Wet ovals

Having managed to stay awake during a GP for once (FIA should research the connection between F1 & Narcolepsy), I couldn't help but wonder why the US series drivers don't drive on wet ovals when the World series drivers managed to get round a banked corner in the wet?

When they take the corner they are still far away from topspeed. Approaching the corner with 350kpu in the rain is a whole different experience I think.

NASCAR tested rain tires on at least one track - slow and flat Martinsville - in the late 1990s with Terry Labonte's car, but nothing seems to have come of it.

Originally posted by Peter Morley
Having managed to stay awake during a GP for once (FIA should research the connection between F1 & Narcolepsy), I couldn't help but wonder why the US series drivers don't drive on wet ovals when the World series drivers managed to get round a banked corner in the wet?

I rather suspect, at least in this modern era, even with the existence of rain tires, that wiser heads than mine have pretty much determined that, given the all-out speed nature of oval racing, anything like racing in the rain, and on a wet track would be either boring as hell to watch, or worse yet, dangerous as all get out for the drivers, as oval track cars normally run out to the edge of adhesion (as do road couse cars) but at much, much higher speeds.

Also, given the much higher rear-end ratios used in oval track racing, there may well be a reliability issue also. Most transmissions do not last well when run for long distances in lower gears, they seem to be much happier to run in top gear when at sustained speeds. If you doubt this, try driving your 4 or 5-speed transmission in a lower gear (say 3rd) for say a hundred miles or so, and see if the gears and bearings hold up to that.

Just my 2-cents worth here.

Originally posted by John B
NASCAR tested rain tires on at least one track - slow and flat Martinsville - in the late 1990s with Terry Labonte's car, but nothing seems to have come of it.

They won't even run wets at Watkins Glen, even though Goodyear had them on hand at NASCAR's request (AND windshield wipers, IIRC) about two years ago.

Originally posted by Aanderson
.....Most transmissions do not last well when run for long distances in lower gears, they seem to be much happier to run in top gear when at sustained speeds. If you doubt this, try driving your 4 or 5-speed transmission in a lower gear (say 3rd) for say a hundred miles or so, and see if the gears and bearings hold up to that.

Peugeot's BA7 4-speed gearbox is generally a totally reliable and trouble free unit, was produced from 1967 on and put behind both petrol and diesel engines.

The 5-speed variant of this box came along in about 1981. Continuous use of fifth gear is normal, and under these circumstances the primary drive gears are known to wear through the case hardening.

Originally posted by Peter Morley
Having managed to stay awake during a GP for once (FIA should research the connection between F1 & Narcolepsy), I couldn't help but wonder why the US series drivers don't drive on wet ovals when the World series drivers managed to get round a banked corner in the wet?

Thanks to pressure from TV interests...there have been some rather "wet" oval races run in some series.

And thanks to all the rain in Washington state, some paved short tracks there run in the rain. Evergreen Speedway will run it's weekly programs in anything short of a deluge, and with a covered grandstand, fan comfort isn't a problem.


Jim Thurman

Maybe something about the asymetrics of OW setup on an oval? IRL/CART cars dont like sliding much in the dry, the wet might freak out the car.

Or it might simply be tradition...

There's too much $ involved to delay or cancel a race for rain because of tradition

Gee, Peter, I guess by the term "World series drivers" you mean the F1 guys. Are those the same guys that have had races called at half distance because it was too wet? Or have had races called after a few laps because it was wet? Or had the so-called "World Champion" not even start because it was too wet. These drivers got around one-third (one long corner and a very long straight-away) of the oval at Indianapolis fine, but a lot of them sure had a problem staying on the rest of the track.

World Champion not start because it was too wet?

No, sorry, don't recall that one...

Originally posted by Ray Bell
World Champion not start because it was too wet?

No, sorry, don't recall that one...

Lauda, '76, Fuji???

Originally posted by theunions
Lauda, '76, Fuji?

Noooo...

