On Sat, 13 May 2000 05:19:32 GMT, Shaun Robinson <[email hidden]>
wrote:
Firstly, CART are PROHIBETED from racing on anything other than a
"oval" (i.e. a circuit consisting only of left hand corners) outside
of North America by the FIA, the only exception is Surfers Paradise as
this event was admitted via a loop hole which has since closed. As
the FIA "sanctions" all events in Europe and Asia it has enormous
power and no-oneis willing to challenge this issue for fear of
repercussions (i.e. lose any other sanctioned events). FIA is
concerned that a competitive open wheel series with events in Europe
would be a significant threat and devalue F1. Regardless of whether
you agree the CART would harm F1 or not it is incredible this type of
cronies can exist today..
Secondly, Montegi is of key importance to CART, two of the four parent
companies that keep the series alive are based in Japan (Honda,
Toyota) and an increasing amount of sponsorship dollars from high tech
industries come from this region.
Don't let you frustration over a rain delay cloud your perspective.
F1 has had races rained out or shorted by rain on several occasions,
primarily at street circuits. Does this mean that street circuit
should be removed from the schedule? Of course not, sometimes things
beyond our control mean we miss a race or have to wait a bit longer
but you don't bite the hand that feeds you. Races are postponed for
safety reasons, our entertainment should always be secondary to driver
safety - we really don't need to go there do we?
F1 and CART have different strengths and weaknesses, personally I find
races decided in the pits a little tedious and would much prefer to
watch a race at Road America than Fontana but the beauty of the sport
is the element of the unexpected. You never know when you might see a
race like last weekend with Hakkinen and Schumacher separated by
meters for 15 laps, great racing under pressure! There have been some
great oval races in the past as well. Taking oval races out of the
CART schedule would alienate a large proportion of it's supporters and
spectators, I think the current balance is pretty good, if NEW races
are added to the schedule to incorporate England or Germany I don't
see this issue, if Portland or Laguna Seca are dropped it is a
different matter. We don't know the full story for Detroit yet so we
will have to wait and see.
Regards,
Anthony Bulloch
X posted to rec.autos.sport.cart
CART versus F1: oval racing and car crashworthiness
A complaint about CART's rain delay at Toronto led to explanations of the FIA agreement barring CART from road courses outside North America. A long argument followed over whether CART cars were safer than F1 cars because they were heavier, with Geoff Schuler and David Betts citing F1's stricter impact tests and Brian Jackson and Tom Hiett disputing their reasoning. It became increasingly personal near the end.
real motorsportoff-topic
Automated summary.
On Sat, 13 May 2000 05:51:58 GMT, Jeff Salzmann
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>Hey-
>
>Toronto? Last time I went, no jumbotrons, nor pole, across the longest
>grandstand on the circuit...we didn't even know the race ended....
>
>Montreal's F1 race is a much better experience.
What are comparable ticket prices like? In Australia the F1 will cost
you roughly 40% more, same for you guys?
The writing did seem to be on the wall there. Doubt it will happen
again. As with Silverstone in April!
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Statements such as this do nothing
for the memory of these racers. Corrective action has been taken, it
is too late and we all wish it wasn't. Tragedy is not limited to CART
any organizer of a dangerous event runs a very real and unpalatable
risk.
You just shot yourself in the foot. A safety issue was identified
and action taken, this ruined the spectacle for you now you don't like
it.
"too many dead drivers", incredible, what is an acceptable number?
Have a GOOD think about what you just wrote.
Do you think any organization finds even a minor, avoidable injury
acceptable? Of course not.
Some people in the US do support open wheel racing, last lime I
checked you didn't speak for 274,943,494 people. You may not like
open wheel racing, that's fine it's a big world, you have other
choices but don't assume you speak for everyone.
A highlight reel of "wreaks" is hardly what I would call good sensible
marketing but you are right, NASCAR does get good attendance and
ratings. The car crash mentality draws and amazing group of people,
it would be sad if the only enjoyment you got out of racing was seeing
wrecks wouldn't it? I watch NASCAR and can appreciate the skill shown
racing so close but I do not derive please from seeing 20 cars
involved in a "wreck" at 200 mph. Again each to there own.
Regards,
Anthony Bulloch
Quoted text (8 lines)
> >Let's not forget the genius that scheduled Nazareth in April- two >years back, rained like a mother...the next morning the team owners >were complaining about needing to use block heaters to warm the >engines enough to start them- 36F at the start of the race. So what do >they do about it the next year?? NOTHING. > >Two years later, race postponed again- why this time? SNOWED OUT.Quoted text (7 lines)
> >Let's see, Brazil, California....better do northeast PA in April. >Idiots. Any sanctioning body stupid enough to do this is clearly too >stupid to run a formula. Look at the pointless deaths in the sport- >that (&^*( run-off that killed Moore....talk about a worthless >death....and that poor rookie at Laguna...why? Two rows of tires and a >concrete wall? Amazing.Quoted text (10 lines)
>Is it a suprise that nobody goes to these races anymore? Nazareth in >98, I think it was....200 lap race, averaged a yellow flag EVERY TEN >LAPS...some geek drops a wheel on the infield for 5 yards, no loss of >control...they go full-course for twelve laps...I needed to pack a >ski-jacket that year...ya think they'd have learned...so the next >year, they put those idiotic wings on the cars...150MPH lap averages, >the year before the qualifying laps AVERAGED faster than the peak >speeds on a lap during the race. It was like watching F3, only slower. >Yawn. I want to watch something that slow, I'll watch the slack-jawed >yokelry run at exciting tracks like Martinsville.Quoted text (7 lines)
> >CART is run so ineptly, and so dangerously, that it gets exactly what >it deserves. Too many dead drivers, too many tape-delayed races, too >too little too late. Nobody in the US gives a shit about open-wheel >racing anymore....F_ck CART. And yeah, let's face it, NASCAR is >pro-wrestling w/all too frequent yellow flags, but at least they're >marketing it sensibly...As per CART's arrangement with the FIA, CART is only allowed to run oval
courses outside the limits of North America. The Austrailian race was
already in existance when this agreement was made, so the FIA allowed it to
remain on the schedule. Many see this as Bernie's way of keeping CART off
the road courses of Europe and out of direct competition with F1.
--
don
"Getting hit by a meteorite is an accident...
everything else is driver-error."
"Shaun Robinson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> To start off, i've attended four Toronto Indy's, worked at the latest.
> I've always found myself following CART more than F1, but now i know why
> i'm going over to F1. No yellow flags, though it may makes for racing
> later in the day; but the biggy, no damn ovals (the rain delay in this
> case). Why the hell is Craig adding more ovals than road courses? Shit,
> Motegi has a road course; but no, they have to race on the one and a
> half mile oval that was recently modified by a earthquake. To top it
> off, he's axing Detroit to put on another oval and there's Forsythe's
> oval in England i mean wtf... Argg.
> As for the sim racing relevance... nope, i'll just go delete Motegi off
> of CPR if its there (the track, i know the game's there).
>
> Anyone know what's happening with the '00 GPL carset?
On Sat, 13 May 2000 14:35:49 GMT, Jeff Salzmann
<[email hidden]> wrote:
That I cannot comment on only to say that there even allowing for the
short time frame between the two events the drivers and CART did
not/could not see the danger presented by the track architecture. The
perceived danger would be the outside walls and pit entry, the
inability to identify inside walls almost perpendicular to the racing
direction is regrettable.
No class has a clean slate here, until Niki Lauda had his accident
safety standards in F1 were very average. F1 is still learning, they
have had bad weekends as well .....
I have no dispute with the over use of yellows at some events. I find
this frustrating at times but not enough to give up on the sport.
Who can explain Americans! Without wanting to start a whole new
thread the CART/IRL cannot be a good thing.... From reports NASCAR
attendance and ratings are also slipping. There will always be a the
casual observer who's support will come and go, any series need to
clearly define themselves in the marketplace and expand the "full
time" supporter base. Taking the series to other countries is part of
CART's current strategy, I think this is a good move even if it does
come at the expense of penetration/satuation in Norther America.
International rating and penetration would be interesting to see.
Numbers were from 1999 census figures.
Well I live in Australia so live international open wheel motor sport
only come three times a year! F1 Melbourne and Suzuka and CART at
Surfers.
Empty stands are a direct result of the explosion in seating capacity
for NASCAR, agreed it looks bad on TV but does not inherently indicate
support for CART is diminishing.
I still think it is more than just the sanctioning body, the issues
discussed are not restricted to CART.
>I am not looking to hammer you or anything- in fact, I wish CART was
>indeed run better- I loved going to those races, but with the idiotic
>yellow flags and the yawn slow slow speeds we were subject to at
>Nazareth, I will probably never go again. The series just ain't what
>it used to be.
I think CART is evolving from a predominantly North American series
with a traditional supporter base to a more international series with
a slightly different focus market. I totally agree there are/have
been issues with safety, scheduling, TV coverage, damn stupid web
site and some daft rule implementations BUT progress takes time, CART
are not doing these things deliberately, they are not inept, just
evolving. CART need the continued support from people who, despite all
the frustrations, love the sport. I'll bet your passion will get the
better of you and you will be back at the track pretty soon, that's
what being a fan is all about!
