Making ovals less deadly

[AYDS]

I find engineering problems interesting.

There will always be risk in motor racing, and safety has improved greatly in recent years. But some things are just inexcusable.

The catch fences. This is an ancient technology, and Robert Wickens is a cripple because of it. Ballistic glass could provide a flush, durable surface. It would of course need to be cleaned during the race because the rubber would cloud the fans' view. Perhaps a system of tear-offs would work?

Reducing aero and mechanical grip even further could bring the speeds down significantly without reducing horsepower. What if they had the Indy aero package at the smaller ovals, no wings at all at Indy, and ran hard bias-ply tires at all the ovals? The more forgiving tires would surely reduce wrecks.

There's never been an Indy where all 33 drivers were talented enough to deserve being there. The fewer hacks, the fewer incidents there will be. That also means more green flag racing. They could reduce the field to fewer than 30 cars, and have stricter entry requirements for drivers.

[rwintle]

Originally Posted by AYDS

I find engineering problems interesting.

There will always be risk in motor racing, and safety has improved greatly in recent years. But some things are just inexcusable.

The catch fences. This is an ancient technology, and Robert Wickens is a cripple because of it. Ballistic glass could provide a flush, durable surface. It would of course need to be cleaned during the race because the rubber would cloud the fans' view. Perhaps a system of tear-offs would work?

Reducing aero and mechanical grip even further could bring the speeds down significantly without reducing horsepower. What if they had the Indy aero package at the smaller ovals, no wings at all at Indy, and ran hard bias-ply tires at all the ovals? The more forgiving tires would surely reduce wrecks.

There's never been an Indy where all 33 drivers were talented enough to deserve being there. The fewer hacks, the fewer incidents there will be. That also means more green flag racing. They could reduce the field to fewer than 30 cars, and have stricter entry requirements for drivers.

Some interesting ideas here, although removing aero and reverting to bias ply tires seems so much a reversion to older tech that I don't think the series will ever go for it.

For the 500, IndyCar is so hung up on the now-traditional 33 car field that I don't see them ever changing it (even though long ago there were times when there were many more).

I'd favour a system where all the full-season entrants have a guaranteed spot at the 500. They'd still have to qualify, so could potentially start behind one-offs and partial season entrants, but at least that would ensure sponsors that the car and driver they've been supporting all year would be in the big show, unlike, say, the situation with James Hinchcliffe missing the race some years back. I imagine Arrow Electronics were not at all happy about that.

Then let the one-offs, also-rans, and celebrity stunt guests (e.g. Alonso) fight over the remaining positions.

Totally agree re: catch fences. Remember the "repairs" they made at Pocono following Wickens' crash? Basically a couple of guys wire-tying chain link fence to cover the hole. Terrrifying.

[NaBUru38]

How about proper bumpers and fenders?

[broadrun96]

Originally Posted by rwintle

Some interesting ideas here, although removing aero and reverting to bias ply tires seems so much a reversion to older tech that I don't think the series will ever go for it.

Totally agree re: catch fences. Remember the "repairs" they made at Pocono following Wickens' crash? Basically a couple of guys wire-tying chain link fence to cover the hole. Terrrifying.

I believe a few with knowledge of the plexi/perspex/ballistic materials have said no dice, it's not even close to as safe as a WELL DONE catch fence. There lies the rub, fence maintenance is not as good as needed sometimes. You won't see the guys at Indy doing such a hack job adding a gate section as a patch. I believe that was also some of the series concerns about returning to Pocono.

Also, someone calculated the costs to cover, and then recover cause you would only get a season out of the plastics due to UV concerns, and I believe it was more than Penske paid for the speedway and the series. It's not cheap and would be easier to lower the track making everyone look down on the racing from above a concrete wall with appropriate barriers.

Running a harder/older/bias tire would require multiple millions of dollars spent on chassis, suspension and driver development. Oh, and be far, far slower. That's not to say resetting the speeds and having a bit of visible development couldn't be a fun time again but there's that elephant in the room of costs.

Think it was FS1 that had the first Phoenix Cup on, the number of cars with tobacco, automotive and sponsors we don't see any more was crazy. Had to be at least 5 chew/dip/etc cars and a few more cigarette, the time for that money is gone and it was BIG money.