Prost, Australia ’89?

Originally posted by Gerr
Gee, Peter, I guess by the term "World series drivers" you mean the F1 guys. Are those the same guys that have had races called at half distance because it was too wet? Or have had races called after a few laps because it was wet? Or had the so-called "World Champion" not even start because it was too wet. These drivers got around one-third (one long corner and a very long straight-away) of the oval at Indianapolis fine, but a lot of them sure had a problem staying on the rest of the track.

Those are the people.
They got around the (easy) banked corner without problem, even in the wet, but some had problems at the corners created to try to make some parts of the track difficult.

At least the F1 guys have started races that become too wet to carry on, they don't say it's raining I'm not even going out there.
Sure a lot of them are worried driving in the wet, and a lot of them shouldn't be in an F1 car, but the percentage who are below par is higher than in other formulas..

So far no one has come up with any reason for suggesting why you can't run an oval race in the wet, I'd really like someone to explain why?
>Maybe you need more downforce and the teams only bring low donwforce cars to ovals, but they do have adjustable wings - and no one stops them bringing more bodywork.
>Or is it just that the tyre companies don't want to bring even more tyres to a meeting?
>Or is it that the drivers have never tried it and don't know it is possible - apparently until Jim Clark spun (deliberately) avoiding a rabbit at Indy they thought it was impossible to spin and recover on a banked track.
>Perhaps it is difficult to overtake, but so what, some oval races are just as processional as F1 races, and that is no reason for not racing.

how about because there are only 2 to 4 corners with a one line track. after the cars run around for a bit a dry line appears on this one line... thus there would be no over taking as noone would go into a corner at high speed on a wet line... well apart from Montoya anyhow.

First of all, Indy's corners aren't banked very much. I think they are listed as 12 degrees but having seen them in person up close this year, I doubt they actually break 10 degrees.

Second, the F1 drivers came out onto the banked section of the track at a lower speed and they only reach top speeds on the straight. The right-hander coming off the straight is a very slow unbanked turn that requires massive breaking before entering it even in the dry, so it cannot be compared to hitting a real banked corner at 200mph or more lap after lap.

Originally posted by Joe Fan

Second, the F1 drivers came out onto the banked section of the track at a lower speed and they only reach top speeds on the straight. The right-hander coming off the straight is a very slow unbanked turn that requires massivie breaking before entering it even in the dry, so it cannot be compared to hitting a real banked corner at 200mph or more lap after lap.

Although coming out of turn 1 at lower speed than the oval racers, those guys were really accelerating hard through the turn.

Me, I was impressed.

Originally posted by Joe Fan
First of all, Indy's corners aren't banked very much. I think they are listed as 12 degrees but having seen them in person up close this year, I doubt they actually break 10 degrees.

Second, the F1 drivers came out onto the banked section of the track at a lower speed and they only reach top speeds on the straight. The right-hander coming off the straight is a very slow unbanked turn that requires massivie breaking before entering it even in the dry, so it cannot be compared to hitting a real banked corner at 200mph or more lap after lap.

All 4 turns at Indianapolis are exactly the same, and are banked at 9-degrees, 11 minutes.

Art Anderson

I think there are various reasons ranging from basic lack of wet weather driving experience to the nature of ovals themselves.

What Ross said about asymmetric setups is a good point.

I'm guessing that the wing setting, gearing and cambers, shocks, tyre pressures could be adjusted so as to minimise the effect (perhaps by going for a traditional symmetrical setup) but that the very nature of short oval tracks are inherently more dangerous than road circuits.

Oval tracks are dangerous enough in the dry. The odds of a serious crash in the wet are too great, there's a bigger disparity in talent between the fastest and slowest drivers in IRL and CART than in F1. That increases the dangers greatly as there are always some morons driving way over their head even in the dry. Not even traction control and automatic gears is enough for them, you know the types.