Regards,
Anthony Bulloch
Quoted text (46 lines)
>On Thu, 11 May 2000 18:42:00 GMT, [email hidden] (Anthony >Bulloch) wrote: > >>On Sat, 13 May 2000 05:51:58 GMT, Jeff Salzmann >><[email hidden]> wrote: >> >> >>>Hey- >>> >>>Toronto? Last time I went, no jumbotrons, nor pole, across the longest >>>grandstand on the circuit...we didn't even know the race ended.... >>> >>>Montreal's F1 race is a much better experience. >> >>What are comparable ticket prices like? In Australia the F1 will cost >>you roughly 40% more, same for you guys? > >Yeah, that's a fair point. Montreal cost something like $220 US, >Toronto Indy is one of the cheaper races as well- maybe $100 for the >three days?? > >>>Let's not forget the genius that scheduled Nazareth in April- two >>>years back, rained like a mother...the next morning the team owners >>>were complaining about needing to use block heaters to warm the >>>engines enough to start them- 36F at the start of the race. So what do >>>they do about it the next year?? NOTHING. > >Yup, same as Silverstone...at least CART's not punishing the >organizers for the bad weather... > >>>Let's see, Brazil, California....better do northeast PA in April. >>>Idiots. Any sanctioning body stupid enough to do this is clearly too >>>stupid to run a formula. Look at the pointless deaths in the sport- >>>that (&^*( run-off that killed Moore....talk about a worthless >>>death....and that poor rookie at Laguna...why? Two rows of tires and a >>>concrete wall? Amazing. >> >>Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Statements such as this do nothing >>for the memory of these racers. Corrective action has been taken, it >>is too late and we all wish it wasn't. Tragedy is not limited to CART >>any organizer of a dangerous event runs a very real and unpalatable >>risk. > >Corrective action too late is not acceptable. Ever. What corrective >actions were taken between Moore and the rookie's death? Sure didn't >look like any changes on the track.Quoted text (29 lines)
> >>>Is it a suprise that nobody goes to these races anymore? Nazareth in >>>98, I think it was....200 lap race, averaged a yellow flag EVERY TEN >>>LAPS...some geek drops a wheel on the infield for 5 yards, no loss of >>>control...they go full-course for twelve laps...I needed to pack a >>>ski-jacket that year...ya think they'd have learned...so the next >>>year, they put those idiotic wings on the cars...150MPH lap averages, >>>the year before the qualifying laps AVERAGED faster than the peak >>>speeds on a lap during the race. It was like watching F3, only slower. >>>Yawn. I want to watch something that slow, I'll watch the slack-jawed >>>yokelry run at exciting tracks like Martinsville. >> >>You just shot yourself in the foot. A safety issue was identified >>and action taken, this ruined the spectacle for you now you don't like >>it. > >You can't be safe and run fast? While no sport is totally safe, just >consider F1 v. CART here....forget drivers and death-tallys here. How >many F1 fans have been killed in recent (say 10 years) memory? It's >not a matter of addressing the issues after the thing happens- an >ounce of prevention, a pound of cure. All of CART's fixative measures >were after-the-fact. You run a company that way in the US, you get >shut down very quickly by OSHA. Modifying the wings alone, to slow the >cars, is hardly a fixative measure. Did Laguna put in styrofoam >crash-walls? How about a gravel run-off? I remember that the >rookie-guy was on grass, I could be wrong. The track that Moore got >killed at, well, I won't even start on that idiocy. Why not put big >steel knives in the walls? Sadly, the end result's still the same.... >Quoted text (12 lines)
>Nice of you, BTW, to not make light of my 'yellow-flag defines the >race' comment. Explain the point of running 300 miles when the race is >determined exclusively by yellows? Just watch it at the end of the >last yellow. You think Villeneuve could have won the Indy 500 (505 in >his case) w/out some yellows to buy back those laps (yeah, I know he >got helped at the end but he made up at least one of those laps on >yellows). The ovals suck, and yeah, CART's really caught out on that >Concorde agreement, but that don't change a single thing inside the >USA. Trading road-courses for ovals will just alienate more fans. >Maybe CART could give the phrase 'local-yellow' a try as well, but I >seriously doubt they'll be anything but the exception on road courses, >never the rule.Quoted text (17 lines)
> >>>CART is run so ineptly, and so dangerously, that it gets exactly what >>>it deserves. Too many dead drivers, too many tape-delayed races, too >>>too little too late. Nobody in the US gives a shit about open-wheel >>>racing anymore....F_ck CART. And yeah, let's face it, NASCAR is >>>pro-wrestling w/all too frequent yellow flags, but at least they're >>>marketing it sensibly... >> >>"too many dead drivers", incredible, what is an acceptable number? >>Have a GOOD think about what you just wrote. > >Forgive my syntax. Again, compare F1 to CART. That's my point. If CART >were not run ineptly, by your point, what's your explanation for the >declining attendence? The lack of live TV coverage- IN THE USA. >Certainly looks inept to me. Isn't it ironic that ESPN showed the >'Celebrity GP at Long Beach' more frequently than they did the CART >race itself?Quoted text (8 lines)
>>Some people in the US do support open wheel racing, last lime I >>checked you didn't speak for 274,943,494 people. You may not like >>open wheel racing, that's fine it's a big world, you have other >>choices but don't assume you speak for everyone. > >Your numbers are absurd. Let the TV and attendance numbers speak for >themselves. How many empty grandstands this year? When did you last >see a live CART race on TV? They're getting as rare as live F1 races.Quoted text (7 lines)
> >As for my not liking open-wheel, no, I've been to Montreal every year >since '95 (must be my love for pace cars), Nazareth three times, >Toronto twice. And I infrequently race karts at Watkins Glen. In fact, >I am debating on going to a racing school- the F1 school's waaaaay too >expensive, in all honesty I want to do the CART school in Vegas- it's >certainly not the car, it's the organizers....On Sat, 13 May 2000 17:10:42 -0700, Brian Jackson
<[email hidden]> wrote:
Yeah that was fun to watch but that was NOT racing, that was team
tactics and questionable sportsmanship. Ralf will have his day.
Regards,
Anthony Bulloch
Quoted text (13 lines)
>"\"Michael E. Carver\" mcarver"@teleport.com wrote: > >> One of the benefits I see with CART is that a driver must be talented in >> both oval and street/road circuit racing. As to current day F1, I don't >> understand the "racing" appeal. I used to be a great F1 fan, but that >> was in the days when they raced.... Lauda, Piquet, Prost, Berger, Senna, >> Mansell, Fittipaldi, Jones, Hunt, Rosberg, Alberto, etc.... They don't >> race anymore and it is getting worse, not better. :( At least in CART >> they are still racing..... > >Hey! The brothers Schumacher put on a fun show last weekend. Now, if >only F1 could have that type of passing take place more often than once >every decade :-/
Shaun Robinson wrote in rec.autos.simulators:
> >To start off, i've attended four Toronto Indy's, worked
> >at the latest. I've always found myself following CART
> >more than F1, but now i know why i'm going over to F1.
> >No yellow flags, though it may makes for racing later in
> >the day;
They must be hurting for workers at Toronto if they are hiring folks who
know so very little about these basic issues.
No, Formula One doesn't have "yellow flags". BUT they do have "the
safety car" that has been used with some regularity the past few years.
They are equivalent.
Second, Formula One is in a powerful enough position to force race
tracks to implement the very latest and favored ideas in track safety -
pretty much regardless of what it costs the track to do so. An F1 car
can leave most any F1 course at most any speed and just get swallowed up
by the "kitty litter", the tire walls, etc. CART, on the other hand, is
not in nearly so powerful a position that they can dictate so much to
the track owners. So they have to deal with safety as best they can. So,
when something occurs that has a fair chance of causing injury to the
track workers, the fans, or the drivers, they have to deal with it. The
solution is to slow the cars down to a level that makes it relatively
safe for the workers to fetch broken/trapped cars and/or drivers, clean
up spilled oil, etc. No amount of "continuous green flag racing" is
worth someone's life.
Third, the cars in the two series are quite different even though they
may appear the same. F1 cars are much lighter and, as a result, are less
likely to withstand direct impacts. This fact also plays a part in the
need to have errant cars restrained before hitting anything solid (see
Senna, Ratzenburger, etc.). The CART cars are heavier. They are
required to protect the driver in some serious collisions with the walls
on the oval tracks. The fact that the CART cars evolved with that as a
primary consideration (and the F1 cars did not) is what differentiates
the two series more than anything else (that and the ludicrous amounts
of money tossed around in F1.)
> but the biggy, no damn ovals (the rain delay in this case).
Ovals are not run in the rain for very obvious safety reasons. NASCAR
doesn't race on ovals in the rain, either. Think for a minute and you'll
realize how truly insipid and dangerous an oval rain in the race would
be.
> Why the hell is Craig adding more ovals than road courses?
Because Andrew Craig is doing what his bosses want? Craig is the
manager. He's not the guy who decides things on his own. He represents
the CART board of directors. THEY decide what actions CART takes.
CART has made it very clear that they are, and want to remain, first and
foremost, an American racing series with American racing roots. And that
means oval racing as part of the mix. If you want an all road course
series, there are quite a few of them around. Follow those. You may
find, however, that if you aren't a fan of pit stop timing exercises
and/or really into nationalism in your auto racing, F1 can be pretty
boring and predictable.
> >Shit, Motegi has a road course; but no, they have to race on
> >the one and a half mile oval that was recently modified by a
> >earthquake.
Just out of curiosity, what does an earthquake have to do with your
argument? One might suppose that the Motegi road course was also
"modified by an earthquake". No?
> >To top it off, he's axing Detroit to put on another oval and
> >there's Forsythe's oval in England i mean wtf... Argg.
First, they have told the Detroit people that they will be happy to stay
in Detroit. They just are not going to race at Belle Isle. The teams and
drivers truly dislike Belle Isle. The fans are not far behind. There is
no place to pass on the track and the transporters have to park in mud
lots. See above re: F1's demands on racing venues.
Second, you make no mention of the fact that the new race in Mexico will
be a road race.
Third, _NEWLY_BUILT_ oval tracks in England *AND* Germany are competing
for a CART race. They *want* them there.
FYI, Forsythe is a partner in the British track.
To which Anthony Bulloch responded...
I agree with what you said, Anthony. Well put. A couple of things,
though...
> Firstly, CART are PROHIBETED from racing on anything other
> than a "oval" (i.e. a circuit consisting only of left hand
> corners) outside of North America by the FIA, the only
> exception is Surfers Paradise as this event was admitted via
> a loop hole which has since closed.
First, CART is not "prohibited" from it at all. CART has a "gentleman's
agreement" with the FIA not to do so. There is nothing at all legally
binding that prevents CART form having road races anywhere on earth.
Second, Surfer's was allowed to remain in place as part of said
agreement as it was already in place (and, IIRC, was the very race that
raised the issue in the first place.)
The FIA is also worried that their "rule by fiat" bit would be seriously
undermined if the issue ever came before a court of law. They *know*
they are a monopoly and they want to keep it that way (as most
monopolies do - see Bill Gates, et al). On the other hand, as you point
out, the cost of going after the FIA to give Craig and crew CART blanche
(grin) would be immense and neither the tracks owners, nor CART, wants
to mess with it. Besides, CART has no desire to try and compete
head-to-head with F1 (and vice versa - F1 has gone to some lengths to
avoid any direct, on track comparisons.) They want to export their own
brand of racing. Folks in North American can see professional level oval
racing and road racing. Folks in the rest of the world see only road
racing (at the high end of things) and CART sees this as an opportunity
to sell the mix while making their international supporters happy.