[AYDS]

Originally Posted by broadrun96

Also, someone calculated the costs to cover, and then recover cause you would only get a season out of the plastics due to UV concerns, and I believe it was more than Penske paid for the speedway and the series. It's not cheap and would be easier to lower the track making everyone look down on the racing from above a concrete wall with appropriate barriers.

Running a harder/older/bias tire would require multiple millions of dollars spent on chassis, suspension and driver development. Oh, and be far, far slower. That's not to say resetting the speeds and having a bit of visible development couldn't be a fun time again but there's that elephant in the room of costs.

I'd be for higher walls and a lower track if it worked better and were cheaper. Anything that provides the same solution while being more simple, is the superior method.

New tires would bring more expense up front for sure, but a lot of that could be made up for over time if they were able to get by with fewer tire changes per race.

And the parties involved might be able to get a break on insurance premiums too.

[broadrun96]

Originally Posted by AYDS

I'd be for higher walls and a lower track if it worked better and were cheaper. Anything that provides the same solution while being more simple, is the superior method.

New tires would bring more expense up front for sure, but a lot of that could be made up for over time if they were able to get by with fewer tire changes per race.

And the parties involved might be able to get a break on insurance premiums too.

I doubt that is even a drop in the bucket relative engineering costs and track redevelopment

[AYDS]

I'm not sure about that, given what happened at the last IRL race in Charlotte.

[broadrun96]

Do you have an example from the last 20 years to reference? Cause that would be sorted by not going back, like they haven't. No other track has been close to that level of spectator risk, driver risk is another thing entirely and no where near the cost of insuring racing at Charlotte.

[AYDS]

It's just speculation on my part. I really intended this thread to be about engineering and not economics. Everything about racing is expensive, and I have no delusion about Roger Penske caring about the safety of drivers.

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

It's an engineering question, but I don't think it's for mechanical engineers, but the civil.

IMS was built in 1909 and the average pole time for the following decade was around 90mph. For a few decades now pole is on around 230mph.

The equivalent circuit nowadays would be 6.4mi/10.2km. Add width, and we're all good to go.

[Akrapovic]

I have always wondered if a ballistic glass type setup could work. Like an extreme version of the Ice Hockey type setup.

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

It's an engineering question, but I don't think it's for mechanical engineers, but the civil.

IMS was built in 1909 and the average pole time for the following decade was around 90mph. For a few decades now pole is on around 230mph.

The equivalent circuit nowadays would be 6.4mi/10.2km. Add width, and we're all good to go.

Width isnt always the right answer. ideally you want to hit the wall at less than 30 degrees to hit the wall, travel along and dissipate energy.

By making the track wider your angle of attack from the straight to the outside corner wall is increased, that was part of the problem with Pocano and why the incidents are pretty bad there

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by ascarracinguk

Width isnt always the right answer. ideally you want to hit the wall at less than 30 degrees to hit the wall, travel along and dissipate energy.

By making the track wider your angle of attack from the straight to the outside corner wall is increased, that was part of the problem with Pocano and why the incidents are pretty bad there

Wickens' Pocono accident was due to RH-R and Wickens touching, with Wickens' car climbing over RH-R's car, then up over the SAFER Barrier wall and into the catch fencing, causing the car to spin viciously. I wonder if Wickens might not have been better off without the catch fencing being there?

[gttouring]

speed is the big mess, Watching the Chilibowl nationals we have seen a few cars cart wheel and tumble, some in the fence, one actual hung up in the fence, and these are very quick Midgets, but i don't think they hit triple digit speeds at all.

ovals have trouble and always have, making the safety capsule for the drive is #1 make sure they can survive what ever, then maybe moving the spectators further up from the wall. (like AYDS mentioned above, lower track or higher walls- move spectators away)
Monster trucks have a "death zone" that is where several trucks have lost it or tires and crushed people. this area is a no fans in the seat area.

other things about catch fences may be looked at, they are essentially sticks holding a mesh between them, and of course they couldn't be repaired if they were attached together with arches, above or below,

and bumperettes dont work so well work, the DW12 had them in 2012-2017 and we saw cars climb over each other all the same. or more importantly they didn't prevent what they were introduced for

with the crazy open wheel schedule for WoO and sprint cars, they crash a lot,
and those shorter ovals don't have the same safety so what might be the difference

[AYDS]

If the aero and mechanical grip were indeed reduced, they could probably have competitive races at shorter tracks, which would mean ever lower top speeds. Short tracks are gaining in popularity, but the current spec of IndyCars aren't suited to them at all.

