisko" <[email hidden]> writes: >Now if you were talking about the Hanford device in CART, I would >totally agree with you. I still think that was what killed Greg Moore. > I personally don't think Moore's accident would have been survivable even if he was in a suit of armor... :( 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.

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (Disgruntled Goat) writes: >Some of your points are valid, and I understand why right now there is >a need to "vent". But let's not forget, motor racing is dangerous. >People will die participating - Clark, Senna, Allison, Easrnhardt - no >one is immune. Placing blame isn't the right thing to do just yet. > >DG Just to correct a point, Allison(I assume you mean Davey) didn't die in a race car... 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.

AndrewS wrote: > Earnhardt is partly to blame for his death due to his driving style. But > NASCAR is also to blame for letting him get away with it during his entire > career. If NASCAR had been enforcing the rules evenly and appropriately > when required, then maybe Earnhardt would not have been 'blocking' during > the final lap of the 500. I disagree with some of what you say and agree with part of it. His driving style that day was very abnormal. His normal style would have been to charge for the lead rather than hang back and block. He had ample opportunities to make a move. On that day, he didn't make that move. He hung back and instead blocked for his kid and his friend. Was it the right thing to do? I'm not sure that there is anyone who can answer that one with any degree of certainty. The one thing that would have him still alive today is when his left side tires went on the apron, he didn't try to save it. Had he turned left, he would have spun out and ended up the last place finisher (it's hard to get lapped on the last lap) on the lead lap. But this was Earnhardt. What was unsavable to mere mortals was possible for The Intimidator. We were able to appreciate this only the day before when he was sent into the grass and not only didn't hit anything, but got back into the fray. Granted, NASCAR should have put their foot down long ago. They didn't, and that's the way they chose to enforce the rules (or not enforce them). Too late to second guess them now. > Yes I agree with you, NASCAR has killed one of it's stars but I'm not sure > what they did for this race is what killed him. It's what they didn't do in > the past. > > They can also be blamed for not requiring the HANS device for each and every > driver. Although I'm sure that's going to change awfully quick. I wouldn't bet on it changing anytime soon. NASCAR resists knee-jerk reactions in particular, and sometimes any reaction seemingly in general. Allison and Petty's tumbles were done 10+ years before we got the roof flaps. They were the solution NASCAR had been looking for way back when and it took them that long to get them. I think it's more likely you'll see more volunteers, rather than a mandate.

You know, the more I think about it, with these cars punching such a (relatively large) hole in the air, wouldn't it be better to remove the compression limitation like we had in before about '98? What I'm getting at is the cars are so equal aerodynamically and in power output (once again, relatively), that you've got the great drivers mixing it up with the folks who by all rights should be backmarkers. Removing the compression limit, yes, you will see vast differences in engine reliability, but you won't have the huge pack(s) running together getting ready for "The Big One". There may be a few more cautions where the backmarkers are fighting amongst themselves, but I'd rather have a few smaller ones than have half the field wrecked when a lesser driver (and compared to the most of the field, Robby Gordon just doesn't have enough experience just yet) battling with the elite veterans. As much as I'd like to see the plates gone, under the current formula, I don't think it's going to happen. I think it'll take several steps to bring competative racing with lower speeds that will give some spread to the field. Smaller carbs, ditch the compression ratio limit, a taller profile for the cars (another thread pointed out that it would be easier for drivers to get out and crews to get in to the cars - one by product is it would also give a larger opening for intrusion - not a good thing), and perhaps a more upright windshield to produce the aerodynamic drag that these fences are supposed to do. Then again, that might be a pipe dream as well. Uncle Fester wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> In the case of DE, I *absolutely* blame the very same restrictor plate > racing he always decried. It's what had that field so bunched up in the > first place. With a spread out field it never would have happened. I > was further enraged today by the media reports here in Detroit. I don't > know if the media elsewhere is playing it the same way or not but I'd > bet they are. To paraphrase, they were saying there is a safety device > out there, DE refused to wear it & he ended up dying. A shrug of their > shoulders as if to indicate what could we do? Blame the victim time. I

Well, in a way, they're right. He did have an option (several) and refused to use them. Not that any one (or combination) of personal options would have necessarily saved him. It's going to take action is several areas to rectify the situation. NASCAR has several options and has (as of today) been reluctant to discuss them let alone employ them. That's something that NASCAR definitely deserved to get spanked for. Sometimes they tend to be too secretive.

Michael Waltrip, several years ago, advanced this theory....I hope I remember it clearly. To improve the racing at the Superspeedways and improve safety...remove the Front and rear spoilers(splitters, wings etc) and the side skirts. According to Waltrip, if you went back to the days of actually using a stock body with bumpers and NO aero enhancements, the drivers would be forced to slow for the turns. Then the engines could be wound back up and the huge 'dega/tona' packs would naturally string out as the better drivers and engine packages worked their way clear. dave henrie "Mike Donnelly Jr" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > You know, the more I think about it, with these cars punching such a > (relatively large) hole in the air, wouldn't it be better to remove the > compression limitation like we had in before about '98? What I'm gettingat > is the cars are so equal aerodynamically and in power output (once again, > relatively), that you've got the great drivers mixing it up with the folks > who by all rights should be backmarkers.

Mike Donnelly Jr wrote:

Quoted text (15 lines)

> Uncle Fester wrote: > > > In the case of DE, I *absolutely* blame the very same restrictor plate > > racing he always decried. It's what had that field so bunched up in the > > first place. With a spread out field it never would have happened. I > > was further enraged today by the media reports here in Detroit. I don't > > know if the media elsewhere is playing it the same way or not but I'd > > bet they are. To paraphrase, they were saying there is a safety device > > out there, DE refused to wear it & he ended up dying. A shrug of their > > shoulders as if to indicate what could we do? Blame the victim time. I > > Well, in a way, they're right. He did have an option (several) and refused > to use them. Not that any one (or combination) of personal options would > have necessarily saved him. It's going to take action is several areas to > rectify the situation.

To an extent, I can agree with you that they're right. But where I'm going is that without plate racing, there wouldn't have been the big pack to begin with. No pack would have meant, in this particular situation, no crash at all. Therefore the safety item issue would have been moot. Let's not get halfway thru the incident before we try & figure how how to prevent the problem at hand, let's start at the beginning. And that was the plate-induced dog pack. -- Fester Restrictor plate racing killed Dale Earnhardt.

In article <Jjdk6.56$[email hidden]>, "Kasey Chang \(use EXCITE.COM instead!\)" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>IMHO, NASCAR should implement airbags. Yes, AIRBAGS. The weight >of an airbag system would be trivial in a NASCAR Winston Cup racer or >even a Busch Grand National racer. If the car departs normal motion >(i.e. the car's nose is more than 30-45 degrees off the direction of >travel) >the airbag(s) will deploy. At 180+ mph you can't rely on the collision >to >deploy the airbags.

I've seen drivers get farther than 45 deg and save the car. I've also seen cars to 1 or 2 360 spins without hitting anything, and continue. This isn't the fix. 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.

On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 05:12:42 GMT, "Tom Pabst" <[email hidden]> wrote: >There is one thing about racing that will never be changed by "rules." That >is, the outcome of any race will be as much a matter of "luck" as any other >factor....and usually outweighs skill, knowledge, cunning and experience. >In racing, there's a saying about luck, "In any race, you'll always have >'luck' to contend with. Sometimes its 'good'.....and sometimes its >'bad'......but its always a part of the outcome!" Richard Petty once said that when it comes to being good or being lucky, "He'd rather be lucky than good ANY day!" -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----