77 replies to this topic

[Unbiased]

Many will say it is too early to discuss this but this is a very important issue, regarding how much drivers are to blame for the crashes. And I have seen many posts mentioning this in threads that have a different topic. 'Bad luck', 'Racing incident', 'Can't be avoided'.

If you are too sensitive/emotional at the moment to discuss this in an analytical manner, maybe best to respond in a few days/week. If you will, respond to the content, not the poster

The IndyCar footage, graphic for some:



Watching this footage you see a few cars flying at high speeds, while others 'just' crash into each other and slow down massively.

What do those cars flying through the air at high speeds have in common? None of them braked heavily, locking brakes, to slow themselves down. They all went much faster than the others around them.

We can 'forgive' the one at 00:42 because he had no time to brake. But the one at 00:44 had enough time to brake (at 00:42 he sees the cars in front of him crashing, he did not brake for 2 seconds before he flew). 2 seconds of braking on these cars is a massive decrease in speed.

Wheldon can see the cars crashing at 00:42 and sees the car in front of him slowing down too yet refuses to brake and crashes at faster speed than anyone around him into him at 00:45 which catapults him. He had 3 seconds to brake and judge it...which is a huge decrease in speed with those cars.

Some people said that the best thing was to just go off the throttle and let the car slow down and wait for the crash....obviously it was not, the 3 cars flying did exactly that before the crash and one of them died.

When there is a massive crash like that in front of you and you have a couple of second before impact, the best you can do is push the brake pedal in with all you got. At those speeds and such short notice, you are not going to avoid them by turning the wheel. It makes no sense driving into cars which are already crashing or heavily slowing down with just throttle pedal released, especially if you are going faster than the car in front of you like Wheldon was.

Maybe the release throttle way works if you are the first in line (like you can actually see with a few drivers, although they still crash heavily), but the ones behind you definitely have to brake to avoid you. Wheldon was not first in line. He misjudged it, it was a mistake. Just like the second driver flying.

I know some will take offense at this, but I will respond in a few days to let people get their arguments in (not personal attacks, thanks).

Edited by Unbiased, 18 October 2011 - 15:09.

[vanfriends]

I have absolutely no idea - I've never raced with cars like that, neither have I raced on an oval.

[Bouncing Pink Ball]

Honest questions, Unbiased; Do you follow oval racing of any kind? Do you know anything about the differences between driving a car with an oval setup versus a road setup? What do you know about how a car handles when decelerating from high speed on a banked oval?

Either you know very little about that type of open wheel racing - which is no crime and there are people here who would be happy to explain more about it to you - or you're trying to poke people for angry responses (you know, trolling). Since you keep coming across in such an abrasive and blunt fashion, I'm leaning toward the latter but benefit of the doubt and all that...

[arknor]

depends on the circumstances
probably lifting off if your followed by a bunch of other cars on an oval because if you slow down suddenly everyone is going to crash into each other

[cheapracer]

the best you can do is push the brake pedal in with all you got. At those speeds and such short notice, you are not going to avoid them by turning the wheel. It makes no sense driving into cars which are already crashing or heavily slowing down with just throttle pedal released, especially if you are going faster than the car in front of you like Wheldon was.

Go and watch a few years of Indycar replays and learn that jamming on the brakes sends you up into the wall.

One of the oldest sayings is if you see a car spinning on track then head straight for it as it's likely not to be there when you get to it.

However in Wheldon's case which car should he aim for? The whole track had cars going everywhere and the worst thing he could do is jam on the brakes and add another out of control car with 10 cars behind him.

All he could do where he was was to lift off and hope for a gap - did you happen to notice how many other cars also crashed without locking their brakes, are they all idiots too? Note most of them went low which is all you can do.

Even if he did jam on the brakes he would have knocked off no appreciable speed that would have made a difference to his lethal impact - in a mutiple accident like that it's just luck of the draw when you go in and sorry to say Wheldon pulled a short straw, it really is that simple.