The amount of other cars that you encounter on any given lap is greater than in F1 due to the bigger grids and the wide, short track. Oval tracks are just not single file tracks. Cars bunched up on a track like that in such greasy and wet conditions is asking for a huge accident.

Added to that, with the increased weight compared to F1, the car would want to swap ends.

Also there are relatively no visible braking points in the wet except on the infield, which ironically is where the water will drain, making it the most dangerous part of the track. The wall to the right of you on ovals is grey in sunlight and probably invisible in spray, so the wide line, the line that would potentially dry faster (due to the water running down the banking) is not safe either as there would be no visble reference points there.

That's what I think is the main problem in full wet conditions. The problem for dry/wet is probably mainly as Ross said, the asymmetric setup.

Gee, this has become a full-blown Them-and-Us discussion, shame on you!

For me, wet weather driving has always been only one thing: insane! Some "fans" always try to make it into a Big-Balls-or-not competition, but to me it's more like Small-Brain-or-not. Sure, it's about car control on reduced-grip surface, but it's also about high speeds at zero visibility! Lauda and Prost have shown that they were probably the only world class F1 drivers with an above-average IQ by withdrawing from wet races - both had shown in their youth that they were far superior to anyone else even in the wet, but they didn't need that brainless macho thing anymore. Kudos for self-confidence!

As for driving ovals in the wet, even the thought of it is nothing short of stupid...

Originally posted by Joe Fan
Second, the F1 drivers came out onto the banked section of the track at a lower speed and they only reach top speeds on the straight. The right-hander coming off the straight is a very slow unbanked turn that requires massivie breaking before entering it even in the dry, so it cannot be compared to hitting a real banked corner at 200mph or more lap after lap.

But isn't 190 mph close enough?
http://www.atlasf1.c...carborough.html
And perhaps they were even going faster - top speed (209mph) is a conservative estimate on that map....

Originally posted by Aanderson

All 4 turns at Indianapolis are exactly the same, and are banked at 9-degrees, 11 minutes.

Art Anderson

No wonder they didn't look to break 10 degrees.;)

Originally posted by scheivlak

But isn't 190 mph close enough?
http://www.atlasf1.c...carborough.html
And perhaps they were even going faster - top speed (209mph) is a conservative estimate on that map....

The 190 mph figure on that chart appears to be the speed achieved on a pole setting lap of 1 minute 10.7 seconds, accomplished in the dry. The fastest lap during the race was 1 minute 11.473 seconds accomplished on the first lap of the race in dry conditions. As it started to rain, the lap times went down considerably. http://www.atlasf1.c...3/usa/laps.html

Indy is a rather flat track in comparison to most US ovals. I was at Daytona one year watching a Winston Cup race when it was hit by one of those small rain clouds that blow in from the Atlantic ocean. Daytona has 31 degree banked turns and it was interesting watching the trucks with jet-driers try to dry the banked turns. One truck literally started sliding sideways when it got up close to the wall. I am sure it nearly gave the driver a heart attack and I know that there is no way that any car, regardless of its tires and amount of downforce, could make it through a significantly banked turn in semi-wet conditions at any speed close to 200mph.

Originally posted by fines
Gee, this has become a full-blown Them-and-Us discussion, shame on you!

For me, wet weather driving has always been only one thing: insane! Some "fans" always try to make it into a Big-Balls-or-not competition, but to me it's more like Small-Brain-or-not. Sure, it's about car control on reduced-grip surface, but it's also about high speeds at zero visibility! Lauda and Prost have shown that they were probably the only world class F1 drivers with an above-average IQ by withdrawing from wet races - both had shown in their youth that they were far superior to anyone else even in the wet, but they didn't need that brainless macho thing anymore. Kudos for self-confidence!

As for driving ovals in the wet, even the thought of it is nothing short of stupid...

