Re: Lawsuits in motorsports deaths ..

In article <[email hidden]>, rrevved <[email hidden]> writes: >A pair of lawsuits have been filed in California on behalf >of two young men who died in racing crashes in 1999. >The outcome of those actions will be settled in courtrooms >far away from the race tracks where the tragedies >occurred. While I feel sorry for the families involved, both drivers were participating *willfully*. I hate the growing movement of 'It's someone else's fault"...<sigh> Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPL hcp. +49.12 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Yes, my friend & neighbor, Brock Yates writes a more-or-less weekly column for Speedvision's web site. Its edgy tone and manner is kinda like his columns in Car and Driver, but the content has a little more bite. It reminds me of his late, great newsletter, The Cannonball ExPress. Enjoy. --Steve Smith rrevved <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (150 lines)

> Something I found: > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Brock Yates: Notes From The Margin > Wyoming, N.Y., Nov. 21 > > ? As the nation comes to the realization that our fortunes > are now tied to the debating skills and the polemics of a few > elite lawyers, so too is American motorsports on the verge of > ugly litigations that could have devastating, long-term effects. > > A pair of lawsuits have been filed in California on behalf > of two young men who died in racing crashes in 1999. > The outcome of those actions will be settled in courtrooms > far away from the race tracks where the tragedies > occurred. > > The most serious of the two suits has been filed by > the family of Greg Moore, the talented young Canadian > who died when his Reynard crashed at California > Speedway on the 10th lap of the Marlboro 500 on Oct. > 31 of that year. The claim, which some observers say > could reach $50m, is against International Speedway > Corporation (the public company, jointly controlled by > the France/Penske interests, that owns the track) and > CART. It is based on the plaintiff?s charge of > "negligence, wanton and reckless misconduct, breach > of implied contract, battery, wrongful death, product > liability, breach of warranty, and negligent infliction of > emotional distress." That is legal boilerplate for the > essential charge that Greg Moore was placed in an > unsafe work environment by the track owners and > sanctioning body. While most such law suits make a > scatter-shot assault on all those involved, the Moore > litigation specifically excludes car sponsor Player?s > Cigarettes, team owner Jerry Forsythe, chassis builder > Reynard, engine supplier Mercedes-Benz and Firestone > tires. > > The other lawsuit involves the death of Gonzalo > Rodriguez while practicing for the Honda 300 CART > race at Laguna Seca Raceway a month prior to > Moore?s death. The defendants in this case are CART > and the track operator and promoter, SCRAMP (Sports > Car Racing Association of the Monterey Peninsula). > > Over the years, legal precedent has tended to side > with the concept of the "waiver," i.e. the written > admission by the signer (i.e. race driver) that he or > she is engaged in a hazardous enterprise and thereby > releases the track owners, promoters, and other > outside parties from liability in the event of an > accident. However, in several cases it has been > argued that while the individual race driver may have > agreed to the release, he or she cannot speak for > other members of the family who might be adversely > affected by the crash. This was the case in the > litigation brought by the wife of superstar Mark > Donohue following his death at the Austrian Grand Prix > in 1975. That case, settled out of court for what is > believed to be millions, named Goodyear, car owner > Roger Penske, Bell Helmets, Simpson Safety Equipment > and others as being responsible for the practice crash > and subsequent head injuries that caused his death. > Clearly, there was a body of legal opinion that the wife > of the late, great driver had suffered losses that > transcended any waivers her late husband might have > signed. > > Now the Moore and Rodriguez cases generate the > same legal argument: Can a person involved in a > potentially fatal endeavor like motor racing abrogate > the claims of his or her survivors relating to an > on-track death or injury? In the past, California courts > have tended to uphold the waiver concept and > therefore would not uphold survivor claims in racing > deaths. But in this age of rising "victimization" wherein > all tragedies appear to be traceable to someone else ? > often someone else with deep pockets ? that policy > could change. > > At the crux of the issue is the responsibility of other > parties, i.e. race tracks, car builders, mechanics, > promoters, sanctioning bodies to provide a "safe > environment" to a racing driver who, theoretically, is > aware that he or she is voluntarily engaging in an > activity that can, by its very nature, cause death or > grievous injury. > > One might think that the elements of personal > responsibility and intellectual judgment would play a > role. If a person decides that motor racing was too > dangerous, he or she has two simple options: (1) > Choose not to participate; or (2) Drive at a slower, > safer pace (which, by the way, elevates the claim > that some race tracks are "too fast" to the level of > supreme absurdity). > > Having lost a devoted stepson to cancer, I grieve for > the losses suffered by the Moore and Rodriguez > families, but I also recognize that they were aware > that their sons were voluntarily engaged in an > supremely dangerous activity. Had their sons been > sitting in the grandstands or wandering the pits at > Fontana or Laguna Seca as spectators, their claims of > liability would have great merit. But with their sons > actively engaged in driving a race car of their own free > will and fully aware ? based on the waiver signing ? of > the inherent hazards, it would be an unfortunate > outcome for the entire sport if their claims were given > legal credence. > > Should either of these cases win in court, the > likelihood of insurance rates skyrocketing would border > on certainty. A legal precedent would essentially > obsolete racetrack liability waivers, at least in > California. This would likely radiate across the nation > based on new case law. Insurance premiums for > smaller tracks might become unaffordable, while a > major claim against CART (a defendant in both cases) > could weaken its financial structure. > > The feverish desire to sue somebody, even in the > instance of death in an overtly dangerous enterprise > like automobile racing, is unique to the United States. > Consider that the horrific year of 1955 not only saw > the deaths of 88 spectators at Le Mans but horrific > carnage that took the lives of champions Bill Vukovich > and Alberto Ascari, plus six other top-rank drivers. > Ultimately the top five finishers and seven of the top > 10 finishers in that year?s Indianapoilis 500 would die in > racing crashes. Men raced both here and in Europe > with only light leather helmets and seat belts > (sometimes) for protection. No roll bars, fireproof suits, > fuel cells, impact-absorbing structures, safety barriers; > nothing but their own often fallible judgment, skill and > a little luck to preserve their lives. Yet not one lawsuit > or legal action (save for Le Mans, where the public > was involved) resulted from these tragedies. In those > woolly days nearly half a century ago, death was > considered, in the words of veteran journalist Chris > Economaki, "The price of doing business." > > Today, sadly, there seems to be no price. We are > sorry for the losses of fine young men like Greg Moore > and Gonzalo Rodriguez, but they paid the supreme > price for engaging in a sport they loved. It should be > left at that. ? Brock Yates >