You need to get past this, you are seriously clueless on the subject and offending people - Wheldon did no different to any of the other drivers out there and many other drivers before him, literally hundreds of them in oval history.

[Muppetmad]

Interestingly enough, if you slam on the brakes (and let's assume for sake of argument that that would work - even though it has been proven quite emphatically here that it wouldn't) then everybody behind you will likely go straight over the back of you - oh wait, that's exactly what happened anyway.

It was damn unfortunate, and there was nothing anybody could do about it - and if there was, it makes no difference; hindsight's a wonderful thing, we can't turn back the clock and change it no matter how much we'd like to.

Edited by Muppetmad, 18 October 2011 - 15:37.

[midgrid]

DarthWillie summed it up well in another thread:

Indycars on ovals are setup to turn left, on the straight parts the drivers steer to the right. If they take their hands of the steering wheel the car wil turn to the left. This is a fact. Running 200 mph plus and standing on the brakes in a car setup that way means IMMEDIATE loss of control followed by a heavy crash. INdycar drivers are trained not to brake heavy but instead get of the gas and let the speed drop. This is also why you never see them take sharp turns to avoid cars but gentle steering. Indycars on full speed do not react like F1 cars, you cannot make sudden hard movements.

Compare it to this. Take a heavy object, connect it to a rope and start spinning it around very fast. now try to suddenly stop. That's the loss of control an indycar has only worse.

Simply put, braking hard was never ever an option for Wheldon, lifting was his best option to remain control and avoid.

(Indycar drivers are also told never to steer against a spin, you can ask Nelson Piquet why)

[Murraytastic]

We can 'forgive' the one at 00:42 because he had no time to brake.

The car at 00:42 is Wheldon.

[Gilles4Ever]

Please discuss the topic. If you have nothing to add to the discussion move along.
Do not discuss other posters or the validity of the thread.

[Vanishing Point]

As usual it is possible to apply fast road car logic on the autobahn to the track.Brake like your life depends on it because it probably does but DON'T lock the wheels because a car with locked wheels won't slow down as good as one without it's wheels locked up will and you've also got the option/chance of (trying) to steer the thing away from the problem using whatever room you've got at either side of you.However as I've said on the other topic the idea of 'close' bunched up racing with too many cars side by side removes that second option completely.The old Gilles Villeneuve idea of head straight for the scene of the accident because by the time you get there it will be gone doesn't really work at these types of speeds though.

Edited by Vanishing Point, 18 October 2011 - 16:06.

[Tifosi4ever]

What I think, is that this is pretty piss poor taste. After 9/11, did you post threads on BB's about the comparitive merits of throwing yourself out of the building, or staying and burning? Clearly, you have the benefit of post analysis to draw a conclusion, as opposed to the split second that the guy on the recieving end had.

As to the technicalities of braking on ovals, I know nothing about oval racing so won't comment. Judging by the responses of people who do know oval racing, you probably know about as much as me, so should also not comment.

I realise that I am probably just feeding the troll, but I think that there is a world of difference between, say going onto a Ferrari BB and posting "Alonso is ****", and going onto a motorsports forum and posting that a driver who died 2 days ago basically deserved it because you think you would have done better from your sofa. Are you a member of the Westboro Baptist Church by any chance?

[Ross Stonefeld]

A little bit of braking can help, but you can't brake too hard.

The one I thought made an error was Pippa Mann, who didn't slow down much at all. But in her defense I think she was going high and trying to keep her speed up to move around the accident unfolding right in front of her but didn't realise there was a second one behind it which she plowed into.

[Boing 2]

Even disregarding the unique aspects of ovals, locking a brake will slow you down less than keeping the wheels moving.

I haven't watched indycars since the late 90's but i can't remember them getting airbourne as often as these cars

[Zoe]

As usual it is possible to apply fast road car logic on the autobahn to the track.

