Jump to content


Photo
* - - - - 2 votes

IndyCar drivers lay it all on the line. F1 drivers don't. Apparently.


  • Please log in to reply
127 replies to this topic

#101 JHSingo

JHSingo
  • Member

  • 8,930 posts
  • Joined: June 13

Posted 29 August 2015 - 23:49

The 2015 Fontana race - did you watch that race? Any accident or touch could result in a multi car pileup or an event similar at Pocono. Stop looking at what did happen and start looking at what could happen.

 

If you want to get bogged down on what 'could happen', then there would probably be a strong case to ban all racing around the world. It's an exercise in futility.

 

For example:

 

What are you talking about? Singapore and Monaco race are not run at 370 kph/h. Oval racing is.

 

Jeff Krosnoff was killed in an accident on a street course. Dario Franchitti suffered career ending injuries after a crash on a street course. RC Enerson was lucky to avoid injury on a street course after a huge crash in Indy Lights this year. Conor Daly got launched into the catch fencing at Monaco a few years ago. The speed difference doesn't matter in the slightest, if you 'start looking at what could happen'. Might as well ban street circuits as well, while we're on this ridiculous 'oval racing is too dangerous' debate.


Edited by JHSingo, 29 August 2015 - 23:53.


Advertisement

#102 loki

loki
  • Member

  • 12,038 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 30 August 2015 - 00:04

Why would I look at entire history of F1 or Indycar? What is the current relevance? I'm not cherry picking statistics. I'm taking the last 20 years. There have been conciderable advances in F1 and Indycar safety since the 70's.

 

The 2015 Fontana race - did you watch that race? Any accident or touch could result in a multi car pileup or an event similar at Pocono. Stop looking at what did happen and start looking at what could happen.

 

I haven't "neglected to mention" that "half of those oval fatalities were single car practice or qualifying accidents". Please tell me how that reduces validity of my argument? Do you not need to attend practice and qualifying to take part in a race? Or what's your argument then? That because many fatalities happened during practice that oval racing is safe? :rotfl:

I don't know how long you've been watching Indycar style oval racing or if you've seen one live but the closeness of the racing has been something that has been taking place for decades.  During the split years when the money and the talent was split between two series it the closeness wasn't always apparent.  (though some of the early IRL spec car races had some close racing on ovals).  Some of the races are packed up more than others and there are some drivers trying low percentage moves but the history of Indycar style racing has always been about close quarters racing.



#103 loki

loki
  • Member

  • 12,038 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 30 August 2015 - 00:10

notall of them

I was at the 2005 race, it was the first night I'd moved to town.  They ran it after the truck series and by the time the race was done there were only a couple thousand of us left.  The IRL also ran some races there.



#104 August

August
  • Member

  • 3,277 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 30 August 2015 - 05:08

What are you talking about? Singapore and Monaco race are not run at 370 kph/h. Oval racing is.


And if there's a crash at Tabac, the wrecked car is gonna be on the racing line (actually worse than on a wide oval) the flying debris would be just as dangerous.

I don't advice removing the grandstands for a runoff at Tabac but improving cockpit safety, which would improve oval racing safety too.

#105 anneomoly

anneomoly
  • Member

  • 863 posts
  • Joined: October 14

Posted 30 August 2015 - 15:16

Oh, it's actually in this piece by someone called Preston Lerner. Guy seems pretty enamoured with danger for someone who doesn't race cars for a living.

 

I would have to assume that anyone who's truly enamoured with the idea of danger in motor racing doesn't do it for a living. To accept a risk (as all drivers do), and to find a thrill in it, is a completely different proposition to welcoming it with open arms and wallowing in it.



#106 Dolph

Dolph
  • Member

  • 12,109 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 30 August 2015 - 15:22

https://en.wikipedia...SCAR_fatalities

 

Having a roof over your head doesn't automatically make things safer.

 

It does.
 