Brian
Quoted text (7 lines)
> As the FIA "sanctions" all events in Europe and Asia it has enormous > power and no-oneis willing to challenge this issue for fear of > repercussions (i.e. lose any other sanctioned events). FIA is > concerned that a competitive open wheel series with events in Europe > would be a significant threat and devalue F1. Regardless of whether > you agree the CART would harm F1 or not it is incredible this type of > cronies can exist today.."\"Michael E. Carver\" mcarver"@teleport.com wrote:
Hey! The brothers Schumacher put on a fun show last weekend. Now, if
only F1 could have that type of passing take place more often than once
every decade :-/
Brian
Quoted text (7 lines)
> One of the benefits I see with CART is that a driver must be talented in > both oval and street/road circuit racing. As to current day F1, I don't > understand the "racing" appeal. I used to be a great F1 fan, but that > was in the days when they raced.... Lauda, Piquet, Prost, Berger, Senna, > Mansell, Fittipaldi, Jones, Hunt, Rosberg, Alberto, etc.... They don't > race anymore and it is getting worse, not better. :( At least in CART > they are still racing.....Geoff Schuler wrote:
The difference being that CART, unfortunately, has a pretty regular,
ongoing, real time testing program for this while F1 does not. Very,
very few F1 cars run into concrete walls the way the CART cars do on a
fairly regular basis during testing, practice, qualifying, and racing on
oval tracks. Crash tests are fine but any engineer can tell you that
theoretical laboratory tests are pretty usually much less informative
than is data gathered in real world conditions. Think back to Mark
Blundell's horrific, near head-on with the wall at Rio a couple of years
back. he had *nothing* to moderate his impact. Compare it to
Schumacher's incident last year that broke his legs after passing
through (pretty useless) sand pit and a pretty big pile of tires.
Anecdotal for sure but still...
Brian
Quoted text (22 lines)
> > Brian Jackson <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >F1 cars are much lighter and, as a result, are less > >likely to withstand direct impacts. This fact also plays a > >part in the need to have errant cars restrained before > >hitting anything solid (see Senna, Ratzenburger, etc.). > >The CART cars are heavier. They are required to protect > >the driver in some serious collisions with the walls > >on the oval tracks. The fact that the CART cars evolved > >with that as a primary consideration (and the F1 cars did > >not) is what differentiates the two series more than > >anything else (that and the ludicrous amounts > >of money tossed around in F1.) > > This, however, isn't quite so clear-cut. The mandatory impact > tests for F1 and CART cars are slightly different, so it's > hard to directly compare them, but from what I can deduce > without actually having one of each chassis to crash-test > for myself, the standards are fairly similar. It seems that > CART cars and F1 cars are required to be able to handle > similar impacts.To start off, i've attended four Toronto Indy's, worked at the latest.
I've always found myself following CART more than F1, but now i know why
i'm going over to F1. No yellow flags, though it may makes for racing
later in the day; but the biggy, no damn ovals (the rain delay in this
case). Why the hell is Craig adding more ovals than road courses? Shit,
Motegi has a road course; but no, they have to race on the one and a
half mile oval that was recently modified by a earthquake. To top it
off, he's axing Detroit to put on another oval and there's Forsythe's
oval in England i mean wtf... Argg.
As for the sim racing relevance... nope, i'll just go delete Motegi off
of CPR if its there (the track, i know the game's there).
Anyone know what's happening with the '00 GPL carset?
On Sat, 13 May 2000 05:19:32 GMT, Shaun Robinson <[email hidden]>
wrote:
CART is NOT allowed to run road courses outside North America (except
Surfers Paradise) because of the 1991 Concorde Agreement.
Quoted text (9 lines)
>To start off, i've attended four Toronto Indy's, worked at the latest. >I've always found myself following CART more than F1, but now i know why >i'm going over to F1. No yellow flags, though it may makes for racing >later in the day; but the biggy, no damn ovals (the rain delay in this >case). Why the hell is Craig adding more ovals than road courses? Shit, >Motegi has a road course; but no, they have to race on the one and a >half mile oval that was recently modified by a earthquake. To top it >off, he's axing Detroit to put on another oval and there's Forsythe's >oval in England i mean wtf... Argg.On Sat, 13 May 2000 05:19:32 GMT, Shaun Robinson <[email hidden]>
wrote:
Hey-
Toronto? Last time I went, no jumbotrons, nor pole, across the longest
grandstand on the circuit...we didn't even know the race ended....
Montreal's F1 race is a much better experience.
Let's not forget the genius that scheduled Nazareth in April- two
years back, rained like a mother...the next morning the team owners
were complaining about needing to use block heaters to warm the
engines enough to start them- 36F at the start of the race. So what do
they do about it the next year?? NOTHING.
Two years later, race postponed again- why this time? SNOWED OUT.
Let's see, Brazil, California....better do northeast PA in April.
Idiots. Any sanctioning body stupid enough to do this is clearly too
stupid to run a formula. Look at the pointless deaths in the sport-
that (&^*( run-off that killed Moore....talk about a worthless
death....and that poor rookie at Laguna...why? Two rows of tires and a
concrete wall? Amazing.
Is it a suprise that nobody goes to these races anymore? Nazareth in
98, I think it was....200 lap race, averaged a yellow flag EVERY TEN
LAPS...some geek drops a wheel on the infield for 5 yards, no loss of
control...they go full-course for twelve laps...I needed to pack a
ski-jacket that year...ya think they'd have learned...so the next
year, they put those idiotic wings on the cars...150MPH lap averages,
the year before the qualifying laps AVERAGED faster than the peak
speeds on a lap during the race. It was like watching F3, only slower.
Yawn. I want to watch something that slow, I'll watch the slack-jawed
yokelry run at exciting tracks like Martinsville.
CART is run so ineptly, and so dangerously, that it gets exactly what
it deserves. Too many dead drivers, too many tape-delayed races, too
too little too late. Nobody in the US gives a shit about open-wheel
racing anymore....F_ck CART. And yeah, let's face it, NASCAR is
pro-wrestling w/all too frequent yellow flags, but at least they're
marketing it sensibly...
Jeff
Quoted text (13 lines)
>To start off, i've attended four Toronto Indy's, worked at the latest. >I've always found myself following CART more than F1, but now i know why >i'm going over to F1. No yellow flags, though it may makes for racing >later in the day; but the biggy, no damn ovals (the rain delay in this >case). Why the hell is Craig adding more ovals than road courses? Shit, >Motegi has a road course; but no, they have to race on the one and a >half mile oval that was recently modified by a earthquake. To top it >off, he's axing Detroit to put on another oval and there's Forsythe's >oval in England i mean wtf... Argg. >As for the sim racing relevance... nope, i'll just go delete Motegi off >of CPR if its there (the track, i know the game's there). > >Anyone know what's happening with the '00 GPL carset?
Jeff Salzmann wrote:
(snipped)
> CART is run so ineptly, and so dangerously, that it gets exactly what
> it deserves. Too many dead drivers, too many tape-delayed races, too
> too little too late. Nobody in the US gives a shit about open-wheel
> racing anymore....F_ck CART. And yeah, let's face it, NASCAR is
> pro-wrestling w/all too frequent yellow flags, but at least they're
> marketing it sensibly...
The USGP has sold out over 200,000 reserved seats this year with almost no
domestic advertising. There must be SOME interest in open-wheel racing here
(unless the Canadians are coming down in droves :). Or is it just due to
the novelty factor of a new event at a famous track?
On Thu, 11 May 2000 18:42:00 GMT, [email hidden] (Anthony
Bulloch) wrote:
Yeah, that's a fair point. Montreal cost something like $220 US,
Toronto Indy is one of the cheaper races as well- maybe $100 for the
three days??
>>Let's not forget the genius that scheduled Nazareth in April- two
>>years back, rained like a mother...the next morning the team owners
>>were complaining about needing to use block heaters to warm the
>>engines enough to start them- 36F at the start of the race. So what do
>>they do about it the next year?? NOTHING.
Yup, same as Silverstone...at least CART's not punishing the
organizers for the bad weather...
Corrective action too late is not acceptable. Ever. What corrective
actions were taken between Moore and the rookie's death? Sure didn't
look like any changes on the track.
You can't be safe and run fast? While no sport is totally safe, just
consider F1 v. CART here....forget drivers and death-tallys here. How
many F1 fans have been killed in recent (say 10 years) memory? It's
not a matter of addressing the issues after the thing happens- an
ounce of prevention, a pound of cure. All of CART's fixative measures
were after-the-fact. You run a company that way in the US, you get
shut down very quickly by OSHA. Modifying the wings alone, to slow the
cars, is hardly a fixative measure. Did Laguna put in styrofoam
crash-walls? How about a gravel run-off? I remember that the
rookie-guy was on grass, I could be wrong. The track that Moore got
killed at, well, I won't even start on that idiocy. Why not put big
steel knives in the walls? Sadly, the end result's still the same....
Nice of you, BTW, to not make light of my 'yellow-flag defines the
race' comment. Explain the point of running 300 miles when the race is
determined exclusively by yellows? Just watch it at the end of the
last yellow. You think Villeneuve could have won the Indy 500 (505 in
his case) w/out some yellows to buy back those laps (yeah, I know he
got helped at the end but he made up at least one of those laps on
yellows). The ovals suck, and yeah, CART's really caught out on that
Concorde agreement, but that don't change a single thing inside the
USA. Trading road-courses for ovals will just alienate more fans.
Maybe CART could give the phrase 'local-yellow' a try as well, but I
seriously doubt they'll be anything but the exception on road courses,
never the rule.
Forgive my syntax. Again, compare F1 to CART. That's my point. If CART
were not run ineptly, by your point, what's your explanation for the
declining attendence? The lack of live TV coverage- IN THE USA.
Certainly looks inept to me. Isn't it ironic that ESPN showed the
'Celebrity GP at Long Beach' more frequently than they did the CART
race itself?
>Some people in the US do support open wheel racing, last lime I
>checked you didn't speak for 274,943,494 people. You may not like
>open wheel racing, that's fine it's a big world, you have other
>choices but don't assume you speak for everyone.
Your numbers are absurd. Let the TV and attendance numbers speak for
themselves. How many empty grandstands this year? When did you last
see a live CART race on TV? They're getting as rare as live F1 races.
As for my not liking open-wheel, no, I've been to Montreal every year
since '95 (must be my love for pace cars), Nazareth three times,
Toronto twice. And I infrequently race karts at Watkins Glen. In fact,
I am debating on going to a racing school- the F1 school's waaaaay too
expensive, in all honesty I want to do the CART school in Vegas- it's
certainly not the car, it's the organizers....