I don't think this applies to the specifics of ovals. Correcting a loose rear end by applying opposite lock (which is a reflex with any well trained road car driver) will likely put you into the wall. Gordon Smiley was a quite deadly example of that.
As for heavy braking, it is a long time I watched open wheel oval track races, but if I remember correctly, that was what put Brundle (Blundell? can't separate those two) into the wall as well.

Just my $0.02

Zoe

[Victor_RO]

As for heavy braking, it is a long time I watched open wheel oval track races, but if I remember correctly, that was what put Brundle (Blundell? can't separate those two) into the wall as well.

If you mean the Rio '96 crash, that was Blundell, and to be fair, he didn't crash because of heavy braking, he crashed for the exact opposite reason (no brakes).

As for the topic, as others said, the cars are set up differently and behave differently on an oval compared to a normal track, and that includes slowing down.

[arknor]

As for heavy braking, it is a long time I watched open wheel oval track races, but if I remember correctly, that was what put Brundle (Blundell? can't separate those two) into the wall as well.

aslong as your braking and the wheels are still turning your slowing down far faster than no breaking at all but if your wheels lock up and you start sliding its pretty much like sliding across ice in terms of slowing effect

[Zoe]

If you mean the Rio '96 crash, that was Blundell, and to be fair, he didn't crash because of heavy braking, he crashed for the exact opposite reason (no brakes).

Oh, my bad. I thought I dimly remembered a trace of white smoke following his car into the outside barrier. However it's been 15 years and my memory today is 15 years worse than it was back then

Zoe

[cheapracer]

As usual it is possible to apply fast road car logic on the autobahn to the track.Brake like your life depends on it .....

...and turn left because that's what they do and do it too severely you go sideways and slide up the banking into the wall thats why they don't do it. The cars are setup to turn left not avoid accidents.

The old Gilles Villeneuve idea of head straight for the scene of the accident because by the time you get there it will be gone doesn't really work at these types of speeds though.

Was around a long time before Gilles was born.

[Ross Stonefeld]

And it really only works with stock cars on ovals, because the car will either move up or down the banking. In road racing the car can continue on a tangent to it's original line.

[rolf123]

A locked brake still has plenty of stopping power. I don't know the exact figure but it's of the order of 80%. It's not like a locked brake is only 10% effective as not locked.

Of course you can't steer while brakes are locked but that's another matter altogether. Just wanted to clear up a misconception here.

Now how about applying the brakes with the throttle still down? Do these ground effect cars have any diffusors because you could still keep rear end grip that way in an F1 car.

I think controlled braking could be effective but you are bound to cause accidents behind if you do and possibly get hit yourself.

[arknor]

A locked brake still has plenty of stopping power. I don't know the exact figure but it's of the order of 80%. It's not like a locked brake is only 10% effective as not locked.

Of course you can't steer while brakes are locked but that's another matter altogether. Just wanted to clear up a misconception here.

Now how about applying the brakes with the throttle still down? Do these ground effect cars have any diffusors because you could still keep rear end grip that way in an F1 car.

I think controlled braking could be effective but you are bound to cause accidents behind if you do and possibly get hit yourself.

but open wheel racing cars are so light they dont have the weight to give traction so they just skid across the floor unless they are facing straight and have the downforce pushing them into the ground

[Dolph]

Many will say it is too early to discuss this but this is a very important issue, regarding how much drivers are to blame for the crashes. And I have seen many posts mentioning this in threads that have a different topic. 'Bad luck', 'Racing incident', 'Can't be avoided'.

If you are too sensitive/emotional at the moment to discuss this in an analytical manner, maybe best to respond in a few days/week. If you will, respond to the content, not the poster

The IndyCar footage, graphic for some:



Watching this footage you see a few cars flying at high speeds, while others 'just' crash into each other and slow down massively.

What do those cars flying through the air at high speeds have in common? None of them braked heavily, locking brakes, to slow themselves down. They all went much faster than the others around them.