#107 Dolph

Dolph
  • Member

  • 12,109 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 30 August 2015 - 15:38

I don't know how long you've been watching Indycar style oval racing or if you've seen one live but the closeness of the racing has been something that has been taking place for decades.  During the split years when the money and the talent was split between two series it the closeness wasn't always apparent.  (though some of the early IRL spec car races had some close racing on ovals).  Some of the races are packed up more than others and there are some drivers trying low percentage moves but the history of Indycar style racing has always been about close quarters racing.

 

And your point is?
 



#108 Dolph

Dolph
  • Member

  • 12,109 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 30 August 2015 - 15:40

If you want to get bogged down on what 'could happen', then there would probably be a strong case to ban all racing around the world. It's an exercise in futility.

 

No, its not.

 


Jeff Krosnoff was killed in an accident on a street course. Dario Franchitti suffered career ending injuries after a crash on a street course. RC Enerson was lucky to avoid injury on a street course after a huge crash in Indy Lights this year. Conor Daly got launched into the catch fencing at Monaco a few years ago. The speed difference doesn't matter in the slightest, if you 'start looking at what could happen'. Might as well ban street circuits as well, while we're on this ridiculous 'oval racing is too dangerous' debate.

 

Only one of those crashes resulted in a death.

 

 



#109 taran

taran
  • Member

  • 4,425 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 30 August 2015 - 17:13

I would have to assume that anyone who's truly enamoured with the idea of danger in motor racing doesn't do it for a living. To accept a risk (as all drivers do), and to find a thrill in it, is a completely different proposition to welcoming it with open arms and wallowing in it.

 

You obviously haven't read many older driver memoirs. Racing became big after WWII precisely because an entire generation of young men missed the thrill they had experienced in war. Naturally they weren't seeking death but danger was definitely part of the attraction for them. And I truly believe that the fact that they actually risked their lives made them the sporting heroes that attracted the fans. Would we venerate Gilles if his antics had no risks?

 

These days, drivers are dismissed as pr puppets who race on disney tracks and earn obscene amounts of money. Contrast that with the drivers of the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's when a big crash could end a career or life. They were thrill seekers, hence their attraction to other "extreme" sports of the time and fast cars. Today's drivers seem more attracted to the technology of many buttons and cry in their beer when there's a whiff of danger. The reigning champion Hamilton drives a Mercedes diesel for god's sake. A smart choice but it hardly fits the image of a race driver....

 

Is it any wonder that drivers aren't held in awe anymore?



#110 greenman

greenman
  • Member

  • 1,565 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 30 August 2015 - 17:30

 

Only one of those crashes resulted in a death.

 

Wait you're the one talking about how we should look into what could have happened, and not what actually happened, right? None of the crashes in Fontana resulted in any injuries. Yes, it could have been worse, like it had been in the past. But all those other mentioned crashes on street circuits also could have been worse, like it was in Krosnoff's case.


Edited by greenman, 30 August 2015 - 17:30.


#111 anneomoly

anneomoly
  • Member

  • 863 posts
  • Joined: October 14

Posted 30 August 2015 - 17:44

You obviously haven't read many older driver memoirs. Racing became big after WWII precisely because an entire generation of young men missed the thrill they had experienced in war. Naturally they weren't seeking death but danger was definitely part of the attraction for them. And I truly believe that the fact that they actually risked their lives made them the sporting heroes that attracted the fans. Would we venerate Gilles if his antics had no risks?

 

These days, drivers are dismissed as pr puppets who race on disney tracks and earn obscene amounts of money. Contrast that with the drivers of the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's when a big crash could end a career or life. They were thrill seekers, hence their attraction to other "extreme" sports of the time and fast cars. Today's drivers seem more attracted to the technology of many buttons and cry in their beer when there's a whiff of danger. The reigning champion Hamilton drives a Mercedes diesel for god's sake. A smart choice but it hardly fits the image of a race driver....

 

Is it any wonder that drivers aren't held in awe anymore?

 

The bolded bit is just agreeing with me in different words. I specifically separated out the thrill of the risk and the risk of death. It's possible to have one without the other, it's possible to want one without the other.