About Prost being superior in the wet: wasn't it him who spun out of warm-up lap in the wet once? The only other driver I can recall to do so was David Coulthard... and it says something. Also, wasn't it his care for safety that made him deciding to slow during practice in Hockenheim, causing an accident that will actually finish Pironi's career? I must add a disclaimer: he might have had mechanical problems that caused his slow driving and in that case it isn't so much to blame on him - but I heard a few different versions of that incident and don't know which one is true. If he really slowed deliberatly than he in my oppinion voluntarely put his and other driver's lives at risk - same as for what Schumacher accused Coulthard after their infamous incident in Spa... There are rules of that sport and drivers accepted them - indeed it had to take a lot of courage to do what Lauda did in Fuji and I do admire him for doing it. But I don't think that it shows above-average IQ (although I also have an impression that Lauda and Prost were most intelligent world class drivers), besides it both in other circumstances opted for driving in same conditions many times throughot their careers...
Are there any statistics around on how many big and fatal accidents happened in wet conditions? IIRC very few, probably much less than percentage of wet races over the years! I do like to see occasional wet race and admire the skills some of drivers show in such conditions. Although mess caused by rain nowadays isn't to my taste - but it is caused mostly with some regulations I think of as stupid anyway.

Originally posted by dmj
About Prost being superior in the wet: wasn't it him who spun out of warm-up lap in the wet once? The only other driver I can recall to do so was David Coulthard... and it says something. Also, wasn't it his care for safety that made him deciding to slow during practice in Hockenheim, causing an accident that will actually finish Pironi's career? I must add a disclaimer: he might have had mechanical problems that caused his slow driving and in that case it isn't so much to blame on him - but I heard a few different versions of that incident and don't know which one is true. If he really slowed deliberatly than he in my oppinion voluntarely put his and other driver's lives at risk - same as for what Schumacher accused Coulthard after their infamous incident in Spa... There are rules of that sport and drivers accepted them - indeed it had to take a lot of courage to do what Lauda did in Fuji and I do admire him for doing it. But I don't think that it shows above-average IQ (although I also have an impression that Lauda and Prost were most intelligent world class drivers), besides it both in other circumstances opted for driving in same conditions many times throughot their careers...
Are there any statistics around on how many big and fatal accidents happened in wet conditions? IIRC very few, probably much less than percentage of wet races over the years! I do like to see occasional wet race and admire the skills some of drivers show in such conditions. Although mess caused by rain nowadays isn't to my taste - but it is caused mostly with some regulations I think of as stupid anyway.

When conditions were appaling Prost would usually wonder why drivers who had expressed their disgust at the conditions, said they were not going to drive before the race would end up driving. His main objections were safety reasons, reasons of self preservation. I think this was partly from having driven with Niki Lauda and therefore been influenced by the thoughts of Niki, as well as having Didier Pironi hit his back wheel and suffer serious injuries in such conditions in 1982, the year of much tragedy.

On the other hand if it was not appalingly wet conditions, Prost could be as good as in any other conditions. Like a lot of the greats, there were times when he could stetch his limits to new heights.

I don't doubt it. Although I never like him I know he could put a stunning race in the wet too. But obviously he didn't give 100% if not needed - and that's why he hadn't nearly as much admirers as Senna. Do you remember what Senna said when his mother asked him about not slowing whilst leading Estoril by mile in wet, heading for his first ever F1 victory? "Mama, I couldn't slow up because I would crash!" One of my favorite quotes ever...

Originally posted by Joe Fan


The 190 mph figure on that chart appears to be the speed achieved on a pole setting lap of 1 minute 10.7 seconds, accomplished in the dry. The fastest lap during the race was 1 minute 11.473 seconds accomplished on the first lap of the race in dry conditions. As it started to rain, the lap times went down considerably. http://www.atlasf1.c...3/usa/laps.html

But cars ran still in the 1.17s and 1.18s on intermediates, and of course they lost the most time in the infield. Think they still went at least 170mph through T13, possibly faster.

Originally posted by scheivlak

But cars ran still in the 1.17s and 1.18s on intermediates, and of course they lost the most time in the infield. Think they still went at least 170mph through T13, possibly faster.

I know that is pretty low by CART standards but they got round a mildly banked corner pretty quick in the wet.
It should be even easier to get round a sharply banked track if the banking is doing its job.

My point is with suitable setup changes it must be possible to drive a car in the wet round a banked track, so why are we told it can't be done.

As for the story about Prost being superior in the wet, that surprised me - I always remember thinking that will be the last we see of Prost whenever rain started (how many laps down on Senna was he at Donington?)

n.b. I didn't read the post to check who Prost was superior to, I am sure there are some who went even slower in the wet, but most went faster - of course Prost's sense of self preservation racked up a load of points and wins (Why risk your neck in the rain, you still get paid? Why try to lead the race when you can wait for the guy in front to fall off or break down? Very successful stuff but hardly exciting).

Originally posted by dmj
I don't doubt it. Although I never like him I know he could put a stunning race in the wet too. But obviously he didn't give 100% if not needed - and that's why he hadn't nearly as much admirers as Senna. Do you remember what Senna said when his mother asked him about not slowing whilst leading Estoril by mile in wet, heading for his first ever F1 victory? "Mama, I couldn't slow up because I would crash!" One of my favorite quotes ever...

Indeed, Prost was hardly exciting to watch. It didn't help that Senna was so good in the rain. I recall at the end of the first lap in Australia Senna being nine seconds ahead. That would outpsyche anyone!

Those were great battles.

Apologies for going off topic folks....

IIRC NASCAR ran an exhibition race at Suzuka and in the rain. That being the only time they held a wet race. No points paying races, in the wet, well........ OK, where's the Jet Dryer....

Originally posted by wibblywobbly
IIRC NASCAR ran an exhibition race at Suzuka and in the rain. That being the only time they held a wet race. No points paying races, in the wet, well........ OK, where's the Jet Dryer....

That was qualifying, not the race itself. NASCAR have had the wet tires for road racers for a while, but unfortunately there were no chances yet to test them during the race. That would be something to look at, I don't know what one should expect. It would probably be a borefest, since every spun car would bring out a caution, and there would be lots of them with 43 drivers driving around having almost no wet mileage under their belts.

Originally posted by Ray Bell
World Champion not start because it was too wet?

No, sorry, don't recall that one...

Alain Prost pulled in after the formation lap of the 1989 Australian Grand Prix. Ironically when the issue came up again two years later Ferrari had already sacked him, but it would have been interesting to see if, without the politics of the world championship being on the line, he would have done the same thing.

Niki Lauda, still recoverring from his horrific German Grand Prix injuries, made similar threats about the weather at the 1976 Japanese Grand Prix, but Lauda took the start, completing two race laps beofre pulling in stating it was too dangerous to race. A brave decision considering he was leading the world championship at the time, and James Hunt had to finish fourth to take it away from him.

Hunt finished third believing it not enough and stormed into his pitcrew believing they had cost him the championship only to be greeted by an ecstatic dancing crew thrusting champagne into his hands. Musta been kinda funny to watch....

Originally posted by Dmitriy_Guller


That was qualifying, not the race itself. NASCAR have had the wet tires for road racers for a while, but unfortunately there were no chances yet to test them during the race. That would be something to look at, I don't know what one should expect. It would probably be a borefest, since every spun car would bring out a caution, and there would be lots of them with 43 drivers driving around having almost no wet mileage under their belts.

I remember that one. In the lead up to the end some of the NASCAR drivers tried to get a New Zealander kicked out of the event on the basis of lack of experience. In the wet sessions he qualified second and looked like he would win the event until a mechancial problem.

That New Zealander has one more championships than can be counted, is virtually invincible on the Targa Tasmania, is invincible in production Porsche racing, and wins apart has a better record at Bathurst than even Peter Brock. I wonder just how humble Jim Richards made the NASCAR guys feel on Sunday afternoon......