We can 'forgive' the one at 00:42 because he had no time to brake. But the one at 00:44 had enough time to brake (at 00:42 he sees the cars in front of him crashing, he did not brake for 2 seconds before he flew). 2 seconds of braking on these cars is a massive decrease in speed.

Wheldon can see the cars crashing at 00:42 and sees the car in front of him slowing down too yet refuses to brake and crashes at faster speed than anyone around him into him at 00:45 which catapults him. He had 3 seconds to brake and judge it...which is a huge decrease in speed with those cars.

Some people said that the best thing was to just go off the throttle and let the car slow down and wait for the crash....obviously it was not, the 3 cars flying did exactly that before the crash and one of them died.

When there is a massive crash like that in front of you and you have a couple of second before impact, the best you can do is push the brake pedal in with all you got. At those speeds and such short notice, you are not going to avoid them by turning the wheel. It makes no sense driving into cars which are already crashing or heavily slowing down with just throttle pedal released, especially if you are going faster than the car in front of you like Wheldon was.

Maybe the release throttle way works if you are the first in line (like you can actually see with a few drivers, although they still crash heavily), but the ones behind you definitely have to brake to avoid you. Wheldon was not first in line. He misjudged it, it was a mistake. Just like the second driver flying.

I know some will take offense at this, but I will respond in a few days to let people get their arguments in (not personal attacks, thanks).

Yes, they should have braked. However, when you jump on the brakes then they guy behind you will probably go flying.

Think of it this way. They are all in the pack still driving along. Suddenly someone jumpes on the brakes. How many airplanes will you be able to count?

[Dolph]

aslong as your braking and the wheels are still turning your slowing down far faster than no breaking at all but if your wheels lock up and you start sliding its pretty much like sliding across ice in terms of slowing effect

No its not. Tyres are still making contact with asphalt. Not ICE.

[rolf123]

but open wheel racing cars are so light they dont have the weight to give traction so they just skid across the floor unless they are facing straight and have the downforce pushing them into the ground

Downforce helps, yes, but don't underestimate the stopping power of skidding on tarmac. Look how effective the Tilke tarmac runoff areas are. They slow down cars spinning off the circuit very effectively.

[Madras]

Go and watch a few years of Indycar replays and learn that jamming on the brakes sends you up into the wall.

One of the oldest sayings is if you see a car spinning on track then head straight for it as it's likely not to be there when you get to it.

However in Wheldon's case which car should he aim for? The whole track had cars going everywhere and the worst thing he could do is jam on the brakes and add another out of control car with 10 cars behind him.

Oh really? That's worse than flying through the air and dying? Dont think so buddy.

[arknor]

No its not. Tyres are still making contact with asphalt. Not ICE.

minimal contact as the car will skip across the surface like a stone over water and asphalt run offs do so well because they are so massive

[P123]

When there is a massive crash like that in front of you and you have a couple of second before impact, the best you can do is push the brake pedal in with all you got. At those speeds and such short notice, you are not going to avoid them by turning the wheel. It makes no sense driving into cars which are already crashing or heavily slowing down with just throttle pedal released, especially if you are going faster than the car in front of you like Wheldon was.

Maybe the release throttle way works if you are the first in line (like you can actually see with a few drivers, although they still crash heavily), but the ones behind you definitely have to brake to avoid you. Wheldon was not first in line. He misjudged it, it was a mistake. Just like the second driver flying.

I think you have to take into account what the spotters are telling their drivers- they are an important extra pair of eyes for the driver when in traffic and when their are incidents.

Also, jumping on the brake pedal in no way diminishes the likelihood of aeroplane incidents in this kind of close pack racing. Everybody will have different reaction times, some will have a clearer view of what is ahead.