> While I feel sorry for the families involved, both drivers wereparticipating > *willfully*. I hate the growing movement of 'It's someone else's > fault"...<sigh> > > Eldred Growing well its someone elses fault basically kill small aircraft production, and many other things. We are in a society that just promotes that fact we need not take responsiblity for our actions. Dave

"EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> In article <[email hidden]>, rrevved > <[email hidden]> writes: > > >A pair of lawsuits have been filed in California on behalf > >of two young men who died in racing crashes in 1999. > >The outcome of those actions will be settled in courtrooms > >far away from the race tracks where the tragedies > >occurred. > > While I feel sorry for the families involved, both drivers were

participating > *willfully*. I hate the growing movement of 'It's someone else's > fault"...<sigh> Agreed. And the fact that these cases are in California courts doesn't bode well. -Johnny Gault (former Californian)

Brock's sentiments in that piece are spot-on. It seems as if it is becoming more acceptable that the individual is not responsible for his/her well-being anymore, others are. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Stephen Smith <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:tlPT5.278207$[email hidden]... > Yes, my friend & neighbor, Brock Yates writes a more-or-less weekly column > for Speedvision's web site. Its edgy tone and manner is kinda like his > columns in Car and Driver, but the content has a little more bite. It > reminds me of his late, great newsletter, The Cannonball ExPress. > > Enjoy

I race at national championship level in australia, and almost totally agree with that article. But if there is an obvious fault, eg - the track overlooked the house bricks in a "saftey" trap (that happened at a race at the start of the year), and a rider crashed and was killed because of those bricks, I could understand a law suit. I guess it comes down to the crash - if it was neglegence (however u spell it) or if the crash was just a racing incident... Its not something that people like to think about i guess till it happens. Luke -=87=-