 

The italicised bit.. we don't hold anyone in awe any more. We used to hold astronauts in awe. We used to hold politicians in awe. We used to hold leaders of nations in awe. We used to hold sportspeople in awe. We used to hold movie stars in awe. We don't any more. Most of these jobs haven't actually changed, but the world around them has, and I'm not sure why you expect racing drivers to be the last bastion of revered gods in society (I'm not sure why revering them is necessary for the health of the sport, either, but if you remember the 50s, 60s and 70s I suspect that may be an age difference).

 

And you're right, I haven't read a lot of post-war autobiographies. I've read Jackie Stewart's though, and the list of fatherless children that he knew did not give me the impression of a man who was particularly eager to add his own onto that list.



#112 Jim Thurman

Jim Thurman
  • Member

  • 7,199 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 30 August 2015 - 17:51

Does Europe have something like 1500 race meetings in a week?

 

 

 

Yes.

 

So, Europe has 1100 to 1500 permanent circuits?  :confused:  I learn something here every time I sign in :)



#113 taran

taran
  • Member

  • 4,425 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 30 August 2015 - 18:05

The bolded bit is just agreeing with me in different words. I specifically separated out the thrill of the risk and the risk of death. It's possible to have one without the other, it's possible to want one without the other.

 

The italicised bit.. we don't hold anyone in awe any more. We used to hold astronauts in awe. We used to hold politicians in awe. We used to hold leaders of nations in awe. We used to hold sportspeople in awe. We used to hold movie stars in awe. We don't any more. Most of these jobs haven't actually changed, but the world around them has, and I'm not sure why you expect racing drivers to be the last bastion of revered gods in society (I'm not sure why revering them is necessary for the health of the sport, either, but if you remember the 50s, 60s and 70s I suspect that may be an age difference).

 

And you're right, I haven't read a lot of post-war autobiographies. I've read Jackie Stewart's though, and the list of fatherless children that he knew did not give me the impression of a man who was particularly eager to add his own onto that list.

 

Well, obviously Stewart would feel differently as he was the high priest of safety. Because of his tireless campaigning for safety, things have improved tremendously but you can't compare Stewart to the other drivers for that exact reason. Mario Andretti would race anything, anywhere. Clay Regazzoni lived for racing, competing. Even in a back of the grid car, something Stewart would never do. I'd thus say that racing was a career for Stewart while for most of the other drivers, racing was a passion.

 

Now, there are far more Stewarts than Andretti's on the grid and thus less interest in them. Driving moving computers while pressing buttons in the correct order without any real personal risk doesn't inspire people (Bianchi IMO was a freak accident which wouldn't have happened if he hadn't been speeding), just as video gaming championships don't really get much public attention.



#114 Myrvold

Myrvold
  • Member

  • 15,853 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 30 August 2015 - 20:43

So, Europe has 1100 to 1500 permanent circuits?  :confused:  I learn something here every time I sign in :)

 

I can usually choose between 5-10 different races each saturday here in Norway, and we don't have any tradition for motorsport, with the exception of rallycross. And we also have different kinds of race meetings during the week on different places. When we in Norway is able to host 40-50 meetings a week, in a country with no tradition for motorsport, and where "no-one" wants to be "busted" driving a racing car. I think it will be easy to find countries with 100-200 different meetings a week. So, no, I don't feel that 1500 race meetings in a week troughout the whole of Europe is a bad number.



#115 MargaretM37

MargaretM37
  • Member

  • 86 posts
  • Joined: June 15

Posted 30 August 2015 - 21:44

I don't like the school of thought that thinks that Indycar is in some way superior to F1 as it is more dangerous. It's danger and comparative lack of safety is what turns me away from it. F1 really upped its game in the safety stakes after Imola 1994. I really think that Indycar should look to do the same rather than accept deaths as inevitable. Its fatality / serious injury record is appalling for such a major series.



#116 Myrvold

Myrvold
  • Member

  • 15,853 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 30 August 2015 - 22:38

I don't like the school of thought that thinks that Indycar is in some way superior to F1 as it is more dangerous. It's danger and comparative lack of safety is what turns me away from it. F1 really upped its game in the safety stakes after Imola 1994. I really think that Indycar should look to do the same rather than accept deaths as inevitable. Its fatality / serious injury record is appalling for such a major series.

