Re: Aeroscreen - Pato would have likely been just fine without given the angle of the hits, I initially thought ferruci had ramped off of the DEFLECTOR SHEILD but it was actually the nose beneath it.
However, Santino can probably be thankful for it. When he came down on the back of Pietro Fittipaldis' car, PF's rear wing end plates still mananged to intrude into the cockpit and appear to strike the very top of SF's helmet (removing the flailing air hose)
Yeah but it's not tit for tat with your own team mate.
Scott also did stick Will in the wall.
Both had a chance to make ground in the championship.
Oh I don't think Will did it in retaliation at all, just saying that while Scott was critical of Will's move he had his own 'Not Especially Smart' moment on Will at Laguna Seca.
But yeah, not good for the championship hopes for both of them - especially Scott's which are now finished. Which is why he was pretty pissed off...
Here is the Firestone lap chart. Looks like 25 laps was the most for the alternative green tires. At the time of the Power/McLaughlin collision, Scott was at the 25 lap mark with his greens. Was he struggling and Will thought he could pounce?
Here is the Firestone lap chart. Looks like 25 laps was the most for the alternative green tires. At the time of the Power/McLaughlin collision, Scott was at the 25 lap mark with his greens. Was he struggling and Will thought he could pounce? https://livetiming.net/firestone/
Almost certainly. The commentary team thought Scott might have issues, so why wouldn't the field?
Here is the Firestone lap chart. Looks like 25 laps was the most for the alternative green tires. At the time of the Power/McLaughlin collision, Scott was at the 25 lap mark with his greens. Was he struggling and Will thought he could pounce?
This is really interesting. Dixon did a big fuel save on the first stint to do an overcut, and then a shorter second stint on the alternates to protect track position, and then was on equal footing to everyone else basically on the final stint. Goes to show that while we often appreciate Dixon's fuel saving when we notice it at the end of the race, his team basically inverted the strategy and used the overcut at the start to attain track position which they felt he could defend over the short middle stint on alternates. And his fuel save was the early part of the stint, too, since he bagged the fastest lap of the race on his in-laps before the first stop.
No one else at CGR seemed to want to copy that strategy though. Palou ran short on the first stint on the best tire, and then did the longest stint in the race on the alternates, while Armstrong race short alternates, short used primaries and then long on primaries. Seems like they really did not have a "team" solution for making forward progress.
The only situation where there was a team doing the same thing was Herta and Kirkwood out front, and likely they were doing it that way because there was no incentive to do anything else when they were already winning.
That's the thing: when they're in the pack, Dixon and Palou don't simply move forward because of strategy. They make their strategies work for them through their core pace, and in turn their core pace gives them greater flexibility on the strategies they choose to deploy.
Herta has catapulted himself into title contention with his win, and not a moment too soon!
While definitely in the not good category, there was absolutely no comparison between Ferrucci's accident and Jeff Krosnoff's accident, aside from both occurring in Toronto, nor no comparison of the turn at Toronto to Lausitzring. The speed differences alone were drastically different.
I concur with Peat (and Dmitriy) about the aeroscreen not being any factor for Pato, but concur with Peat about it being potentially very helpful for Ferrucci.
I'm sure there were a lot of accidents where there was a very small probability that the aeroscreen made a difference, on the order of 1%-2% probability. Added together, maybe that adds up to one actual fatal accident prevented. However, I think people vastly underestimate how much of a confluence of bad luck was necessary to get a head injury before the days of aeroscreen, and any time they see anything within a foot of driver's head, they round up that 1% to 100%, and now the aeroscreen surely saved another life. The whole field would be dead without it by now.
Take a look at this accident from 2007: At 21 seconds, Dixon seems to run into Franchitti's airborne car with his head. Dixon wasn't even injured, yet surely the aeroscreen would've saved his life if it was on his car. His life would be saved again in 2017 at Indy by the aeroscreen, if he had it then as well. Newgarden would also surely be saved by aeroscreen when he had that Texas crash with Daly. Horrible luck did happen occasionally, poor Justin Wilson managed to get into just precisely the wrong place at precisely the wrong time. Low probability events would be impossible events if they never ever happened, so they happen sometimes, but most of the time they don't.
In the alternative universe where aeroscreen were not introduced, would some driver be killed there who is alive in this universe? Possibly, though not guaranteed. Would multiple drivers per season, every season, be killed? Absolutely not. There is no need to make bad arguments in support of a good position.
Low probability events would be impossible events if they never ever happened, so they happen sometimes, but most of the time they don't.
I think the closest we've come since, and exactly the scenario the aerosceen/halo's were designed for, was Calum Illot at Texas during practice when he took a bouncing suspension arm to the aeroscreen. (Link)
I think the closest we've come since, and exactly the scenario the aerosceen/halo's were designed for, was Calum Illot at Texas during practice when he took a bouncing suspension arm to the aeroscreen. (Link)
Yeah, I thought of that.
I also think the halo saved Grosjean's life at Bahrain, the cockpit went straight through the armco.
My complaint isn't about overpraising, it's about the internet being all about (over)reacting. I don't know what it is that leads to that, along with the pitchfork and torch approach to controversies. It's like a one-upmanship and mob mentality rolled into one.
It used to be that it could be dismissed as folks on the internet skewed much younger and hadn't witnessed many of the things older folks have. That was true for a long time, but it keeps happening, even with folks who have been on the internet for some time. It's as if it has become accepted behavior. The same happens with wild-ass speculation about everything that comes up.
It's also why I quickly quash errors, because the internet kicks the can so far down the road, so quickly, that things can get out of hand in record time.
And, now, before anyone else says it: get off my lawn!
Your lawn must be rather brown by now Jim… it’s late July.
Eh, the complex I currently live in runs sprinklers seemingly 24 hours a day to make it green for the really old folk, which made trying to move a nightmare. Plus, mushrooms and tons of bugs, ranging from gnats to nice puddles for mosquitoes to breed in (sigh). But, the nearby grasslands have been golden for a couple of months. The nearest patch burned a bit over a month ago, 300 acres quickly in a fast moving fire. Fortunately, the firefighters got it just before it got to the housing tracts. This time.
Over three weeks to the next race. If we must digress, let's not make it lawn care . . .
It was nature and wild grasses, but...it does remind me of the "kicking the can down the road" part of my earlier post
Oh, and let me also add that since I don't have Peacock, I only found out about the race from you folks here. Thank you for your coverage. My stating that I do not subscribe to Peacock isn't a whine, complaint or anything other than stating a fact. Onward to the former Gateway.
I listened to Toronto on IMS radio. Brought back memories of my first Indy car experiences, knowing dad was at the Indy 500 and listening to it with my brother out back by the garage.