As for Wheldon making a mistake, I think you are wrong on that. It's easy with good old hindsight to suggest he should have done something differently, but at the time he was staying low and the main incident ahead was against the wall. Unfortunately for him there was another incident directly in front of him due to cars losing control trying to avoid the carnage on the outside, perhaps through heavy braking themselves. He didn't have a lot of time to react to that; certainly not the 3 seconds you talk of.

[chrisblades85]

Do we know whether any sort of debris could of hit him before hand. Possibly knocking him out or something, therefore hindering any sort of reaction that could of helped? Not that much could of?

I've only seen it once, so am not sure if anything hit him.

Edited by chrisblades85, 18 October 2011 - 21:30.

[Vanishing Point]

No its not. Tyres are still making contact with asphalt. Not ICE.

[Dolph]

minimal contact as the car will skip across the surface like a stone over water and asphalt run offs do so well because they are so massive

What? No!

[Dolph]

What you should be showing are two videos: One - the driver locks the brakes on asphalt. Two - the driver locks the brakes on ice. If those distances will be the same then I believe you guys if not then not. No sense in posting videos that do not prove what has been stated.

[Dolph]

Do we know whether any sort of debris could of hit him before hand. Possibly knocking him out or something, therefore hindering any sort of reaction that could of helped? Not that much could of?

I've only seen it once, so am not sure if anything hit him.

I don't think thats the case here.

[Vanishing Point]

What you should be showing are two videos: One - the driver locks the brakes on asphalt. Two - the driver locks the brakes on ice. If those distances will be the same then I believe you guys if not then not. No sense in posting videos that do not prove what has been stated.

If you'd have read what the post said it was 'pretty much like' sliding on ice.If a car can stop with enough efficiency,with locked wheels,the manufacturers wouldn't have bothered with developing ABS and there's plenty of drivers out there who've found out the hard way that a car will just slide and add a lot more than 20 % to the braking distance required by braking hard enough for the wheels to lock up,if a car isn't fitted with ABS,where they should have only braked hard enough to make sure that the wheels don't lock up when they've needed to get rid of a lot of speed in a short time and distance.

The point that needed to be made in this case was the difference between having locked wheels and not having locked wheels on the same road surface.

[manmower]

We can 'forgive' the one at 00:42 because he had no time to brake. But the one at 00:44 had enough time to brake (at 00:42 he sees the cars in front of him crashing, he did not brake for 2 seconds before he flew). 2 seconds of braking on these cars is a massive decrease in speed.

What's your age? Surely you realise two seconds on the replay doesn't equal two seconds in real life as it happened.

Wheldon can see the cars crashing at 00:42 and sees the car in front of him slowing down too yet refuses to brake and crashes at faster speed than anyone around him into him at 00:45 which catapults him. He had 3 seconds to brake and judge it...which is a huge decrease in speed with those cars.

Same as above, and also: if that's Wheldon I've been looking at the wrong car, but I'm thinking you're the one who's mistaken.

[jj2728]

At those speeds and in such close proximity, nothing will work. The driver is little more than a passenger. There was another bad accident, eerily similar to Dale Earnhardt's fatal crash at Daytona in 2001, when Jimmie Johnson crashed at the Charlotte race this past weekend. In the video you can see him lose control of the car, by the amount of tire smoke it seems that he is applying the brakes and steering into the skid, yet he still in the end loses it and hits the safer wall pretty much head on. I shudder to think what the outcome would have been without the safer barrier, and the Hans device. He was very fortunate.

[Vanishing Point]

At those speeds and in such close proximity, nothing will work. The driver is little more than a passenger. There was another bad accident, eerily similar to Dale Earnhardt's fatal crash at Daytona in 2001, when Jimmie Johnson crashed at the Charlotte race this past weekend. In the video you can see him lose control of the car, by the amount of tire smoke it seems that he is applying the brakes and steering into the skid, yet he still in the end loses it and hits the safer wall pretty much head on. I shudder to think what the outcome would have been without the safer barrier, and the Hans device. He was very fortunate.