I am not looking to hammer you or anything- in fact, I wish CART was
indeed run better- I loved going to those races, but with the idiotic
yellow flags and the yawn slow slow speeds we were subject to at
Nazareth, I will probably never go again. The series just ain't what
it used to be.
Jeff
Quoted text (13 lines)
>On Sat, 13 May 2000 05:51:58 GMT, Jeff Salzmann ><[email hidden]> wrote: > > >>Hey- >> >>Toronto? Last time I went, no jumbotrons, nor pole, across the longest >>grandstand on the circuit...we didn't even know the race ended.... >> >>Montreal's F1 race is a much better experience. > >What are comparable ticket prices like? In Australia the F1 will cost >you roughly 40% more, same for you guys?Quoted text (12 lines)
>>Let's see, Brazil, California....better do northeast PA in April. >>Idiots. Any sanctioning body stupid enough to do this is clearly too >>stupid to run a formula. Look at the pointless deaths in the sport- >>that (&^*( run-off that killed Moore....talk about a worthless >>death....and that poor rookie at Laguna...why? Two rows of tires and a >>concrete wall? Amazing. > >Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Statements such as this do nothing >for the memory of these racers. Corrective action has been taken, it >is too late and we all wish it wasn't. Tragedy is not limited to CART >any organizer of a dangerous event runs a very real and unpalatable >risk.Quoted text (14 lines)
>>Is it a suprise that nobody goes to these races anymore? Nazareth in >>98, I think it was....200 lap race, averaged a yellow flag EVERY TEN >>LAPS...some geek drops a wheel on the infield for 5 yards, no loss of >>control...they go full-course for twelve laps...I needed to pack a >>ski-jacket that year...ya think they'd have learned...so the next >>year, they put those idiotic wings on the cars...150MPH lap averages, >>the year before the qualifying laps AVERAGED faster than the peak >>speeds on a lap during the race. It was like watching F3, only slower. >>Yawn. I want to watch something that slow, I'll watch the slack-jawed >>yokelry run at exciting tracks like Martinsville. > >You just shot yourself in the foot. A safety issue was identified >and action taken, this ruined the spectacle for you now you don't like >it.Quoted text (9 lines)
>>CART is run so ineptly, and so dangerously, that it gets exactly what >>it deserves. Too many dead drivers, too many tape-delayed races, too >>too little too late. Nobody in the US gives a shit about open-wheel >>racing anymore....F_ck CART. And yeah, let's face it, NASCAR is >>pro-wrestling w/all too frequent yellow flags, but at least they're >>marketing it sensibly... > >"too many dead drivers", incredible, what is an acceptable number? >Have a GOOD think about what you just wrote.In rec.autos.simulators Anthony Bulloch <[email hidden]> wrote:
<snip>
% F1 and CART have different strengths and weaknesses, personally I find
% races decided in the pits a little tedious and would much prefer to
% watch a race at Road America than Fontana but the beauty of the sport
% is the element of the unexpected. You never know when you might see a
% race like last weekend with Hakkinen and Schumacher separated by
% meters for 15 laps, great racing under pressure! There have been some
% great oval races in the past as well. Taking oval races out of the
% CART schedule would alienate a large proportion of it's supporters and
% spectators, I think the current balance is pretty good, if NEW races
% are added to the schedule to incorporate England or Germany I don't
% see this issue, if Portland or Laguna Seca are dropped it is a
% different matter. We don't know the full story for Detroit yet so we
% will have to wait and see.
One of the benefits I see with CART is that a driver must be talented in
both oval and street/road circuit racing. As to current day F1, I don't
understand the "racing" appeal. I used to be a great F1 fan, but that
was in the days when they raced.... Lauda, Piquet, Prost, Berger, Senna,
Mansell, Fittipaldi, Jones, Hunt, Rosberg, Alberto, etc.... They don't
race anymore and it is getting worse, not better. :( At least in CART
they are still racing.....
--
**************************** Michael E. Carver *************************
Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town.
[email hidden] http://www.teleport.com/~mcarver
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
. How
> many F1 fans have been killed in recent (say 10 years) memory?
Well do F1 cars regularly see 230+ mph or even 220mph on circuits. I am
condoning what happened, a similar event happened at an IRL event after
the CART event so really no one is immune. The fact remains it happened at
a CART event first and then FIA was the first to take action seeing it as a
potenial problem after what happened at Michigan.
also a lot of companys operate in the same manner and OSHA may fine them
they do not shut them down.
Dave
On Thu, 11 May 2000 18:15:49 GMT, [email hidden] (Anthony
Bulloch) wrote:
It doesn't. The organisers of the Surfers race sued the FIA affiliate
organisation in Australia over not allowing for the use of the term
"Grand Prix" in promotional material. CART then sought an agreement
with the FIA to stop any crossed wires in future, and the resulting
agreement stated that from then on no CART races outside North America
would be run on road/street tracks and in return the FIA would
sanction CART races to the extent of FIA series supporting CART
events. Recently the FIA decided a CART driver license automatically
qualified a driver for an F1 superlicense.
Quoted text (26 lines)
>On Sat, 13 May 2000 05:19:32 GMT, Shaun Robinson <[email hidden]> >wrote: > >>To start off, i've attended four Toronto Indy's, worked at the latest. >>I've always found myself following CART more than F1, but now i know why >>i'm going over to F1. No yellow flags, though it may makes for racing >>later in the day; but the biggy, no damn ovals (the rain delay in this >>case). Why the hell is Craig adding more ovals than road courses? Shit, >>Motegi has a road course; but no, they have to race on the one and a >>half mile oval that was recently modified by a earthquake. To top it >>off, he's axing Detroit to put on another oval and there's Forsythe's >>oval in England i mean wtf... Argg. >>As for the sim racing relevance... nope, i'll just go delete Motegi off >>of CPR if its there (the track, i know the game's there). > >Firstly, CART are PROHIBETED from racing on anything other than a >"oval" (i.e. a circuit consisting only of left hand corners) outside >of North America by the FIA, the only exception is Surfers Paradise as >this event was admitted via a loop hole which has since closed. As >the FIA "sanctions" all events in Europe and Asia it has enormous >power and no-oneis willing to challenge this issue for fear of >repercussions (i.e. lose any other sanctioned events). FIA is >concerned that a competitive open wheel series with events in Europe >would be a significant threat and devalue F1. Regardless of whether >you agree the CART would harm F1 or not it is incredible this type of >cronies can exist today..Geoff Schuler wrote:
>
> But still... the fact remains that the *required* impact
> standards for each series are remarkably similar. Saying
> that CART cars must be stronger just because they are
> heavier is simply wrong.
I don't believe I said that. It's certainly not what I meant. What I
meant to say is that the CART car's required higher minimum weight gives
the designers more room to move to protect the driver with added
strength. It just stands to reason that an extra 200 pounds of car,
_applied_correctly_ (especially on cars the size of these) can mean a
big difference in impact resistance, etc.
Regardless, taking the position that "the mandatory impact tests for
both series are remarkably similar" equates with "therefore the cars are
remarkably similar in their integrity" is fallacious. That the (minimum)
standards defined for the tests are similar in no way implies or
guarantees that the cars are as well.
Brian
>That I cannot comment on only to say that there even allowing for the
>short time frame between the two events the drivers and CART did
>not/could not see the danger presented by the track architecture. The
>perceived danger would be the outside walls and pit entry, the
>inability to identify inside walls almost perpendicular to the racing
>direction is regrettable.
What is regrettable is the absolute lack of knowledge shown in this
thread. The wall that Moore hit was not close to perpendicular to the track.
The long lense used in the shot most people saw of his crash exagerrated the
angle in a huge way.
-Tim
The Enigmatic One wrote:
The fact that Ritchie Hearn had spun in a very similar fashion and
location
into the same wall just a short while earlier proves the freak nature of
Greg's crash. You might say the wall wasn't the culprit but the access
road
that launched his vehicle for it's final few moments.
dave henrie
Quoted text (7 lines)
> > What is regrettable is the absolute lack of knowledge shown in this > thread. The wall that Moore hit was not close to perpendicular to the track. > The long lense used in the shot most people saw of his crash exagerrated the > angle in a huge way. > > -Tim
> The fact that Ritchie Hearn had spun in a very similar fashion and
>location
>into the same wall just a short while earlier proves the freak nature of
>Greg's crash. You might say the wall wasn't the culprit but the access
>road
> that launched his vehicle for it's final few moments.
Right. He just hit at a really bad angle and that can be blamed on the
shift from grass to the paved access road. Anyway.
-Tim
On Sat, 13 May 2000 17:07:43 -0700, Brian Jackson
<[email hidden]> wrote:
-<Snip most of Brian's post, I agree with almost everything>-
>Third, the cars in the two series are quite different even though they
>may appear the same.
True.
This, however, isn't quite so clear-cut. The mandatory impact tests
for F1 and CART cars are slightly different, so it's hard to directly
compare them, but from what I can deduce without actually having one
of each chassis to crash-test for myself, the standards are fairly
similar. It seems that CART cars and F1 cars are required to be able
to handle similar impacts.
Geoff Schuler
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Remove REMOVE. to send me e-mail.
------------------------------------------------
Fight Spam! Join CAUBE
(Coalition Against Unsolicited Bulk Email)
http://www.caube.org.au/
Quoted text (9 lines)
>F1 cars are much lighter and, as a result, are less >likely to withstand direct impacts. This fact also plays a part in the >need to have errant cars restrained before hitting anything solid (see >Senna, Ratzenburger, etc.). The CART cars are heavier. They are >required to protect the driver in some serious collisions with the walls >on the oval tracks. The fact that the CART cars evolved with that as a >primary consideration (and the F1 cars did not) is what differentiates >the two series more than anything else (that and the ludicrous amounts >of money tossed around in F1.)Quoted text (7 lines)
> > but the biggy, no damn ovals (the rain delay in this case). > > Ovals are not run in the rain for very obvious safety reasons. NASCAR > doesn't race on ovals in the rain, either. Think for a minute and you'll > realize how truly insipid and dangerous an oval rain in the race would > be. >More accurately, it was the grass before the access road...it was all gone,
but when Hearn went over it, it was there, but he tore it up, leaving the
road higher than the surrounding area. My solution: PAVE THE THING.