What you basically are saying is that IndyCar have 'accepted' that people die, and don't do anything with it? If so, you are very very wrong.



#117 warp

warp
  • Member

  • 1,437 posts
  • Joined: November 13

Posted 30 August 2015 - 22:42

Agree with OP... this divisive point of view is lame.

 

Both series have their pro's and con's. They can't be compared really. They are different from inception. If oval racing was to be done by F1 cars, drivers would do it and learn how to. They would just get on with it, but it is not since the inception of the series. Just look at the F1 drivers going to race ovals, they just get on with it (some better than others, of course).



#118 HeadFirst

HeadFirst
  • Member

  • 6,121 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 31 August 2015 - 14:44

Agree with OP... this divisive point of view is lame.

 

Both series have their pro's and con's. They can't be compared really. They are different from inception. If oval racing was to be done by F1 cars, drivers would do it and learn how to. They would just get on with it, but it is not since the inception of the series. Just look at the F1 drivers going to race ovals, they just get on with it (some better than others, of course).

 

Agreed. It's kinda like tennis, comparing what are essentially the same skills used on different surfaces .... clay, hardcourt, grass. There are some that can adapt to all three, but some remain specialists. Same is true (in my opinion) of OW racing.



#119 aportinga

aportinga
  • Member

  • 10,567 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 31 August 2015 - 19:36

Okay, I'll explain myself.

 

The two series are very different, requiring very different skills. One is spec, one is not. One races primarily on ovals and proper street circuits, the other doesn't. The cultures are completely different - Montoya has explicitly said as much in the past. The only real link is that they're both open wheel.

 

Back in the day, Danica Patrick could surely have walked into a seat at a midfield team with her GoDaddy sponsorship. She didn't. Why? An interesting question. It tells you that not everyone is aiming for F1. Many drivers genuinely like ovals. If an F1 team offered Ed Carpenter a seat, he'd turn it down - after being very baffled about why he was being offered a seat - because he loves ovals. Many of the drivers do.

 

We need to get over this belief that F1 is the pinnacle of all motor sport and that that's all anyone ever wants. It's simply not the case.

 

Indycar is on many road courses as well - more than ovals.

 

But I don't consider Indycar open wheel any longer. Gaps have been closed to protect against tire touching. So while they may have the balls on ovals, they are not running open wheel cars like F1 - not even close!



Advertisement

#120 Muppetmad

Muppetmad
  • Member

  • 11,085 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 31 August 2015 - 21:02

Indycar is on many road courses as well - more than ovals.

 

But I don't consider Indycar open wheel any longer. Gaps have been closed to protect against tire touching. So while they may have the balls on ovals, they are not running open wheel cars like F1 - not even close!

This year there were five road course races, six oval races and five street circuit races. So there was a small bias in favour of ovals. I'd say it's the ovals and the street races that make the series particularly distinctive from F1.

 

I won't challenge you on whether IndyCar is open wheel or not; if it isn't, it only furthers my overall argument that the two series cannot be easily compared.



#121 63Corvette

63Corvette
  • Member

  • 358 posts
  • Joined: March 15

Posted 31 August 2015 - 21:34

WELL.................this is obviously BS because we "all know" that the only "REAL" man's racing sport (ya know, where they put their balls on the line) is the TT on the Isle of Mann!

 

https://youtu.be/8ojjLLN-30E

https://youtu.be/FVNPK2UtUfU



#122 Radoye

Radoye
  • Member

  • 3,364 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 31 August 2015 - 22:22

This year there were five road course races, six oval races and five street circuit races. So there was a small bias in favour of ovals. I'd say it's the ovals and the street races that make the series particularly distinctive from F1.

 

I won't challenge you on whether IndyCar is open wheel or not; if it isn't, it only furthers my overall argument that the two series cannot be easily compared.

 

I'm not sure how did you got that 6 ovals vs 10 non-ovals makes for a slight bias in favor of ovals, but what the heck.

 

And it's not as if F1 doesn't run street courses, they're not an IndyCar speciality - Monaco, Singapore, Melbourne, Sochi, Montreal are all temporary street circuits, and until not that long ago so was the bigger part of Spa as well (everything except the 'shortcut' used to be public roads until a few years ago).



#123 Fatgadget

Fatgadget
  • Member

  • 6,966 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 31 August 2015 - 22:30

What a strange thread.. V8 fireworks are you drunk and angry or something? Does not seem like the usual you.

Please enlighten..what's he usually like?  :confused:



#124 August

August
  • Member

  • 3,277 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 31 August 2015 - 22:39

And it's not as if F1 doesn't run street courses, they're not an IndyCar speciality - Monaco, Singapore, Melbourne, Sochi, Montreal are all temporary street circuits, and until not that long ago so was the bigger part of Spa as well (everything except the 'shortcut' used to be public roads until a few years ago).

 

It's just the the street courses in IndyCar are more of proper street courses. Monaco is a proper street circuit, Singapore as proper as you can have with modern rules. Melbourne and Montreal fall somewhere between a street and a road course. Sochi also falls somewhere between those, though it has the worst of both: a layout like a street circuit but runoffs like on a road course. Just compare Sochi with Long Beach or Belle Isle and you know which is the true street circuit.

 

And Spa really was never a street circuit, a road course with public roads like Le Mans.



#125 HeadFirst

HeadFirst
  • Member

  • 6,121 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 01 September 2015 - 02:09

It's just the the street courses in IndyCar are more of proper street courses. Monaco is a proper street circuit, Singapore as proper as you can have with modern rules. Melbourne and Montreal fall somewhere between a street and a road course. Sochi also falls somewhere between those, though it has the worst of both: a layout like a street circuit but runoffs like on a road course. Just compare Sochi with Long Beach or Belle Isle and you know which is the true street circuit.

 

And Spa really was never a street circuit, a road course with public roads like Le Mans.

 

With the Indy style street circuits, I sometimes expect to see construction detours, cops directing traffic, or perhaps children at a school crossing.



#126 Muppetmad

Muppetmad
  • Member

  • 11,085 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 01 September 2015 - 06:20

I'm not sure how did you got that 6 ovals vs 10 non-ovals makes for a slight bias in favor of ovals, but what the heck.

If you follow the discussion from the beginning, you'll find I've been making a particular distinction from the beginning between road courses and street courses when emphasising the difference between IndyCar and F1. So, as I said in my post, there was quite literally a slight bias in favour of ovals over road courses specifically; aportinga was suggesting there were more road courses than ovals on the calendar. The distinction is important for all the reasons August and HeadFirst have outlined: yes, F1 does race on street circuits, but not generally "traditional", unmodified ones where the margin for error is particularly slim. Monaco and Singapore are of course the key exceptions, although the resurfacing of tarmac in Monaco to make the track smooth for the F1 cars takes away some of the challenge - the bumpiness of the typical IndyCar street circuit is one of the big challenges the drivers have to face.

 

The best example that comes to mind is Baltimore, which was on the IndyCar calendar a few years back. I cannot conceive F1 ever racing there - but IndyCar did, and it was a real challenge for the drivers.


Edited by Muppetmad, 01 September 2015 - 08:53.


#127 August

August
  • Member

  • 3,277 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 01 September 2015 - 08:24

With the Indy style street circuits, I sometimes expect to see construction detours, cops directing traffic, or perhaps children at a school crossing.


Duck children?
 


Edited by August, 01 September 2015 - 08:29.


#128 August

August
  • Member

  • 3,277 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 03 September 2015 - 21:44

There is precisely ONE person saying that in this thread - all the rest give ICS [and oval racing] it's due respect.

Edit - if you want something to complain about, read this bit of garbage from one of your countrymen, from none other than Fort Wayne

http://www.journalga...-series-8482847


Just saw Hinchcliffe's response to this:

.@pnewberry1963 @AP shocked you're allowed to post complete filth. I can name far more journalists KIA. Should we stop reporting news?


https://twitter.com/...4811648000?s=09