In that case the tyre smoke is all from the rear wheels because he's lost traction/grip because of the corrections needed to run that close with the other cars in the bend at the back end not under braking and made a superman effort of trying to control the result.I think the result was probably better than what maybe could have happened if he hadn't applied opposite lock correction and went staight into the infield barrier instead from the point where the car first started sliding out at the back.

But it seems to be another example of the type of symptoms which are the result of the cause which is too much time spent in close side by side bunches instead of the ability to make fast clean overtaking moves.

[Dolph]

If you'd have read what the post said it was 'pretty much like' sliding on ice.If a car can stop with enough efficiency,with locked wheels,the manufacturers wouldn't have bothered with developing ABS and there's plenty of drivers out there who've found out the hard way that a car will just slide and add a lot more than 20 % to the braking distance required by braking hard enough for the wheels to lock up,if a car isn't fitted with ABS,where they should have only braked hard enough to make sure that the wheels don't lock up when they've needed to get rid of a lot of speed in a short time and distance.

The point that needed to be made in this case was the difference between having locked wheels and not having locked wheels on the same road surface.

You've obviously never braked/slid on ice. It's not even close. The point I made was: don't exaggerate.

[Vanishing Point]

You've obviously never braked/slid on ice. It's not even close. The point I made was: don't exaggerate.

I wasn't the one who actually said it was 'pretty much' like sliding on ice it was another poster who said that.However I agree with the general description.You've obviously never driven on a two lane autobahn at 150 mph + and had a truck pull out in front of you that's doing 50 mph or less with a car that doesn't have have ABS in which case the result will be a 'lot' worse than braking or sliding on ice at 30 mph if you don't get the braking inputs right.In addition to that I've had to brake enough times on ice so far during almost 40 years of driving in British winters.

[wingwalker]

At those speeds and in such close proximity, nothing will work. The driver is little more than a passenger. There was another bad accident, eerily similar to Dale Earnhardt's fatal crash at Daytona in 2001, when Jimmie Johnson crashed at the Charlotte race this past weekend. In the video you can see him lose control of the car, by the amount of tire smoke it seems that he is applying the brakes and steering into the skid, yet he still in the end loses it and hits the safer wall pretty much head on. I shudder to think what the outcome would have been without the safer barrier, and the Hans device. He was very fortunate.

He is not steering into a skid, he is doing all he can not to spin and applies opposite lock, but when the front tires finally bite back he turns violently in the other direction . Happens all the time in all sorts of racing categories, maybe not so much on ovals as proximity of the barrier makes spinning a safer option that hitting it nearly head on in case of overdoing the opposite lock, as seen here (or on the video with poor Gordon Smiley).

edit: what I can hardly believe is that he continued to drive the car after the hit!

Edited by wingwalker, 18 October 2011 - 23:55.

[Mauseri]

Well, the driver who crashed to others at highest speed difference, died. I see a clear logic there. When hitting someone to the rear, the speed difference is the most important deciding factor, how high to the air you will be sent.

But I don't really know how good chances he had to brake, his car does not look very loose coming to the situation, but he had a car in front of him which to follow and blocking his view. I think driving at those speeds your eyes are quite focused, and you don't really see everything what is happening around. It's much easier here looking at the slomo replay 10 times.

Edited by Bianchimont, 19 October 2011 - 00:55.

[rolf123]

He is not steering into a skid, he is doing all he can not to spin and applies opposite lock, but when the front tires finally bite back he turns violently in the other direction . Happens all the time in all sorts of racing categories, maybe not so much on ovals as proximity of the barrier makes spinning a safer option that hitting it nearly head on in case of overdoing the opposite lock, as seen here (or on the video with poor Gordon Smiley).

edit: what I can hardly believe is that he continued to drive the car after the hit!

The same thing.

The opposite lock is against a skid. Otherwise he'd just be turning right towards the wall.

[techspeed]

What do those cars flying through the air at high speeds have in common? None of them braked heavily, locking brakes, to slow themselves down. They all went much faster than the others around them.


When there is a massive crash like that in front of you and you have a couple of second before impact, the best you can do is push the brake pedal in with all you got. At those speeds and such short notice, you are not going to avoid them by turning the wheel. It makes no sense driving into cars which are already crashing or heavily slowing down with just throttle pedal released, especially if you are going faster than the car in front of you like Wheldon was.

You've absolutely no idea about Indycars or oval racing.

The whole reason the cars went flying was because the cars in front of them did brake hard, if they hadn't braked to avoid the first accident there would have only been 3 or 4 cars involved. When the cars brake hard they immediately turn hard left and go backwards into the wall. If you actually watch the video you will see the first accident slides up to the wall while everyone tries to go low to avoid it. The two cars behind Franchitti brake and spin left, right in front of everyone else, who then go through and over them.

[Talryyn]

Well sometimes in oval racing getting on the brakes will send you in to a spin, not sure about this track, or some tracks you push up into the wall though. It is normally discussed in the drivers' meeting how to handle braking in the turns in emergency situations. I guess one thing you can look at, if all the wheels were locked the cars would not have the ability to climb due to a rotating wheels.

[tec4]

At 220mph, braking distances are measured in 100 yards. Add to extreme speeds, driving from banked oval to straight track means an INDYcar is very close to flying and would fly if not for aerodynamics winged bodywork. The result is very similar to driving your car on black ice going into a cirved ramp at excessive speed.

This is why NASCAR stopped excessive speeds more than 10 years ago.

The 2012 Dallara is sold as even faster?? When will INDYcar get a clue! given years ago, at NASCAR tracks........?

[RoutariEnjinu]

For someone called Unbiased, the thread title is unashamedly biased. 'Right before crashing' is a biased statement written with the benefit of hindsight. May as well just change it to 'Before dying in a crash, should you do something different instead' and be done with it.

As 'unbiased' as FOX News is 'fair and balanced' and the Dear Leader is fair and has unparalleled wisdom.
Funny how the people that promote 'themselves' by certain principals often don't live up to them.

When you are mid-turn and there are cars maybe out of shape ahead, and cars maybe following close behind you too, an you're in a car on the edge, no set up for direction changes and biased to the cost of even straight line stability, instinct would tell me, as I can't see the future, to not make any sudden changes of momentum, to lift off smoothly and keep the car stable looking for a way through. If this doesn't work, it could get messy, but chances are you'll be OK, and the safety devices and equipment will do their job.

This guy had a freak death, not a freak accident. Many survived the exact same thing in the exact same accident.

As we don't know the future, as this man didn't, him braking hard to avoid his certain (now we know) death could have resulted in someone else dying further behind.

Hell maybe in a parallel universe, someone else ahead died, only for some genius to find a way to go back in time, to tell that guy to brake for his life which caused what happened in this universe to happen.

Mindless conjecture is fun isn't it.

Killed by chance physics in a dangerous event, where multiple people crashed in the same way and didn't die.

[Nikos Spagnol]

Did anybody noticed that, on the aerial view, after Wheldon's car gets airbone it collides with a spinning car mid-air and then hits the catchfencing?

Maybe if that car wasn't there, he could had landed and then slammed the wall, not the catchfencing, like Will Power did. It was really a lottery out there.

Racing in banked ovals with indycars is always dangerous, but poor Wheldon this time just had a terrible luck.

[wonk123]

Hi Unbiased, my first reaction was to give you a bit of a spray and basically flame you
BUT
I really don't blame you for being uniformed on this subject. Unless you have run on big ovals you have no idea what it is like.
I had a few practice days in Charlotte in the mid 90s and F&*k ME, it was so massively different from anything I had ever experienced. I was driving a stock car which is so different again to an open wheeler on a 28 degree banked track.
I was an idiot.. I turned up and thought TURN LEFT GO FAST...how hard could it be. I was pathetically slow and had to relearn everything I thought I knew.

A good example is to watch Marcos Ambrose, great Street course driver, was Champion in V8Supercars and amazing in Nascar on the road courses, but after 4 or 5 years over there still doesn't look threatening on Ovals.

I seem to remember (but may be totally wrong) there being talk of running a cart race at Charlotte around the time I was living there, but they tested a car and decided no way.

The big flat ovals seem pefect for these cars but they really did seem out of place at Vegas. I don't have the answer to your initial question, but I figure the guys driving have some clue what they are doing!!

[JBonnierII]

With cars running in excess of 200 Mph with the same distance between each other as if they were standing side by side on a parking lot, they would be standing on top of each other if they all braked at the same time. The lower the speed, the lower the distance given the time gap is still the same.*

Someone please correct me on this if I am wrong, but as far as I understand this is the reason for cars bunching up during braking. It's not about time to react towards someone in front of you, it's about having enough distance and there are rarely enough distance in oval racing for everyone being able to avoid a wreckage.

In any case, even if I am wrong, to slow a car down from such a tremendous speed, while at the same time having to make even the slightest steering corrections is not an easy thing to do. Cars are setup differently, someone who suffers from a slight oversteer tendency might not be as inclined to slam the brakes (which is not the thing to do anyways in oval racing) as someone who suffers from a slight understeer. As long as you can keep control of your car you try to keep control and I am pretty confident that's what everybody tried their best to do in Las Vegas, otherwise you are just a passenger. It's about self preservation.

*I retract from that statement… I was pushing my brain past its capacity apparently. There might be some truth to it somewhere, not sure if it applies under the conditions I stated though. Braking from the same braking point would somewhere along the line cause two cars to collide as the distance between them goes below the length of the vehicle. Braking at the same time from the same speed two vehicles should keep the distance between them once standing still.

Edited by JBonnierII, 20 October 2011 - 12:12.

[Peat]

This forum has been plumbing the depths of ignorance recently.

Driving a highly tuned race car around a high-banked oval is not like driving a Vauxhall Corsa on a motorway or supermarket carpark. Let's just get that straight before you base your assumptions of vehicle dynamics upon it.

Also, lets remember the time-frame in which this all happened. Multiple cars crashing at 220mph infront of you is alot of information to take in, process and decide on a due and proper course of action to take. You can sit in your comfy chair and analyse the ar$e out of it all you want crowing 'If i was him i would'a.................' but you just end up looking like a d!ck.

In a situation like that, you rely on instinct. An oval racers instinct is to 'go low' (You can often assume that crashing cars on a corner will go to the outside) and keep control of the vehicle by gradually getting out of the throttle. The cars are on, if not close to, the limit of adhesion. Any sudden inputs will disturb the car and your ability to control it. So the ludicrous DVLA cover-all of BRAKE IN ANY AND EVERY SITUATION would not help if you want a chance at controlling your own destiny. Also it should be noted that Dan was travelling into a wall of smoke and debris. Trying to pick a path through that is not easy, by the time he was confronted with Viso's rapidly decelerating KV car, he had no time to react.

The only crash within the incident that could provoke debate was Pippa Mann's huge wreck. She kept her foot in and tried to go around the outside of it all. But having watched it a few times, she had little choice but to try and shoot the ever decreasing gap as she had a wall of cars infront of her.

[BullHead]

Did anybody noticed that, on the aerial view, after Wheldon's car gets airbone it collides with a spinning car mid-air and then hits the catchfencing?

Maybe if that car wasn't there, he could had landed and then slammed the wall, not the catchfencing, like Will Power did. It was really a lottery out there.

Racing in banked ovals with indycars is always dangerous, but poor Wheldon this time just had a terrible luck.

Yeah, that was one of the first things I noticed. I'm surprised this observation has not come up before, not least by those in charge of this thing. I wouldn't be surprised if it is found that the critical car damage was actually done then, rather than the hit with the fence.