There's no stands back there; why is it all grass? For TV? If it had been
paved I doubt either Hearn or Moore would had even hit the wall, but rather
done a few pirouettes and gone on.
--
Kirk Lane
[email hidden]
ICQ: 28171652
AIM: Kirker64
(IM me twice so I can reply...using a beta client)
"The time has come for me to kill this game
Now open wide and say my name"
- "Space Lord", Monster Magnet
Dave Henrie <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
>
>
> The Enigmatic One wrote:
>
> >
> > What is regrettable is the absolute lack of knowledge shown in
this
> > thread. The wall that Moore hit was not close to perpendicular to the
track.
> > The long lense used in the shot most people saw of his crash exagerrated
the
> > angle in a huge way.
> >
> > -Tim
> The fact that Ritchie Hearn had spun in a very similar fashion and
> location
> into the same wall just a short while earlier proves the freak nature of
> Greg's crash. You might say the wall wasn't the culprit but the access
> road
> that launched his vehicle for it's final few moments.
> dave henrie
>More accurately, it was the grass before the access road...it was all gone,
>but when Hearn went over it, it was there, but he tore it up, leaving the
>road higher than the surrounding area. My solution: PAVE THE THING.
>There's no stands back there; why is it all grass? For TV? If it had been
>paved I doubt either Hearn or Moore would had even hit the wall, but rather
>done a few pirouettes and gone on.
(Sorta) agreed. But isn't one reason for having grass to keep racers
from getting too low on the track allowing them to hit at a very severe angle
if they lose it and shoot up? That was why they added grass to Indy, right?
-Tim
On Fri, 12 May 2000 15:32:46 GMT, [email hidden] (Anthony
Bulloch) wrote:
(major snip)
>No class has a clean slate here, until Niki Lauda had his accident
>safety standards in F1 were very average. F1 is still learning, they
>have had bad weekends as well .....
Agreed. The point is that both NASCAR and CART seem to be losing, on
average, a driver or so a year for the last few years. While F1's
certainly not exemplary, if you average F1 since, say, 1990, and
compare to CART, the difference is quite significant. Maybe F1's just
been lucky, but then again, F1 cars ain't hitting 240 on a 2.5 mile
oval either.
>Who can explain Americans! Without wanting to start a whole new
>thread the CART/IRL cannot be a good thing....
Agree completely.
What reports are you reading? NASCAR is not losing viewers- every
little offshot of the formula seems to be on TV live. My father, whose
socialization consists of a toothless concubines, wet-t-shirt
contests, and the occasional screw-top wine, even watches BGN. Not
that he's representative or anything, but if you'd have told me ten
years ago that a junior NASCAR formula would be getting any time on TV
at all, I'd have been amazed. And this was when CART was much bigger
in terms of TV domination.
The turnout on today's (canned) telecast of the race in Japan at
Motegi looked like the attendance was poor. They mentioned 61K people-
something about restrictions due to infrastructure, but come on,
61,000 people? More people can sit at a single American football
game...and this is the same country that had 2 F1 races a year for
what, three years? If you trim out the people going that got in free
from Honday and Toyota, well, figure it out yourself.
>Well I live in Australia so live international open wheel motor sport
>only come three times a year! F1 Melbourne and Suzuka and CART at
>Surfers.
Same problem here, except w/F1 and- talk about hard luck- the World
Rally Championship. We get 1/2 hour summaries, six months later and
only on Speedvision, which has less market penetration than 50-inch
diameter butt plugs.
>Empty stands are a direct result of the explosion in seating capacity
>for NASCAR, agreed it looks bad on TV but does not inherently indicate
>support for CART is diminishing.
Just about any CART fan in the states that I know would disagree with
you. Most of the tracks CART runs at are not being expanded for
NASCAR. Was Detroit moved due to attendance? I've not been following
that series, but I did hear that mentioned...
>I still think it is more than just the sanctioning body, the issues
>discussed are not restricted to CART.
True to a point, but given what a phenominal package CART had to offer
before the idiotic split w/IRL, you'd have thought they could have
done better. The TV coverage hasn't helped a bit- I don't see CART
showing in-car shots from any angle other than the roll-cage; yawn.
Put the camera on the front wing....you'll get viewers just from that
sort of thing. TV race coverage in the states sucks, I won't even
start on ESPN's 'coverage' but ABC has really sucked as of late too.
Meanwhile, F1 is getting bigger and bigger.
But let me say that the world TV-feed of F1 is SHIT SHIT SHIT. One
in-car driver? Yawn. The digital feed at Montreal (I watched
Jumbotrons at the circuit) was incredible- so far as the weak TV
coverage, it's certainly not the sport, it's the cash-grubbers wanting
to sell the digital feed instead of free air-broadcasts. FIA better
wake up- I don't care what pretensions they've got about pushing F1 in
the US, but you keep showing these dogshit TV feeds, you're not
getting any new viewers. I turn on NASCAR, I can see a camera showing
a guy's brake-disc glowing. I turn on F1 (if I can) and I see
Barrichello's head while Schumacher is close enough to see the nuts on
Hakkinen's gearbox. Some people just don't get it.
>I'll bet your passion will get the
>better of you and you will be back at the track pretty soon, that's
>what being a fan is all about!
I can certainly appreciate the tone of your point- I hope you're right
(it's much easier to go to a CART race than F1) but I won't hold my
breath!! ;)
Take care,
Jeff
Quoted text (8 lines)
>From reports NASCAR >attendance and ratings are also slipping. There will always be a the >casual observer who's support will come and go, any series need to >clearly define themselves in the marketplace and expand the "full >time" supporter base. Taking the series to other countries is part of >CART's current strategy, I think this is a good move even if it does >come at the expense of penetration/satuation in Norther America. >International rating and penetration would be interesting to see."Brian Jackson" wrote
But safety is not the reason for the extra weight. It is about cost
reduction. Heavier cars are cheaper to build. And making it heavier
for the same structural integrity actually makes it less safe as there
is more energy to dissipate in an accident.
> Regardless, taking the position that "the mandatory impact tests for
> both series are remarkably similar" equates with "therefore the cars
> are remarkably similar in their integrity" is fallacious. That the
> (minimum) standards defined for the tests are similar in no way
> implies or guarantees that the cars are as well.
Actually, I think you will find that the mandatory impact test for F1
are now comfortably more stringent than those in CART, although it is
a few months since I checked.
I'm afraid that the CART cars are stronger and safer thing is one of
those bits of assumed wisdom which it turns out has no basis in fact
whatsoever. At the end of the day, the cars in both series are
incredibly safe and getting safer, but it still comes down to luck.
After all, Senna didn't die because his car was weak or because he hit
a concrete wall - he died because a suspension arm pierced his helmet.
--
David Betts ([email hidden])
"In the end it's always a matter of more accelerator and less brake" -
Frank Gardner
Photo albums:
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=10440&Auth=false
Quoted text (14 lines)
> Geoff Schuler wrote: > > > > But still... the fact remains that the *required* impact > > standards for each series are remarkably similar. Saying > > that CART cars must be stronger just because they are > > heavier is simply wrong. > > I don't believe I said that. It's certainly not what I meant. What I > meant to say is that the CART car's required higher minimum weight > gives the designers more room to move to protect the driver > with added strength. It just stands to reason that an extra 200 > pounds of car, _applied_correctly_ (especially on cars the > size of these) can mean a > big difference in impact resistance, etc. Yet I've seen on the Tube several interviews over the years by
F1 bigwigs ie Williams, and Dennis, and while this is anecdoctal, they
all basically said the F1 car would have to be structurally improved to
run safely on ovals. I beleive F1 drivers also added to this saying
they wouldn't WANT to run 240mph with the cars they drive today.
I can't add names and dates so take this with a grain of salt.
dave henrie
David Betts wrote:
Quoted text (47 lines)
> > "Brian Jackson" wrote > > Geoff Schuler wrote: > > > > > > But still... the fact remains that the *required* impact > > > standards for each series are remarkably similar. Saying > > > that CART cars must be stronger just because they are > > > heavier is simply wrong. > > > > I don't believe I said that. It's certainly not what I meant. What I > > meant to say is that the CART car's required higher minimum weight > > gives the designers more room to move to protect the driver > > with added strength. It just stands to reason that an extra 200 > > pounds of car, _applied_correctly_ (especially on cars the > > size of these) can mean a > > big difference in impact resistance, etc. > > But safety is not the reason for the extra weight. It is about cost > reduction. Heavier cars are cheaper to build. And making it heavier > for the same structural integrity actually makes it less safe as there > is more energy to dissipate in an accident. > > > Regardless, taking the position that "the mandatory impact tests for > > both series are remarkably similar" equates with "therefore the cars > > are remarkably similar in their integrity" is fallacious. That the > > (minimum) standards defined for the tests are similar in no way > > implies or guarantees that the cars are as well. > > Actually, I think you will find that the mandatory impact test for F1 > are now comfortably more stringent than those in CART, although it is > a few months since I checked. > > I'm afraid that the CART cars are stronger and safer thing is one of > those bits of assumed wisdom which it turns out has no basis in fact > whatsoever. At the end of the day, the cars in both series are > incredibly safe and getting safer, but it still comes down to luck. > After all, Senna didn't die because his car was weak or because he hit > a concrete wall - he died because a suspension arm pierced his helmet. > > -- > David Betts ([email hidden]) > > "In the end it's always a matter of more accelerator and less brake" - > Frank Gardner > > Photo albums: > http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=10440&Auth=false"Dave Henrie" wrote
I don't doubt it. But don't forget that the F1 impact tests have been
made more strenuous year by year for some years now, without any need
to raise the minimum weight. In fact, the cars have been getting
stronger and lighter as designers seek to optimise weight distribution
by the use of ballast.
Personally, I'm not very happy about running the current CART
machinery on superspeedways either.
--
David Betts ([email hidden])
"In the end it's always a matter of more accelerator and less brake" -
Frank Gardner
Photo albums:
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=10440&Auth=false
Quoted text (7 lines)
> Yet I've seen on the Tube several interviews over the years by > F1 bigwigs ie Williams, and Dennis, and while this is anecdoctal, > they all basically said the F1 car would have to be structurally > improved to run safely on ovals. I beleive F1 drivers also > added to this saying they wouldn't WANT to run 240mph with > the cars they drive today. > I can't add names and dates so take this with a grain of salt.On Sat, 13 May 2000 23:08:46 -0700, Brian Jackson
<[email hidden]> wrote:
Yet there have been no changes to CART impact standards since the
introduction of the higher head restraints... at the same time as they
were introduced in F1.