Originally posted by Dmitriy_Guller


That was qualifying, not the race itself. NASCAR have had the wet tires for road racers for a while, but unfortunately there were no chances yet to test them during the race. That would be something to look at, I don't know what one should expect. It would probably be a borefest, since every spun car would bring out a caution, and there would be lots of them with 43 drivers driving around having almost no wet mileage under their belts.

They also practiced in the rain and the drivers complained that they weren't able to see the taillights (which were mounted on the inside of the rear windshield) due to the huge spray coming off the back of the cars. NASCAR stock cars only have decals for headlights and taillights to eliminate debris from falling on the track since it is notoriously a contact motorsport. If memory serves me correct, it was not raining at the scheduled start of the race (raceday was the day after qualifying) nor did it rain during the event. However, off the tarmac, it was still wet in certain areas and I think some drivers went for a wild ride when they did get off the tarmac.

"My point is with suitable setup changes it must be possible to drive a car in the wet round a banked track, so why are we told it can't be done."

Oh, it probably "could be done", if someone was suicidal enough to attempt it.

But running two dozen cars inches apart at 230+mph into a turn on a wet oval isn't prudent.
A better question is why would you want someone else to assume that kind of risk.

Cars can run around ovals in the wet, I have a video of various BMC cars being run around Montlhery in France at over 100mph from the late 1950s and it was raining for some of the runs.

It seems to me that the spray from 43 200 mph cars would be impossible to drive, or even do a telecast in.

I think that racing in ovals in the wet is truly dangerous with single seaters or NASCAR.

There is no reason, why there shouldn´t be races on wet ovals...every professional race-driver should know, how fast he can go with his car no matter if it is dry, wet, cold, hot...

I know points on F1-tracks, which are more dangerous as wet ovals...Eau Rouge for example...the last time Spa wasn´t started because of weather must be in the 60s...???

Originally posted by Elford68
I think that racing in ovals in the wet is truly dangerous with single seaters or NASCAR.

Without wishing to cause a fuss or get drawn in to a debate about it, anyone who thinks you could meaningfully race in the wet on ovals has no clue about the speeds and danger involved. Period.

Thanks

Nigel

There are no gravel traps or run-off areas on ovals . Only very hard concrete walls on all sides .

Originally posted by REDARMYSOJA
There are no gravel traps or run-off areas on ovals . Only very hard concrete walls on all sides .

But isn´t it so, that in most of the accident the angle to the wall is not very sharp...???

Therefore the impact is not that intense...???

Originally posted by Der Pate


But isn´t it so, that in most of the accident the angle to the wall is not very sharp...???

Therefore the impact is not that intense...???

I'm sorry, but have you ever been to an oval? Have you ever seen an Indycar going in to turn 1 at Indianapolis? Have you ever heard the sound of a car hitting the wall? People die on ovals. Think about what you're suggesting.

To give yourself an idea, climb to the top of a tall ladder and jump off, landing on your chest so that all of the breath is forced from your body and you maybe break a limb or two (and not worse). The reason drivers often sit in the car for a while after an accident on an oval is that they simply can't breath because the force of the "not that intense" impact blasts all of the air from their lungs. . Rick Mears told me that. Who told you that running in the wet on ovals was a good idea?

Damn...I got drawn in....

I've been to my first IRL oval race in 2007 at the Michigan Speedway and, believe me, cars are really going fast with traffic included. Really fast. No wonder they need someone on the radio to the tell the driver if it's safe to move a few inches on the left or right or just plainly overtake. Just as a spectator the racing is breath-taking.
I couldn't even imagine oval racing with rain....

Originally posted by Nigel Beresford
Damn...I got drawn in....