North Wilkesboro is being renovated. At five-eights of mile, a race might work there. They might need to flatten out the banking, but it's going to have to be repaved anyway.

[broadrun96]

Yes, if they went slower they wouldn't have the potential for flight and climbing fences. And then no one would be watching and the ultimate in safety would be reached, no racing.

Short tracks gaining in popularity where?? Certainly not with formula cars, we're losing more than gaining.

Chili Bowl is called a 1/4 mile but supposedly MUCH closer to 1/5 mile. At 10.xx lap times they're in the low 70s at best top speed. Supposedly outdoor larger tracks they are running closer to 100s for the fastest guys but most are 80-90s

[AYDS]

Originally Posted by broadrun96

Yes, if they went slower they wouldn't have the potential for flight and climbing fences. And then no one would be watching and the ultimate in safety would be reached, no racing.

I'm trying to find if there's an "ignore user" feature...

[broadrun96]

Your argument isn't in a vacuum, there has to be consideration of whether or not X change could or would be accepted by teams, drivers and fans. Debating with consideration of the result of doing x isn't going anywhere.

[NaBUru38]

IndyCar needs to be faster than Nascar, or it loses its purpose.


So they need to match Nascar's excellent safety record. The aeroscreen is a big step.

[rwintle]

Originally Posted by NaBUru38

IndyCar needs to be faster than Nascar, or it loses its purpose.


So they need to match Nascar's excellent safety record. The aeroscreen is a big step.

There is a lot of marketing play in the speed for sure - comparisons with NASCAR and Formula 1 often point out the qualifying speeds at the Indy 500. And gone are the days when prototypes at Le Mans did 240+ MPH down the Mulsanne, so IndyCar really does have a claim to being "the fastest". They'll not want to give that up by slowing the cars down.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Putting this in perspective, the last fatality on an oval was Justin Wilson at Pocono in 2015 and that was a freak accident. Otherwise, it was Dan Wheldon in 2011 at Las Vegas.

Since then pack racing, which was a feature of IRL oval races and a contributory factor in Wheldon's accident has been eliminated. There has been the introduction of Safer Barrier. The DW 12/IR 18 has a much stronger chassis than its predecessor; both Wickens' accident at Pocono and Scott Dixon's accident at the 500 in 2017 are testament to that and, as has been mentioned, there has been the introduction of the Aeroscreen.

[Toecutter]

My .02
At present oval racing is as safe as can be expected barring armored cockpits lined with airbags. If oval racing scares someone then don't watch or drive in it.

[Yannick]

Originally Posted by Toecutter

My .02
At present oval racing is as safe as can be expected barring armored cockpits lined with airbags. If oval racing scares someone then don't watch or drive in it.

Warning: somewhat graphic content in this posting.

Yes, I quit watching oval racing on live TV after Las Vegas 2011. The 2nd time seeing someone die live on TV was enough.
Motor racing is a bug, though, so guess what? One night years later when I got home in the evening (Central European time zone, mind you), the bug bit and thought why not catch the end of the 2015 Pocono 500. Unfortunately, I switched on just before Sage Karam spun from the lead into the wall, and you all know what happened next. It's sad, the grief and all. I will only watch highlight videos of superspeedway races now but not on live TV anymore.

This stuff is easier to bear when you haven't seen it on live TV, when you haven't seen Roland Ratzenberger's head bobble weirdly to the side every time a replay of the crash came on while watching F1 Saturday qualifying at Imola back in 1994 at age 16.

Short ovals are fun to watch mostly because of how drivers are able to navigate traffic. Personally, I do not miss the superspeedways, even though their disappearance might mean the late Al Unser, Sr.'s Triple Crown can never be tied by another driver again.

Here's wishing everybody a safe and healthy season.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Roger Penske says he would like to add more ovals to the calendar.


https://racer.com/2022/04/14/penske-...y-growth-need/

[Yannick]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Roger Penske says he would like to add more ovals to the calendar.


https://racer.com/2022/04/14/penske-...y-growth-need/

Finding a sponsor for an additional oval that does not have the PJ1 will be the challenge.