>Very,
>very few F1 cars run into concrete walls the way the CART cars do on a
>fairly regular basis during testing, practice, qualifying, and racing on
>oval tracks. Crash tests are fine but any engineer can tell you that
>theoretical laboratory tests are pretty usually much less informative
>than is data gathered in real world conditions.
Yet, even with all this supposed "real world" data, the mandatory
impact tests for both series are remarkably similar.
>Think back to Mark
>Blundell's horrific, near head-on with the wall at Rio a couple of years
>back. he had *nothing* to moderate his impact. Compare it to
>Schumacher's incident last year that broke his legs after passing
>through (pretty useless) sand pit and a pretty big pile of tires.
>Anecdotal for sure but still...
But still... the fact remains that the *required* impact standards for
each series are remarkably similar. Saying that CART cars must be
stronger just because they are heavier is simply wrong.
Geoff Schuler
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Remove REMOVE. to send me e-mail.
------------------------------------------------
Fight Spam! Join CAUBE
(Coalition Against Unsolicited Bulk Email)
http://www.caube.org.au/
Quoted text (26 lines)
>Geoff Schuler wrote: >> >> Brian Jackson <[email hidden]> wrote: >> >> >F1 cars are much lighter and, as a result, are less >> >likely to withstand direct impacts. This fact also plays a >> >part in the need to have errant cars restrained before >> >hitting anything solid (see Senna, Ratzenburger, etc.). >> >The CART cars are heavier. They are required to protect >> >the driver in some serious collisions with the walls >> >on the oval tracks. The fact that the CART cars evolved >> >with that as a primary consideration (and the F1 cars did >> >not) is what differentiates the two series more than >> >anything else (that and the ludicrous amounts >> >of money tossed around in F1.) >> >> This, however, isn't quite so clear-cut. The mandatory impact >> tests for F1 and CART cars are slightly different, so it's >> hard to directly compare them, but from what I can deduce >> without actually having one of each chassis to crash-test >> for myself, the standards are fairly similar. It seems that >> CART cars and F1 cars are required to be able to handle >> similar impacts. > >The difference being that CART, unfortunately, has a pretty regular, >ongoing, real time testing program for this while F1 does not.
> What reports are you reading? NASCAR is not losing viewers
Actually, they are, but as a whole, ALL sports have been losing viewers
recently, so NASCAR is not losing any more than NBA or NHL...
You're talking the Belle Isle race that CART does, right? They're moving
that because it SUCKS. Fans hate it, teams hate it, drivers hate it. It
SUCKS. They do want to stay in Michigan for another road race, but they'll
always have some presence there with the Michigan oval. And not all tracks
are being expanded for NASCAR - road courses for one, and some ovals that
NASCAR doesn't race.
> True to a point, but given what a phenominal package CART had to offer
> before the idiotic split w/IRL,
That was actually the IRL splitting off of CART...Tony George wanted to
start another league that would be more cost controlled and more American.
Not doing particularly well on either, and it would all have been peachy
between the two except for one thing - the Indy 500.
<snip of lots of good points about crappy TV coverage>
Yes, the world feed of F1 blows. ABC's coverage of almost anything blows
too. NASCAR and short-track racing (i.e. ASA, WoO, etc) are the only sports
that repeatedly get good TV feeds, because the former has loads of cool
onboards and reporters who know what they're talking about (most of the
time...Paul Page and Sam Posey are both idiots, but they don't do NASCAR
much do they?) and the latter really only needs a few cameras to cover
almost every angle of the .5 mile or less ovals.
--
Kirk Lane
[email hidden]
ICQ: 28171652
AIM: Kirker64
(IM me twice so I can reply...using a beta client)
"The time has come for me to kill this game
Now open wide and say my name"
- "Space Lord", Monster Magnet
Quoted text (8 lines)
> >Empty stands are a direct result of the explosion in seating capacity > >for NASCAR, agreed it looks bad on TV but does not inherently indicate > >support for CART is diminishing. > > Just about any CART fan in the states that I know would disagree with > you. Most of the tracks CART runs at are not being expanded for > NASCAR. Was Detroit moved due to attendance? I've not been following > that series, but I did hear that mentioned..."Jason Hoehn" <[email hidden]> wrote:
By the time you subtract a driver's weight from an F1 car, there
is closer to 400 pounds difference between the two (600 kg (1320 lbs)
w/driver for F1, 1525 to 1550 w/o driver depending on whether oval
or road course configuration for CART).
Safety between the two outside an oval is hard to calculate-
F1 tracks are buried in a sea of gravel. CART cars are built
for more protection but run on more realistically equipped tracks.
Tom
--
Tom Hiett e-mail: [email hidden]
Designer-Illustrator-Modeler Iowa State University
Check out my vintage race pics at:
www.public.iastate.edu/~thiett
Quoted text (7 lines)
> The biggest difference between Champcars and F1 cars si he size of the > sidepod,.. The thought of Schumacher slapping a wall at fontana at 230mph in > a Ferrari with those litle tiny sidepods makes me shudder. Those extra 200 > pounds are largely a result of that, and thats a result of the lineage of > the cars. F1 doesn't race ovals, so they have evolced inot what they are, > Champcars do un ovals, so there you go,.. So the point of which is "safer" > is moot. A GP car in an oval would be deadly, so which is safer??On Sun, 14 May 2000 21:45:08 -0700, Brian Jackson
<[email hidden]> wrote:
"F1 cars are much lighter and, as a result, are less likely to
withstand direct impacts."
>What I
>meant to say is that the CART car's required higher minimum weight gives
>the designers more room to move to protect the driver with added
>strength. It just stands to reason that an extra 200 pounds of car,
>_applied_correctly_ (especially on cars the size of these) can mean a
>big difference in impact resistance, etc.
It may "stand to reason", but it doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny.
The only way to determine the relative crashworthiness of the cars is
to look at the impact tests they are required to pass. That shows that
F1 cars and CART cars are required to meet similar standards.
>Regardless, taking the position that "the mandatory impact tests for
>both series are remarkably similar" equates with "therefore the cars are
>remarkably similar in their integrity" is fallacious. That the (minimum)
>standards defined for the tests are similar in no way implies or
>guarantees that the cars are as well.
It is, however, far more compelling an argument than "because I think
CART cars must be stronger"...
Geoff Schuler
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Remove REMOVE. to send me e-mail.
------------------------------------------------
Fight Spam! Join CAUBE
(Coalition Against Unsolicited Bulk Email)
http://www.caube.org.au/
Quoted text (8 lines)
>Geoff Schuler wrote: >> >> But still... the fact remains that the *required* impact >> standards for each series are remarkably similar. Saying >> that CART cars must be stronger just because they are >> heavier is simply wrong. > >I don't believe I said that. It's certainly not what I meant.On Mon, 15 May 2000 12:51:11 GMT, Dave Henrie <[email hidden]> wrote:
> Yet I've seen on the Tube several interviews over the years by
>F1 bigwigs ie Williams, and Dennis, and while this is anecdoctal, they
>all basically said the F1 car would have to be structurally improved to
>run safely on ovals.
There is a case to be made that CART cars should be structurally
improved to run safely on ovals...
And, it could be that they were talking about needing to strengthen
wheel attachments and suspension components to cope with the extra
wheel-banging that happens on ovals. That's got nothing to do with
crashworthiness.
>I beleive F1 drivers also added to this saying
>they wouldn't WANT to run 240mph with the cars they drive today.
That is more likely to be because of the almost total reliance on
wing-generated downforce, rather than the underbody downforce of CART
cars.
Geoff Schuler
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Remove REMOVE. to send me e-mail.
------------------------------------------------
Fight Spam! Join CAUBE
(Coalition Against Unsolicited Bulk Email)
http://www.caube.org.au/
The biggest difference between Champcars and F1 cars si he size of the
sidepod,.. The thought of Schumacher slapping a wall at fontana at 230mph in
a Ferrari with those litle tiny sidepods makes me shudder. Those extra 200
pounds are largely a result of that, and thats a result of the lineage of
the cars. F1 doesn't race ovals, so they have evolced inot what they are,
Champcars do un ovals, so there you go,.. So the point of which is "safer"
is moot. A GP car in an oval would be deadly, so which is safer??
Pat, where were you sitting at Vancouver?? Maybe we were right beside
eachother ;-)
> think of more enjoyable things to do than stand outside and get soaked(I'm
> still waterlogged from working in the pits at Vancouver last year <g>).
> Enjoy,
> Pat LaTorres
>
Exactly, its really comparing apple to oranges. They both are really fat and
have open wheels on four corners and they both are race cars, but they
really are quite dissimaliar in a lot of ways.. Both are pretty safe, (safe
being a relative term...)
> Safety between the two outside an oval is hard to calculate-
> F1 tracks are buried in a sea of gravel. CART cars are built
> for more protection but run on more realistically equipped tracks.
>
> Tom
On Wed, 17 May 2000 14:25:54 -0500, [email hidden] (Tom Hiett)
wrote:
>CART cars are built
>for more protection
Sorry, that's simply not true.
Geoff Schuler
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Remove REMOVE. to send me e-mail.
------------------------------------------------
Fight Spam! Join CAUBE
(Coalition Against Unsolicited Bulk Email)
http://www.caube.org.au/
Geoff Schuler wrote:
You seem to be having a short circuit in the logic flow here. That fact
is made apparent by your response to Tom. Try reading the following
several times and let it percolate:
"The requirements of a given test, and the fact that a car passes said
test, in no way implies, much less proves, that the tested car is only
as good as the results of the tests would imply."
Read it again. And again.
All such tests set *MINIMUM* requirements that must be met. But we're
not talking about minimum requirements here. Is that really so hard to
grasp? Once again - even if F1 test requirements are a bit more
stringent (and I've seen zero proof of it), that in no way makes it true
that F1 cars are more (or less) crashworthy than CART cars.
Quoted text (10 lines)
> > [email hidden] (Tom Hiett) wrote: > >I would argue that CART cars not being stronger and safer has > >no basis in fact either. > > And you would be wrong. As David said, the required impact > tests for F1 cars are now more stringent than for CART. > That's the fact, easily verifiable. Just look at the rules > of the two series.Geoff Schuler <[email hidden]> wrote:
[email hidden] (Tom Hiett) wrote:
No, the facts are not easy verifiable. You are making an assumption
based on testing procedure, not on any results. You have stated
an opinion, not a fact, as have Dave and I.
