IRL IndyCars = Death Traps?

[DNQ]

Firstly, despite being pro-CART and very dismissive of the IRL, I do not intend this to be an anti-IRL post, nor a CART vs IRL post.

Now on to my main question:

Are IRL IndyCars death traps on wheels, are they too dangerous, and should the IRL work to improve the safety, in particular regard to aerodynamics?

In recenty weeks/months, we have seen an incredible amount of accidents in the IRL, more so than another other major series. Worryingly, many of these accidents have resulted in injuries to a more than a couple of drivers.

In particular, there seems to be some sort of aerodynamic flaw that is leading to accidents like Dan Wheldon's yesterday, and Mario Andretti's in practice a few weeks ago.

I believe it's only a matter of time before, dare I say, death or terminal injury results from an IRL accident...and, it seems the IPS is no better...

This is now open to discussion

[climb]

The accident occurred to Wheldon seems deny 100% what you maintain, DNQ.
After such a awesome fly he tumble upside down, but hi could get out unhurted.(oh, if Alboreto had such an unsafe car!)
When Mario did the accodent they said: Lucky him 'cos hu fell on his wheels! Differently he would have died!
Wheldon's accident has been reassuring, from this point f view.
About the "aerodynamic flaw", in my poor opinion it depends just on the fact of having a flat underfloor, as most racing cars.
Oval racing is made like that, DNQ, many cars,a very narrow room to share, but such accidents can happen elsewere, too.
The only way to avoid such accidents would be to abolish racing, would you?

[GTRMagic]

Wheldon's thing was odd though, like the car got out of control by losing air off his nose but there was noone immediately in front of him. The car just wobbled left, then jerked right, out of control up the wall then on its lid....

Despite the hooped roll bar, had the car dragged the other way, it is likely Wheldon's helmet would have been ground into the circuit!

The other thing to be mindful of is the number of cars who hit walls as engines sieze... the most noted one was Sarah Fisher's, whose Chev went to meet its maker, locked the rears, and the car snotted the wall quite hard.

Its not the first time it has happened in practice/testing/qualifying/racing in the IRL, and may not be the last, but surely the reason for it could be discovered and practices put in place for it not to happen again??

[rustyfan]

Aerodynamic flaw? Please. The main reason Wheldon got airborne was that his right rear tire was smashed up, thus allowing the car to turn upwards (since there wasn't anything to 'stagger' it or whatever to call it), just as Bobby Rahal in the 1998 CART race at Motegi when he pounded the wall and broke the right side wheels, allowing the wind to flip the car onto its side. And didn't Michael Andretti start to go airborne at Mid-Ohio - before he hit the grass - after hitting debris from PJ Jones in that well-known mega-tumble at the end of the backstretch?

And yes, if this had been the CART race at Fontana and a similar crash had happened there, I would have said the exact damn thing, because it's a matter of basic "crash-dynamics" that has stayed the same for at least 20-30 years.

However, had we seen several crashes in the Indy 500 where cars had backed into the wall, neck- and back-injuring the drivers, I would have agreed that the IndyCars are flawed. Because they are. Not nearly enough 'crushability' in the back-end of them.

[Crash Test]

Death traps? Hrmm... doubt it. They used to be fairly dodgy when they were using the wrong seats etc. There really haven't been that many bad injuries- heck, Franchitti fell off a motorbike!

If CART or F1 or any series raced on such fast circuits, they would have just as many big ones.

[DNQ]

Originally posted by rustyfan
Aerodynamic flaw? Please. The main reason Wheldon got airborne was that his right rear tire was smashed up, thus allowing the car to turn upwards (since there wasn't anything to 'stagger' it or whatever to call it)

OK then, I wasn't away of the circumstances, haven't seen the race yet myself, only a clip of the accident, and my assumption was that the car simply seemed to just 'take off' like Mario's did, albeit under different conditions (regarding Mario's crash...he only hit debris didn't he...can you imagine an F1 car flying that high at Monza or somewhere??).

Granted, other forms of racing are very dangerous also, but I maintain the IRL seems more dangerous, taking into account it being an all oval series. I guess the fact the cars draft and race artificially close together is going to encourage carnage in the same way happens NASCAR, where as in CART the cars are a bit spaced apart.

Out of interest, how much does an IRL car weight, compared to an 800kg ChampCar? Because they always look pretty fiddly to me.

[Armco Bender]

Motor racing is dangerous and that concrete wall is unforgiving.

[Avid Merrion]

Wheldon was so lucky though ! , frightning indeed .

[DNQ]

Originally posted by Armco Bender
Motor racing is dangerous and that concrete wall is unforgiving.

True, but I don't see the connection between a concrete wall and Mario Andretti doing 200,000 backflips after hitting a scrap of debris.

[rustyfan]

Originally posted by DNQ
OK then, I wasn't away of the circumstances, haven't seen the race yet myself, only a clip of the accident, and my assumption was that the car simply seemed to just 'take off' like Mario's did, albeit under different conditions (regarding Mario's crash...he only hit debris didn't he...can you imagine an F1 car flying that high at Monza or somewhere??).

Fair enough

Mario didn't 'just' take off though, since he clipped some debris which in turn disturbed the front balance of the car, sending it upwards. Again, Andretti at Mid-Ohio, IIRC, was a similar deal and Manfred Winkelhock at Nurburgring in '82 during a F-2 race was similar as well (damaged front wing sent him airborne as he went over the crest at the Flugplatz).

As for Mario's height, even though it was 'impressive' (not sure if that's the right word to use), he didn't clear the catch fence, like Carpentier did at Laguna Seca in 2000 during CART qualifying and Fisichella (I think) did at Silverstone during F-1 testing a couple of years ago. Obviously those two were a result of the car first crashing into a tire barrier, but the end results remain just as bad, especially the F-1 crash - had it been on race-day, I wouldn't rule out spectators having been in the area where the car eventually landed... Cars going airborne in F-1 aren't unheard of though, but it has historically been due to wheel-to-wheel or wheel-to-undercarriage contact though (Fittipaldi @ Monza '93, Burti @ Hockenheim '01, Patrese @ Estoril '92, R. Schumacher @ Melbourne '02, G. Villeneuve @ Zolder '82, J. Villeneuve @ Melbourne '01 + others...)..

Ugh, get me started on crashes and I can't stop...

Granted, other forms of racing are very dangerous also, but I maintain the IRL seems more dangerous, taking into account it being an all oval series. I guess the fact the cars draft and race artificially close together is going to encourage carnage in the same way happens NASCAR, where as in CART the cars are a bit spaced apart.

Indeed, ovals will remain a bit more dangerous considering the constant high speeds and closer proximity of the cars - no arguing there; some of the moves that have been shown earlier this year haven't exactly been good ones.

There were, however, no crashes in this years Indianapolis 500 initiated due to car-to-car contact, as for example seen at both Phoenix and Motegi, and this actually surprised me - I had expected to see at least one big pile-up during the race, but everyone did a good job and really behaved themselves. For once, I should add.

That Dixon made a complete clown out of himself on the front stretch it a different matter though (right up there with Guerrero in '92 and Sharp in '01)

Out of interest, how much does an IRL car weight, compared to an 800kg ChampCar? Because they always look pretty fiddly to me.

From what I could find on www.indyracing.com, seems an IndyCar weighs 1,525 pounds (around 690 kgs).

[rustyfan]

Originally posted by DNQ
True, but I don't see the connection between a concrete wall and Mario Andretti doing 200,000 backflips after hitting a scrap of debris.

No, that is more due to the car becoming aerodynamically unstable at 200mph

Without proper downforce on the front, any race car takes off granted there's enough speed. Just take the Mercedes at Le Mans in 2000 as an example of what the lack of proper front downforce can do when you go really fast and a tiny amount of air gets in underneath (as it did as the Mercedes passed over the hump).

[DNQ]

Originally posted by rustyfan
Ugh, get me started on crashes and I can't stop...

Yeah, I've seen your site

Manfred Winkelhock, yes his crash was a whopper and definantly aero related, but as you said, in most of those F1 related incidents, it was through wheel to wheel contact. I can't think of a true example of a Formula One taking off like an IndyCar or a NASCAR without significant contact. Mario's IndyCar flipped numerous times at Indy after hitting debris; the closest F1 example I can think of is Alonso at Interlagos this year, he hit a wheel and the car didn't flip, but admittadly, the speed was probably much, much lower and I don't know just how much debris Andretti hit (Alonso hit a wheel from Webber's Jaguar). Additionally, he probably had a lot more downforce left on his car then Andretti did after impact. As for sports car, we've seen them flip backwards a few times in the past, but just how relevent are they in an open wheel discussion when the underneath of a sports car is just so much bigger.

[rustyfan]

Originally posted by DNQ
As for sports car, we've seen them flip backwards a few times in the past, but just how relevent are they in an open wheel discussion when the underneath of a sports car is just so much bigger.

True, but the same basic principle remains the same - without proper downforce on the front of the car, bad things can happen at high speed.

[climb]

A flying car is always impressive, but I'm sure everyone remembers Dale Earnhardt deadly accident: it seemed somewhat like an odd parking manoeuvre, but cost him life.

it's like boxing: people get impressed by bleeding wounds, but they are normally superficial, and not by hit to brains, who don't bleed but are way more serious.

Bringing the discussion to extremes, I could be more worried about Dixon clowny wall-hitting.
Are weu sure that such a oversteering move is not due to a car problem?

[rustyfan]

Originally posted by climb
A flying car is always impressive, but I'm sure everyone remembers Dale Earnhardt deadly accident: it seemed somewhat like an odd parking manoeuvre, but cost him life.

As long as you don't hit a solid object, going airborne - especially in a stock-car - is usually less likely to cause injuries as opposed to slam full force into the wall (a la Dale Earnhardt). Flipping is actually the safest way to crash in today's stock-cars.

Speaking of Earnhardt, he crashed in the worst way possible - 150-160 mph to a dead-stop and no way for the car to move around because Schrader hit him in the side at the moment of the impact with the wall. If Schrader hadn't hit Earnhardt, I'm quite sure we would have seen Earnhardt's car bounce off the wall similar to Dave Marcis at Pocono in 1999 and John Andretti at Daytona in 1997, both of which hit the wall head on, resulting in the car using the excessive force to swing around, as opposed to sending it all through to the driver.

Every factor that could make it bad unfortunately timed in when it comes to Earnhardt's wreck - he wasn't given much of a chance

That today's stock-cars are way, way too stiff in the front (have been ever since thicker steel tubing was mandated in 2000) sure doesn't help either.

[ghinzani]

is there any video of Wheldons crash on the net yet?

[rustyfan]

Originally posted by ghinzani
is there any video of Wheldons crash on the net yet?

Go here: http://tbk.fameflame.dk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4269

[racer69]

Mario Andretti ran over (i've read) a part of the safer barrier which was dislodged by Kenny Brack hitting the wall just ahead of him. It was lying flat on the track (not as tall as the wheel Alonso hit), and at 200mph would have acted like a ramp. Once the front of the car got off the ground a centimetre at that speed, he was a passenger.

The cars definatly aren't death traps. It is only natural that in an all oval series with tracks with such high speeds, the risks are much higher than F1 or CART (justabout) which only race on road circuits. If CART or F1 ran the same schedule as the IRL, there would be just as many crashes and just as many injuries. The IRL cars still have to stand up to the same safety standards as in other series.

On the 2000-2002 model cars there was a design flaw with the gearbox and the way it didn't take much of the impact of accidents, which led to some of the back problems in the last few years. This has been addressed in the current 2003-2005 cars.

Does anyone think that if Gil de Ferran had had his Phoenix crash in a CART car, his physical outcome would have been any different? The same with Kanaan and Dixon at Motegi.

The focus should be on the fact that Mario and Dan Wheldon walked away from their accidents, showing that the cars are doing their job.

[rustyfan]

Well put

[racefanatic]

Why don't more tracks install the SAFER barrier? They could at least try to do more to improve the tracks if what they're doing to improve the cars isn't working.

[rustyfan]

The problem with the SAFER barrier is that every track requires its own unique settings for the barrier, depending on how steep the banking is etc - not to mention the cost of installing it.

There is, however, a lot of research going on, and I think we will see more tracks install the barrier within the next year or so. Richmond is one of the tracks named as potentially being the next one to install the SAFER barrier next, especially in light of Jerry Nadeau's serious Winston Cup crash there a couple of weeks ago.

[racefanatic]

How much is it to install? I hadn't heard that they were going to do it at Richmond, but that's a great idea! How about Motegi...

[rustyfan]

Must admit I don't know any exact costs, but I read somewhere that it's an investment you don't want to rush into given the work, money and time it takes to install it. Then again, just one less accident such as Nadeau's would make it worth it. The lower speeds and slightly different banking (along with sharper turns) are most likely the reason they don't just slap the Indianapolis-version of the SAFER barrier onto the turns right away, and I think that is in part what the research is about (the turn-radius in particular).

Hm, just noticed there's a "next" too many in my previous post, but the stupid 10-minute editing rule stopped me from correcting it...

[MA2]

Mario ran over the rear wing main plane of the car that crashed just before him, NOT part of the safety barrier. The thickness of the wing passing under the car was enough to raise the nose of the car to the point where the lift due to the nose-up attitude was greater than the downforce from the front wing (about 1000 lbs at the speed he was going). If you watch the tape of his crash, you can see the car travel for 50 yards or so with the front wheels about 8" off of the ground before it finally moonshot.

Mario actually hit the overhanging catch fence.

[Lee Janotta]

Okay, my belief is that the biggest safety problem with the IRL cars is the front-rear weight balance. The cars have a fairly large V8 behind the driver, considerably heavier than the turbo Cossies used by CART. As a result, these cars have a very strong tendancy to swap ends when the driver loses control. This creates a dangerous situation because, even with the gearbox attenuator in place, the rear end of the car is much less crushable than the front. The drivers take a big shot in their backs when they hit the wall from behind. This is why a physically smaller, lighter, turbo engine is preferable for mid-engined cars on an oval. Champcars tend to go in nose-first, at shallower angles, usually with side impacts, which allows the suspension to dissipate crash energy as it collapses. It creates significantly less chance of serious injury.