I must say I agree with Brock Yates for a change on this one. Many times i read his articles and, while respecting his journalistic abilities, often disagree with his side of the story but this is definately one agree with. It would seem to me that the waiver signed by the drivers relieves the track owners, car builders, etc. from liability in the unfortunate event that he should lose his life in theire car, on their track, etc. They take a risk yes, but its a risk they are fully aware of and the familys/friends are also aware of the risk and the fact that their son/husband/daughter/wife/etc accept this risk. Blaming someone else for your emotions is rather ludicrous if there isnt a good reason to (ie. a blatent neglagence of laws/saftey precautions). I know from experiance the loss of a loved one is a hard one to take but blaming someone else never got me anywhere (and I tried to blame it on all sorts of people before I finally acepted it). In that case I can see the familys side but I think the lawsuits overstep the lines a bit on this. Just my humble 2 cents worth... Chris

Couldn't let this one go buy. This is a reflection of our overly litigous socient in America - look at our VP for a perfect example. I was watching a motocycle race on the Isle of Mann the other night and thought to myself "the damn lawyers would have shut this down in the US long ago". Now as a active racers myself (Porsche 911 - www.cullenracing.com) I feel everytime you climb into a racecar you are placing your life and those on the track with you at risk. On the other hand - that wall at California that Moore hit shouldn't have been like that. My wife even noticed it at the first Truck race they had there - "someone could spin off the banking and hit that abuttment" Ned rrevved wrote:

Quoted text (149 lines)

> Something I found: > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Brock Yates: Notes From The Margin > Wyoming, N.Y., Nov. 21 > > ? As the nation comes to the realization that our fortunes > are now tied to the debating skills and the polemics of a few > elite lawyers, so too is American motorsports on the verge of > ugly litigations that could have devastating, long-term effects. > > A pair of lawsuits have been filed in California on behalf > of two young men who died in racing crashes in 1999. > The outcome of those actions will be settled in courtrooms > far away from the race tracks where the tragedies > occurred. > > The most serious of the two suits has been filed by > the family of Greg Moore, the talented young Canadian > who died when his Reynard crashed at California > Speedway on the 10th lap of the Marlboro 500 on Oct. > 31 of that year. The claim, which some observers say > could reach $50m, is against International Speedway > Corporation (the public company, jointly controlled by > the France/Penske interests, that owns the track) and > CART. It is based on the plaintiff?s charge of > "negligence, wanton and reckless misconduct, breach > of implied contract, battery, wrongful death, product > liability, breach of warranty, and negligent infliction of > emotional distress." That is legal boilerplate for the > essential charge that Greg Moore was placed in an > unsafe work environment by the track owners and > sanctioning body. While most such law suits make a > scatter-shot assault on all those involved, the Moore > litigation specifically excludes car sponsor Player?s > Cigarettes, team owner Jerry Forsythe, chassis builder > Reynard, engine supplier Mercedes-Benz and Firestone > tires. > > The other lawsuit involves the death of Gonzalo > Rodriguez while practicing for the Honda 300 CART > race at Laguna Seca Raceway a month prior to > Moore?s death. The defendants in this case are CART > and the track operator and promoter, SCRAMP (Sports > Car Racing Association of the Monterey Peninsula). > > Over the years, legal precedent has tended to side > with the concept of the "waiver," i.e. the written > admission by the signer (i.e. race driver) that he or > she is engaged in a hazardous enterprise and thereby > releases the track owners, promoters, and other > outside parties from liability in the event of an > accident. However, in several cases it has been > argued that while the individual race driver may have > agreed to the release, he or she cannot speak for > other members of the family who might be adversely > affected by the crash. This was the case in the > litigation brought by the wife of superstar Mark > Donohue following his death at the Austrian Grand Prix > in 1975. That case, settled out of court for what is > believed to be millions, named Goodyear, car owner > Roger Penske, Bell Helmets, Simpson Safety Equipment > and others as being responsible for the practice crash > and subsequent head injuries that caused his death. > Clearly, there was a body of legal opinion that the wife > of the late, great driver had suffered losses that > transcended any waivers her late husband might have > signed. > > Now the Moore and Rodriguez cases generate the > same legal argument: Can a person involved in a > potentially fatal endeavor like motor racing abrogate > the claims of his or her survivors relating to an > on-track death or injury? In the past, California courts > have tended to uphold the waiver concept and > therefore would not uphold survivor claims in racing > deaths. But in this age of rising "victimization" wherein > all tragedies appear to be traceable to someone else ? > often someone else with deep pockets ? that policy > could change. > > At the crux of the issue is the responsibility of other > parties, i.e. race tracks, car builders, mechanics, > promoters, sanctioning bodies to provide a "safe > environment" to a racing driver who, theoretically, is > aware that he or she is voluntarily engaging in an > activity that can, by its very nature, cause death or > grievous injury. > > One might think that the elements of personal > responsibility and intellectual judgment would play a > role. If a person decides that motor racing was too > dangerous, he or she has two simple options: (1) > Choose not to participate; or (2) Drive at a slower, > safer pace (which, by the way, elevates the claim > that some race tracks are "too fast" to the level of > supreme absurdity). > > Having lost a devoted stepson to cancer, I grieve for > the losses suffered by the Moore and Rodriguez > families, but I also recognize that they were aware > that their sons were voluntarily engaged in an > supremely dangerous activity. Had their sons been > sitting in the grandstands or wandering the pits at > Fontana or Laguna Seca as spectators, their claims of > liability would have great merit. But with their sons > actively engaged in driving a race car of their own free > will and fully aware ? based on the waiver signing ? of > the inherent hazards, it would be an unfortunate > outcome for the entire sport if their claims were given > legal credence. > > Should either of these cases win in court, the > likelihood of insurance rates skyrocketing would border > on certainty. A legal precedent would essentially > obsolete racetrack liability waivers, at least in > California. This would likely radiate across the nation > based on new case law. Insurance premiums for > smaller tracks might become unaffordable, while a > major claim against CART (a defendant in both cases) > could weaken its financial structure. > > The feverish desire to sue somebody, even in the > instance of death in an overtly dangerous enterprise > like automobile racing, is unique to the United States. > Consider that the horrific year of 1955 not only saw > the deaths of 88 spectators at Le Mans but horrific > carnage that took the lives of champions Bill Vukovich > and Alberto Ascari, plus six other top-rank drivers. > Ultimately the top five finishers and seven of the top > 10 finishers in that year?s Indianapoilis 500 would die in > racing crashes. Men raced both here and in Europe > with only light leather helmets and seat belts > (sometimes) for protection. No roll bars, fireproof suits, > fuel cells, impact-absorbing structures, safety barriers; > nothing but their own often fallible judgment, skill and > a little luck to preserve their lives. Yet not one lawsuit > or legal action (save for Le Mans, where the public > was involved) resulted from these tragedies. In those > woolly days nearly half a century ago, death was > considered, in the words of veteran journalist Chris > Economaki, "The price of doing business." > > Today, sadly, there seems to be no price. We are > sorry for the losses of fine young men like Greg Moore > and Gonzalo Rodriguez, but they paid the supreme > price for engaging in a sport they loved. It should be > left at that. ? Brock Yates

"Uncle Fester" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> Ned wrote: > > > On the other hand - that wall at California that Moore hit shouldn't > > have been like that. My wife even noticed it at the first Truck race > > they had there - "someone could spin off the banking and hit that > > abuttment" > > > Although I pretty well agree on the sentiments expressed throughout this > thread, when we discuss Moore I'm still not at all sure that damned > Hanford Device didn't play a role as well. I've hated that thing from > Day 1... if you want to limit speeds fine, decrease power output. DON'T > decrease downforce, that's not safe at all. And no, a driver

i thought the Hanford device *increased* downforce, along with drastically increasing drag (the drag being what slows the cars down).

Quoted text (12 lines)

> realistically can't just walk away from the sport after putting in that > many years to reach the top. But the Hanford Device kind of makes for a > hazardous work environment, one that didn't exist when these racers > started out in their chosen profession. > > -- > Chuck Kandler > > Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS. > > Registered Linux User #180746 > http://counter.li.org

Ned wrote: > On the other hand - that wall at California that Moore hit shouldn't > have been like that. My wife even noticed it at the first Truck race > they had there - "someone could spin off the banking and hit that > abuttment" Although I pretty well agree on the sentiments expressed throughout this thread, when we discuss Moore I'm still not at all sure that damned Hanford Device didn't play a role as well. I've hated that thing from Day 1... if you want to limit speeds fine, decrease power output. DON'T decrease downforce, that's not safe at all. And no, a driver realistically can't just walk away from the sport after putting in that many years to reach the top. But the Hanford Device kind of makes for a hazardous work environment, one that didn't exist when these racers started out in their chosen profession. -- Chuck Kandler Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS. Registered Linux User #180746 http://counter.li.org

I was under the same impression....that it increased drag, that is. Incidentally, is this so-called 'Hanford device' a new name for the Gurney flap? -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Mark Stahl <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8vu2ft$5s8$[email hidden]... > > "Uncle Fester" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Ned wrote: > > > > > On the other hand - that wall at California that Moore hit shouldn't > > > have been like that. My wife even noticed it at the first Truck race > > > they had there - "someone could spin off the banking and hit that > > > abuttment" > > > > > > Although I pretty well agree on the sentiments expressed throughout this > > thread, when we discuss Moore I'm still not at all sure that damned > > Hanford Device didn't play a role as well. I've hated that thing from > > Day 1... if you want to limit speeds fine, decrease power output. DON'T > > decrease downforce, that's not safe at all. And no, a driver > > > i thought the Hanford device *increased* downforce, along with drastically > increasing drag (the drag being what slows the cars down). > > > > realistically can't just walk away from the sport after putting in that > > many years to reach the top. But the Hanford Device kind of makes for a > > hazardous work environment, one that didn't exist when these racers > > started out in their chosen profession. > > > > -- > > Chuck Kandler > > > > Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS. > > > > Registered Linux User #180746 > > http://counter.li.org > >

Yes and No. The Gurney flap is an extention of the wing, it's purpose is to increase the amount of downforce generated.. The Gurney flap can be added or removed under race conditions(rules permitting of course). But the Hanford device is designed to INCREASE drag dramatically WITHOUT improving downforce. Also it cannot be removed. The Hanford device is probably a-lot like the roof bracket that Nascar has tried recently at Talladega. The HD doen't enable the drivers to gain speed from superior handling, however, it seems most CART chassis manufactuers have found ways to counter it's drag potential. If you saw the California 500, the cars in the draft would gain what sounded like over a thousand revs when in the draft of another car. I believe this was the main cause of 'most' of the engine failures. The mills were already stressed to the limit and then the draft would pull them up to and perhaps past the rev limit. dave henrie "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (20 lines)

> I was under the same impression....that it increased drag, that is. > > Incidentally, is this so-called 'Hanford device' a new name for the Gurney > flap? > > -- > Regards, > Bruce Kennewell, > Canberra, Australia. > --------------------------- > > Mark Stahl <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:8vu2ft$5s8$[email hidden]... > > > > "Uncle Fester" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > Ned wrote: > > > > > > > On the other hand - that wall at California that Moore hit shouldn't > > > > have been like that. My wife even noticed it at the first Truck

race > > > > they had there - "someone could spin off the banking and hit that > > > > abuttment" > > > > > > > > > Although I pretty well agree on the sentiments expressed throughoutthis > > > thread, when we discuss Moore I'm still not at all sure that damned > > > Hanford Device didn't play a role as well. I've hated that thing from > > > Day 1... if you want to limit speeds fine, decrease power output.DON'T > > > decrease downforce, that's not safe at all. And no, a driver > > > > > > i thought the Hanford device *increased* downforce, along withdrastically > > increasing drag (the drag being what slows the cars down). > > > > > > > realistically can't just walk away from the sport after putting inthat > > > many years to reach the top. But the Hanford Device kind of makes fora

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > > hazardous work environment, one that didn't exist when these racers > > > started out in their chosen profession. > > > > > > -- > > > Chuck Kandler > > > > > > Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS. > > > > > > Registered Linux User #180746 > > > http://counter.li.org > > > > > >

Mark Stahl wrote: > > i thought the Hanford device *increased* downforce, along with drastically > increasing drag (the drag being what slows the cars down). Not entirely true. I'll quote the relevant parts from the article located here: http://cnnsi.co.il/motorsports/news/1998/07/23/slower_us500/ "Some of the best engineering minds in the series got together with the rules committee, and the result of those meetings is the Handford Device, a box-like rear wing designed by Swift Engineering's Mark Handford. The device increases drag on straightaways and reduces downforce in corners." I was at this race too, BTW. Pretty exciting, with a lot of passes & all. But the one thing that stands out (besides the fatal accident with the 5 spectators :-< ) was the way Zanardi was going on about the HD in the post-race press conference. Every race after that involving the HD up until he left for F1, Zanardi criticized it much the same way Earnhardt does with the restrictor plates. :-) Everybody always seemed to focus on what happened with Greg's car after he went off the track. The thing that always got me was, why did he break free in the first damn place? With the decreased drag in the corners due to the HD, I feel that may have played quite a large part in this tragedy. -- Chuck Kandler Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS. Registered Linux User #180746 http://counter.li.org

Well there has been much speculation on Greg's death. One centers on the fact he had hurt his hand before the event and was driving with a hand stitched up. Also where he went off is an area where I think there is a bump. At the speeds they are running having you mind go to something else even for a second can prove fatal. No one will know for sure why he went off, but we do know how he hit the infield road did have something to do with how the car hit the wall. I do not think the handford device would be the exact culprit here since Greg was injured and we do not know what happened inside the car that started the accident. Dave

Quoted text (14 lines)

> Everybody always seemed to focus on what happened with Greg's car after > he went off the track. The thing that always got me was, why did he > break free in the first damn place? With the decreased drag in the > corners due to the HD, I feel that may have played quite a large part in > this tragedy. > > -- > Chuck Kandler > > Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS. > > Registered Linux User #180746 > http://counter.li.org >

Dave, the original design of the Gurney Flap made no allowance for adjustment and, as far as my research shows, it was rivetted (or bolted) onto the trailing edge of the wing. In addition, in no way could it be considered an extension of the wing; it was simply a length of 90-degree aluminium angle affixed to the wing. (Another name for this length of angle is "wickerbill"). It was certainly used to increase the effectiveness of the rear wing...no doubt about that. But isn't the HD just a larger GF and, being larger, it creates drag at the expense of additional downforce and speed? Incidentally, one very, very good article of the Gurney flap and its origin is to be had in the September edition of MotorSport (the "Technofile" article for that issue. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Dave Henrie <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:RiCU5.84483$[email hidden]... > Yes and No. The Gurney flap is an extention of the wing, it's purpose is > to increase the amount of downforce generated

In article <[email hidden]>, Bruce Kennewell <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

>Dave, the original design of the Gurney Flap made no allowance for >adjustment and, as far as my research shows, it was rivetted (or bolted) >onto the trailing edge of the wing. In addition, in no way could it be >considered an extension of the wing; it was simply a length of 90-degree >aluminium angle affixed to the wing. >(Another name for this length of angle is "wickerbill"). >It was certainly used to increase the effectiveness of the rear wing...no >doubt about that. > >But isn't the HD just a larger GF and, being larger, it creates drag at the >expense of additional downforce and speed?

Bruce, Different sides of the wing. As you describe, the GF sits on top of the trailing edge of the rear wing in a manner that is perpendicular to the trailing edge of the wing element regardless of what angle it's adjusted to. Although I've never seen one up close, the HF looks like it extends from the bottom of the wing straight down toward the ground. I found a good picture over at champcar.com of Andre Ribiero's 98 Penske in which you can clearly make out both the Gurney flap and the Hanford device. http://www.champcar.com/Gallery/gallery98/12michigan/shiny_wheels_at_speed_big.html -Bill -- | "Instead of letting the moon be the Bill Mette | gateway to our future, we have let Enteract, Chicago | it become a brief chapter in our [email hidden] | history." - Andrew Chaikin