They are different tests for different cars, built for different purposes,
with different demensions and design requirements. Applying standards
to an object designed for a different purpose and different requirements
doesn't prove anything.
Tom
--
Tom Hiett
Graphic Designer, Iowa State University
Check out my vintage race pics at:
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~thiett
Quoted text (17 lines)
> > >"David Betts" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >> Actually, I think you will find that the mandatory impact test for F1 > >> are now comfortably more stringent than those in CART, although it is > >> a few months since I checked. > >> > >> I'm afraid that the CART cars are stronger and safer thing is one of > >> those bits of assumed wisdom which it turns out has no basis in fact > >> whatsoever. > > > >I would argue that CART cars not being stronger and safer has > >no basis in fact either. > > And you would be wrong. As David said, the required impact tests for > F1 cars are now more stringent than for CART. That's the fact, easily > verifiable. Just look at the rules of the two series.Geoff Schuler wrote:
This is why you're having so much trouble with this. No one at this end
was attempting to "prove" any such thing. Neither I, nor Tom, made any
offers of proof. You are the one who keeps referring to the impact test
regulations and trying to offer them up as a proof when they simply
cannot be used that way.
> >All such tests set *MINIMUM* requirements that must be met. But we're
> >not talking about minimum requirements here. Is that really so hard to
> >grasp?
>
> We're talking about *verifiable* facts here. So far, all you have come
> up with is unsupported speculation.
You haven't verified a thing. You have simply asserted that you are
right and that I am wrong and tried to prove it by pointing to
crash/impact tests that tell you only the minimum strength of the cars
as measured by that finite set of tests. Period. Such tests do NOT tell
us how strong the cars *really* are. They tell us only that the cars ar
AT LEAST strong enough to pass the tests.
Boeing, when designing and building a new plane, actually stress tests
the wings to the point of breakage. They actually tie the plane down and
bend the wing until it breaks. So they KNOW exactly how much it will
take. They can pint to the numbers and say "At this point it fails."
They don't have a test that says "will the wing stand up to at least X
pounds of pressure?" They find out the actual limit. To my knowledge,
neither F1 nor CART does such a thing. Their tests are minimum, "it has
to stand up to AT LEAST so much stress". Those are two very different
things and until representative example cars from each series are
stressed until they actually break - until the actual limit is known -
this is all just supposition.
> Then I suggest you read the rules. Arguing about the
> rules without reading them isn't a good idea.
I'm not arguing about the rules. The rules have nothing to do with this.
The F1 tests could require that the cars pass a test that's 50% more
stringent than CART's equivilent test. That still doesn't mean that you
can infer that F1 cars are stronger. Simply stated, the results gained
from a "minimum" test do not, in any way, tell you anything about the
maximum (unless it failes the minimum test, of course.) That you can't
understand this simple fact means this (alleged) discussion is
pointless.
1. It is just a theory. Period. I have neither the desire nor the
obligation to hash it all out in court with you.
2. You have a blind spot that isn't allowing you to see the flaw
in your reasoning. As long as you maintain that these tests
are a reliable and accurate means of comparison, then we have
already said all that needs to be said.
Quoted text (9 lines)
> > Brian Jackson wrote: > It doesn't matter how many times I read it, or you repeat it, it > doesn't suddenly prove that CART cars are stronger. Unless you can > come up with some *evidence* to back up your conjecture that CART cars > are built far stronger than they are required to be, and that F1 cars > aren't, then the only verifiable fact remains that F1 cars are > required to meet more stringent standards than CART cars.Quoted text (7 lines)
> >that in no way makes it true that F1 cars are more (or less) > >crashworthy than CART cars. > > Then provide some evidence to back up your theory that CART > cars are stronger. At the moment, the *only* verifiable > evidence we have, the impact tests that the cars must pass > before being allowed to race, show the F1 cars to be stronger."David Betts" <[email hidden]> wrote:
I think there has to more to it than that. Both types of cars
are designed with the same sort software, built of the same
materials with the same techniques in a similar manner, usually
by people very familiar with both. CART teams just don't spend
near what a tail end F1 team spends in a season.
CART cars weigh more primarily due to their regulations requiring
it. They are cheaper due in part to them being production oriented
product with profit as a motive rather than proprietary, exclusive,
the sky is the limit fantasy objects as in F1.
Unlike F1, CART cars frequently slam into fixed concrete walls
sideways at speeds F1 cars rarely reach. They are built for sustained
G loading, longer race distances, higher speed, and a wider variety
of tracks with different demands that F1 cars never see. CART teams
travel longer distances, have more races, often get crunched on ovals
and rely on chassis manufacturers for spare parts along the way.
Its really hard to make a direct comparison between the two without
ignoring a lot of what makes each series special.
I would argue that CART cars not being stronger and safer has
no basis in fact either. Both series place different demands
on their cars and both have gone their own direction in meeting
the challenges of those demands. An F1 car will never hit the wall
of an oval at 240MPH and few CART tracks are buried in a sea of
gravel which is the F1 approach.
> At the end of the day, the cars in both series are
> incredibly safe and getting safer, but it still comes down to luck.
> After all, Senna didn't die because his car was weak or because he hit
> a concrete wall - he died because a suspension arm pierced his helmet.
But he hit the same wall Berger had years earier and done nothing about.
The risk of going off track in F1 usually carries less consequence than
going off track in CART.
Tom
--
Tom Hiett e-mail: [email hidden]
Designer-Illustrator-Modeler Iowa State University
Check out my vintage race pics at:
www.public.iastate.edu/~thiett
Quoted text (20 lines)
> "Brian Jackson" wrote > > Geoff Schuler wrote: > > > > > > But still... the fact remains that the *required* impact > > > standards for each series are remarkably similar. Saying > > > that CART cars must be stronger just because they are > > > heavier is simply wrong. > > > > I don't believe I said that. It's certainly not what I meant. What I > > meant to say is that the CART car's required higher minimum weight > > gives the designers more room to move to protect the driver > > with added strength. It just stands to reason that an extra 200 > > pounds of car, _applied_correctly_ (especially on cars the > > size of these) can mean a > > big difference in impact resistance, etc. > > But safety is not the reason for the extra weight. It is about cost > reduction. Heavier cars are cheaper to build. And making it heavier > for the same structural integrity actually makes it less safe as there > is more energy to dissipate in an accident.Quoted text (13 lines)
> > Regardless, taking the position that "the mandatory impact tests for > > both series are remarkably similar" equates with "therefore the cars > > are remarkably similar in their integrity" is fallacious. That the > > (minimum) standards defined for the tests are similar in no way > > implies or guarantees that the cars are as well. > > Actually, I think you will find that the mandatory impact test for F1 > are now comfortably more stringent than those in CART, although it is > a few months since I checked. > > I'm afraid that the CART cars are stronger and safer thing is one of > those bits of assumed wisdom which it turns out has no basis in fact > whatsoever.David Betts wrote:
Regardless of the line of reasoning, it is all pure speculation. So I
won't accept it as fact. Sorry.
> It's not as if it's a point of honour, for God's sake. All Geoff
> and I have been doing is debunking a popular myth.
Webster defines "debunk" as "to expose the sham or falseness of". So
far, all either of you has done is to offer up a differing opinion that
uses test criteria - not test results - to "prove" your position. You
both need a semester in a logic class.
Quoted text (15 lines)
> > "Brian Jackson" wrote > > > > 2. You have a blind spot that isn't allowing you to see the flaw > > in your reasoning. As long as you maintain that these tests > > are a reliable and accurate means of comparison, then we have > > already said all that needs to be said. > > Actually, Brian, it is you and the other posters who seek to argue > that CART cars may well exceed the minimum CART standards who have > the blind spot. This is motor racing. The chassis builders are in > competition on performance, not safety. Anybody who didn't build their > car to the limit of the regulations (and, in the case of CART, the > market price) would be uncompetitive. If the impact tests in F1 are > tougher, then the chances are that the cars aren't weaker. Accept it.Sounds to me like someone is trying to fire the "which is better, CART or
F1" debat again, only with a different twist,..
> And you would be wrong. As David said, the required impact tests for
> F1 cars are now more stringent than for CART. That's the fact, easily
> verifiable. Just look at the rules of the two series.
>
"Brian Jackson" wrote
>
> 2. You have a blind spot that isn't allowing you to see the flaw
> in your reasoning. As long as you maintain that these tests
> are a reliable and accurate means of comparison, then we have
> already said all that needs to be said.
Actually, Brian, it is you and the other posters who seek to argue
that CART cars may well exceed the minimum CART standards who have the
blind spot. This is motor racing. The chassis builders are in
competition on performance, not safety. Anybody who didn't build their
car to the limit of the regulations (and, in the case of CART, the
market price) would be uncompetitive. If the impact tests in F1 are
tougher, then the chances are that the cars aren't weaker. Accept it.
It's not as if it's a point of honour, for God's sake. All Geoff and I
have been doing is debunking a popular myth. We're not criticising
CART for its safety performance, and if I was to do so it would be the
circuits which I focused on, not the cars.
--
David Betts ([email hidden])
"In the end it's always a matter of more accelerator and less brake" -
Frank Gardner
Photo albums:
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=10440&Auth=false
In article <[email hidden]>,
Geoff Schuler <[email hidden]> wrote:
Not QED at all. You have failed to demonstrate two points,
both of which are necessary before your conclusion is valid.
These are:
1) The CART cars would fail the F1 tests
2) The tests are a valid way of measuring safety.
Until you can proves both of these points you have nothing to
offer but an assumption, based entirely on your opinion.
Incidentally, an F1 car would fail some of the CART safety
requirements; there isn't enough deformable structure beside
the driver. But that doesn't prove an F1 car is less safe
than a ChampCar, either - all it proves is that the tests
and requirements don't always measure identical things.
Quoted text (7 lines)
> >>You are making an assumption >>based on testing procedure, not on any results. > >No, I am making a statement based on testing *results*. F1 cars pass >the tests, otherwise they don't race. So do CART cars. The tests for >F1 cars are more stringent than for CART cars. QED.On Mon, 22 May 2000 10:23:31 -0500, [email hidden] (Tom Hiett)
wrote:
And you would be wrong. As David said, the required impact tests for
F1 cars are now more stringent than for CART. That's the fact, easily
verifiable. Just look at the rules of the two series.
Geoff Schuler
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Remove REMOVE. to send me e-mail.