Ha ha! Nigel, it happens, usually against your better judgement! I had the privelage of seeing the 1983 Indy 500 as a 'guest' of Roger Penske - I say guest as I was working, and I could have seen the PC11 at Reading, but the arrangeament was that I should go to Indianapolis. I watched the race from high ouside Turn 1, and the impression of speed and the high-pitched wail of those cars will live with me for ever. To be frank I suppose the occasional yellows give you the chance to be amazed all over again when the racing re-starts, but even without them they always look FAST! Mario tangled with a backmarker and hit the wall just to my left, thiswas a glancing blow, but I was surprised that his wheel-less chassis slid almost to Turn 2. I don't know what the IRL version is like, but the Indianapolis 500 is one of the motor racing spectacles that really should be experienced.

Originally posted by Nigel Beresford


I'm sorry, but have you ever been to an oval? Have you ever seen an Indycar going in to turn 1 at Indianapolis? Have you ever heard the sound of a car hitting the wall? People die on ovals. Think about what you're suggesting.

To give yourself an idea, climb to the top of a tall ladder and jump off, landing on your chest so that all of the breath is forced from your body and you maybe break a limb or two (and not worse). The reason drivers often sit in the car for a while after an accident on an oval is that they simply can't breath because the force of the "not that intense" impact blasts all of the air from their lungs. . Rick Mears told me that. Who told you that running in the wet on ovals was a good idea?

Damn...I got drawn in....

You are right...I´ve never been to an oval...I didn´t mean my quote as an argument but as a question...

I always have the former Tamburello before my eyes...Berger and Piquet survived a crash at full speed...Senna didn´t...the main cause for me was, that the angle of the Piquet-Berger-crashes wasn´t so steep...please forgive me my english, as it isn´t my mother-tongue......but I hope, that you get my point...

In an oval the angle in most of the accidents is not that steep...the cars crash into the wall, but slide on...so the speed isn´t reduced to 0 immediately...

But maybe I´m wrong...

On the other hand these guys are race-drivers, who should know, what they are doing...for a professional driver it must be clear, that the traction isn´t the same in wet...therefore I have to drive like that...

Originally posted by Der Pate


But isn´t it so, that in most of the accident the angle to the wall is not very sharp...???

Therefore the impact is not that intense...???

Oh boy!

And, lets not forget the fans.

Henry

Originally posted by Der Pate


You are right...I´ve never been to an oval...I didn´t mean my quote as an argument but as a question...

I always have the former Tamburello before my eyes...Berger and Piquet survived a crash at full speed...Senna didn´t...the main cause for me was, that the angle of the Piquet-Berger-crashes wasn´t so steep...please forgive me my english, as it isn´t my mother-tongue......but I hope, that you get my point...

In an oval the angle in most of the accidents is not that steep...the cars crash into the wall, but slide on...so the speed isn´t reduced to 0 immediately...

But maybe I´m wrong...

On the other hand these guys are race-drivers, who should know, what they are doing...for a professional driver it must be clear, that the traction isn´t the same in wet...therefore I have to drive like that...

Der Pate . I don't consider your question a silly one . It has been raised before , and NASCAR even did tests to see if it was feasible to race in the rain on ovals , at least on some of thier shorter ovals . But if I remember correctly , they determined the compound of the rain tires were too soft , and even in the wet , the oval turns simply chewed them up to quickly to be practical . Also , road racing cars are designed to downshift frequently , which oval cars are not , which also helps slow the cars . At most ovals you don't shift at all , once up to speed .

But I still think the biggest drawback are the walls surrounding the ovals . They are unforgiving , and even if it didn't hurt the driver , it would still damage the car to much for it to continue . The speed is usually the main drawing point for oval racing . One ran in the rain would just be too slow and boring , I suspect .

That being said , one of the best oval races I have ever seen was a Sprint Car race in the rain . Or rather a very heavy mist that was falling , enough that would have probably caused the cancelation of an asphalt oval race . But the mist kept the track "alive" in that it didn't "seal over" , as dirt tracks will do , and the track remained very "tacky" . The cars really "hooked up" and the 850+ HP of the motors was allowed to really shine .