------------------------------------------------
Fight Spam! Join CAUBE
(Coalition Against Unsolicited Bulk Email)
http://www.caube.org.au/
Quoted text (12 lines)
>"David Betts" <[email hidden]> wrote: >> Actually, I think you will find that the mandatory impact test for F1 >> are now comfortably more stringent than those in CART, although it is >> a few months since I checked. >> >> I'm afraid that the CART cars are stronger and safer thing is one of >> those bits of assumed wisdom which it turns out has no basis in fact >> whatsoever. > >I would argue that CART cars not being stronger and safer has >no basis in fact either.On Mon, 22 May 2000 20:40:01 -0700, Brian Jackson
<[email hidden]> wrote:
It doesn't matter how many times I read it, or you repeat it, it
doesn't suddenly prove that CART cars are stronger. Unless you can
come up with some *evidence* to back up your conjecture that CART cars
are built far stronger than they are required to be, and that F1 cars
aren't, then the only verifiable fact remains that F1 cars are
required to meet more stringent standards than CART cars.
>All such tests set *MINIMUM* requirements that must be met. But we're
>not talking about minimum requirements here. Is that really so hard to
>grasp?
We're talking about *verifiable* facts here. So far, all you have come
up with is unsupported speculation.
>Once again - even if F1 test requirements are a bit more
>stringent (and I've seen zero proof of it)
Then I suggest you read the rules. Arguing about the rules without
reading them isn't a good idea.
>, that in no way makes it true
>that F1 cars are more (or less) crashworthy than CART cars.
Then provide some evidence to back up your theory that CART cars are
stronger. At the moment, the *only* verifiable evidence we have, the
impact tests that the cars must pass before being allowed to race,
show the F1 cars to be stronger.
Geoff Schuler
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Remove REMOVE. to send me e-mail.
------------------------------------------------
Fight Spam! Join CAUBE
(Coalition Against Unsolicited Bulk Email)
http://www.caube.org.au/
Quoted text (21 lines)
>Geoff Schuler wrote: >> >> [email hidden] (Tom Hiett) wrote: > >> >I would argue that CART cars not being stronger and safer has >> >no basis in fact either. >> >> And you would be wrong. As David said, the required impact >> tests for F1 cars are now more stringent than for CART. >> That's the fact, easily verifiable. Just look at the rules >> of the two series. > >You seem to be having a short circuit in the logic flow here. That fact >is made apparent by your response to Tom. Try reading the following >several times and let it percolate: > >"The requirements of a given test, and the fact that a car passes said >test, in no way implies, much less proves, that the tested car is only >as good as the results of the tests would imply." > >Read it again. And again.On Tue, 23 May 2000 03:08:26 GMT, "Jason Hoehn" <[email hidden]>
wrote:
Response moved down to where it is in context.
>> And you would be wrong. As David said, the required impact tests for
>> F1 cars are now more stringent than for CART. That's the fact, easily
>> verifiable. Just look at the rules of the two series.
>Sounds to me like someone is trying to fire the "which is better, CART or
>F1" debat again, only with a different twist,..
Not at all, or at least, I'm not. I enjoy both series. I'm only
pointing out that the oft-repeated claim that "CART cars are stronger
than F1 cars" is *not* supported by any evidence.
Geoff Schuler
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Remove REMOVE. to send me e-mail.
------------------------------------------------
Fight Spam! Join CAUBE
(Coalition Against Unsolicited Bulk Email)
http://www.caube.org.au/
On Mon, 22 May 2000 22:31:28 -0700, Brian Jackson
<[email hidden]> wrote:
You made the bald statement that CART cars are stronger because they
are heavier. I was simply countering that for the myth that it is.
>Neither I, nor Tom, made any
>offers of proof.
Because you haven't any...
>You are the one who keeps referring to the impact test
>regulations and trying to offer them up as a proof when they simply
>cannot be used that way.
On the contrary, when it comes to crashworthiness standards, they
*must* be used that way. They are the only verifiable numbers to use.
-<snip>-
Now you are starting to play in my ballpark...
From my 18 years as an aircraft accident investigator, I can safely
say that when Boeing (or any other aircraft manufacturer) design and
build a new plane, they *do* have a test that says "will the wing
stand up to at least X pounds of pressure?". That is the whole point
of the ultimate load tests. They are *required* to test to meet
minimum standards, otherwise they don't get certificated. Most of them
do continue the tests to failure, simply to get an indication of the
margin they have over the minimum, and to determine
*if_they_can_lighten_the_structure* to improve performance. If there
is sufficient margin, then they *LIGHTEN* the structure.
Are you seriously suggesting that CART designers are too stupid to
lighten the structure to close to the minimum necessary to pass the
tests, and give up the competitive edge they could gain from that
lightening?
That's the only inference that can realistically be drawn.
>Simply stated, the results gained
>from a "minimum" test do not, in any way, tell you anything about the
>maximum (unless it failes the minimum test, of course.) That you can't
>understand this simple fact means this (alleged) discussion is
>pointless.
You obviously have no idea about the process of designing or
manufacturing high-perfornmance structures where weight is a critical
parameter.
Geoff Schuler
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Remove REMOVE. to send me e-mail.
------------------------------------------------
Fight Spam! Join CAUBE
(Coalition Against Unsolicited Bulk Email)
http://www.caube.org.au/
Quoted text (13 lines)
>Geoff Schuler wrote: >> >> Brian Jackson wrote: > >> It doesn't matter how many times I read it, or you repeat it, it >> doesn't suddenly prove that CART cars are stronger. Unless you can >> come up with some *evidence* to back up your conjecture that CART cars >> are built far stronger than they are required to be, and that F1 cars >> aren't, then the only verifiable fact remains that F1 cars are >> required to meet more stringent standards than CART cars. > >This is why you're having so much trouble with this. No one at this end >was attempting to "prove" any such thing.Quoted text (11 lines)
>Boeing, when designing and building a new plane, actually stress tests >the wings to the point of breakage. They actually tie the plane down and >bend the wing until it breaks. So they KNOW exactly how much it will >take. They can pint to the numbers and say "At this point it fails." >They don't have a test that says "will the wing stand up to at least X >pounds of pressure?" They find out the actual limit. To my knowledge, >neither F1 nor CART does such a thing. Their tests are minimum, "it has >to stand up to AT LEAST so much stress". Those are two very different >things and until representative example cars from each series are >stressed until they actually break - until the actual limit is known - >this is all just supposition.Quoted text (7 lines)
>> Then I suggest you read the rules. Arguing about the >> rules without reading them isn't a good idea. > >I'm not arguing about the rules. The rules have nothing to do with this. >The F1 tests could require that the cars pass a test that's 50% more >stringent than CART's equivilent test. That still doesn't mean that you >can infer that F1 cars are stronger.On Mon, 22 May 2000 23:03:06 -0500, [email hidden] (Tom Hiett)
wrote:
Yes they are. Read the rules.
>You are making an assumption
>based on testing procedure, not on any results.
No, I am making a statement based on testing *results*. F1 cars pass
the tests, otherwise they don't race. So do CART cars. The tests for
F1 cars are more stringent than for CART cars. QED.
Geoff Schuler
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Remove REMOVE. to send me e-mail.
------------------------------------------------
Fight Spam! Join CAUBE
(Coalition Against Unsolicited Bulk Email)
http://www.caube.org.au/
Quoted text (22 lines)
>Geoff Schuler <[email hidden]> wrote: > >[email hidden] (Tom Hiett) wrote: >> >> >"David Betts" <[email hidden]> wrote: >> >> >> Actually, I think you will find that the mandatory impact test for F1 >> >> are now comfortably more stringent than those in CART, although it is >> >> a few months since I checked. >> >> >> >> I'm afraid that the CART cars are stronger and safer thing is one of >> >> those bits of assumed wisdom which it turns out has no basis in fact >> >> whatsoever. >> > >> >I would argue that CART cars not being stronger and safer has >> >no basis in fact either. >> >> And you would be wrong. As David said, the required impact tests for >> F1 cars are now more stringent than for CART. That's the fact, easily >> verifiable. Just look at the rules of the two series. > >No, the facts are not easy verifiable."Brian Jackson" wrote
> You both need a semester in a logic class.
Rude little bastard, aren't you? I really can't be bothered to discuss
this with you any further. You clearly know little or nothing about
racing. People build down to the regulations. The regulations
define the cars. If the regulations define stronger cars, they
are stronger.
The automatic presumption that CART cars are stronger than F1 cars is
nothing more than that - a presumption. It has no basis in fact. The
only 'fact' available is that the F1 cars have to pass tougher crash
tests than the CART cars. It's hardly rocket science.
(Why on earth is it that some people have to keep defending their
position in an argument they have clearly lost a long time ago? Must
say something about their intelligence, I suppose.)
--
David Betts ([email hidden])
"In the end it's always a matter of more accelerator and less brake" -
Frank Gardner
Photo albums:
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=10440&Auth=false
David Betts wrote:
Perhaps you should read some of the earlier posts that were written by
Brian. He's probably one of the most astute posters on this newsgroup.
Brian comes and goes, as his job dictates. The intelligence of the
newsgroup drops while Brian is gone, but we all look forward to the day
he returns. However, it will take quite a bit to raise the intelligence
now that you've joined the group.
Newton
--
http://www.myeloma.org Information and services for everyone battling
multiple myeloma, a cancer of the bone marrow for which there is
currently no known cure.
Quoted text (8 lines)
> > "Brian Jackson" wrote > > > You both need a semester in a logic class. > > Rude little bastard, aren't you? I really can't be bothered to discuss > this with you any further. You clearly know little or nothing about > racing.>
> Pat, where were you sitting at Vancouver?? Maybe we were right beside
> eachother ;-)
>
I was standing at the break in the wall, driver's right right at "Pit-out".
Everytime we had a restart I was ready to move out with a quick-jack if someone
spun in T-1, so we could drag them back into the lane and get the turn clear
quickly. Fortunately, I didn't get to do any work during the race other than
keep a couple of spare radios dry for the people working out in the lane (we had
radio problems big time due to the rain).
Enjoy,
Pat LaTorres
Stringent regulations and strength are two different spheres. A champcar is
much, much heavier than an F1 car, and mass makes a difference in the force
of an impact...So while safer in F1, F1 cars are not necessarily stronger
than champcars.
in article [email hidden], Geoff Schuler at
[email hidden] wrote on 5/23/00 5:37 AM:
