A lot of praise to go around today.... then there is stanton

[SarahFan]

pretty darn good race today... dicey action and alot of pace ...


then there was stanton.... sorry he just doesn't belong when there are quality race wining drivers on the sidelines and young lions in waiting

[harvick#1]

sorry he just doesn't belong when there are quality race wining drivers on the sidelines and young lions in waiting

aren't there quite abit in the same boat though ;)

[Hoop-98]

Actually I think he was pretty good as slow drivers go. Didn't get happy feet when being lapped as is so common.

I'd rather see one more good driver in, but I have seen many a lot more dangerous at that speed.


rh

[SarahFan]

hoop... you have a breakdown of driver positions per lap

[Hoop-98]

hoop... you have a breakdown of driver positions per lap

http://www.imscdn.com/pdfs/timing_scoring/2009/reports/indycarseries/stpete/indycar-race-lapchart.pdf


rh

[SarahFan]

Actually I think he was pretty good as slow drivers go. Didn't get happy feet when being lapped as is so common.

I'd rather see one more good driver in, but I have seen many a lot more dangerous at that speed.


rh

I was watching at turn 8 and OMG!! It was an adventure almost every time by! It shouldn't have been since he was consistently running by himself..LOL

^blatantly stole from a poster on another board

[SarahFan]

http://www.imscdn.com/pdfs/timing_scoring/2009/reports/indycarseries/stpete/indycar-race-lapchart.pdf


rh

thanks

[seppefan]

Poor guy. Totally out of his depth but we knew this before the season began. I am sure all the other drivers love him being around .....

[garyshell]

Hey, someone has to take on the Milka/Marty role.

Gary

[Lousada]

Actually I think he was pretty good as slow drivers go. Didn't get happy feet when being lapped as is so common.

I'd rather see one more good driver in, but I have seen many a lot more dangerous at that speed.


That was exactly what I was thinking. He was getting better all through the weekend. He is nothing like Marty Roth last year.

[SarahFan]

That was exactly what I was thinking. He was getting better all through the weekend. He is nothing like Marty Roth last year.

he ran last in every session and ran last on the track....

how did he get better?

[Hoop-98]

he ran last in every session and ran last on the track....

how did he get better?

7 seconds off the pace to 3 seconds off the pace seems like improvement to me, he was 1/2 second off the next slowest car in the race. Not singing his praises but I have seen far worse drives by back markers...

[SarahFan]

were you there hoop?

just curios

[SarahFan]

how far off the pace was hiro when he prompted the now famous moving chicane comment from emmo?

[Hoop-98]

how far off the pace was hiro when he prompted the now famous moving chicane comment from emmo?

Nope wasn't there, just don't think the guy is anywhere near as bad as many tail enders I have seen IMHO...

Lot's more to see at this race (on tv) than SB.

jm2c
rh

[SarahFan]

Lot's more to see at this race (on tv) than SB.

jm2c
rh

I agree 100%....

it's just combined with last in everysession including testing combined with the only time we saw him was spinning or being passed certainly regulates himto the current moving chicane....

[bblocker68]

I'm willing to give him a few races before I judge him. I'm sure these cars are all new to him. Hopefully he'll get better.

Now, Ed Carpenter..............

[NickFalzone]

He's come over from NASCAR, I don't think anyone expected him to do particularly well on the roads and streets. He should do OK on the ovals depending on how good Beck's equipment is. Personally I don't think the IRL should be letting him run the roads and streets until he gets more experience, even in lights cars. That said, he did finish 12th yesterday.

[trinksuk]

heard on the team radio while under the last but one caution from Stanton....

'of the all the **** I have done - this is the ***** coolest thing I have ever done!' or words to that effect!

sounds like he was enjoying himself out there. Considering his very limited experience in an IndyCar or any other single seater and Team 3G's lack of regular experience in the series I don't think he did too badly. Maybe when Scheckter comes on board (as anticipated) he will have a team mate that can help him figure out what to do.

A couple of other more experienced drivers did not exactly cover themselves in glory yesterday.....

[anthonyvop]

I have already sent the "Dennis Vitolo Moving Speedbump" Award to the trophy maker to have Barrett's named engraved.

[SportscarBruce]

I was hoping Stanton would finish without incident in order to give a good job shoutout to a NASCAR crossover. The more participation the better far as I'm concerned, I don't care if they come from stock cars, Formula Euro, or USAC, anyone who straps into an IndyCar and gives a good accounting of themselves deserves it IMO. But to be perfectly honest he was in waaaayy over his head and it showed as the race unfolded.

Now to go slightly O/T, if this was Milka Duno or Jon Herb in that car I have a feeling every mistake would be magnified....

[Marbles]

Sounds like most are willing to cut him a bit of slack thus far. No one's crowned him King yet!

[Mark in Oshawa]

Barrett wasn't a genius in NASCAR either but he isn't dangerous. Hey, you want full fields right now, you cant be picky.

I don't think we have the issues with him we do with Milka or Marty Roth. Give the guy time.....he shouldn't be in the car on a lot of levels but that isn't our call is it?

[peasant]

He didn't seem to ***** with the actual race much, which is way more than you can say for marty.

[Dr. Krogshöj]

He seems to be a nice enough guy and one can respect his enthusiasm. But I don't understand why he went to IndyCar straight away while there are a lot of development series around. A year in Indy Lights wouldn't have hurt.

[Mark in Oshawa]

He seems to be a nice enough guy and one can respect his enthusiasm. But I don't understand why he went to IndyCar straight away while there are a lot of development series around. A year in Indy Lights wouldn't have hurt.

He did the same in NASCAR. Went to the Cup series and tried to make races, the same as his dad did. No accounting for the mentality of the Barrett's. They don't do things in the conventional way and they have some talent, but it is hard to gauge how much when they don't use the conventional theories of how you are to make it to the top and end up on independent teams that they either own, or pay to race for.

Just the same, I am not comfortable with a lot of the inept drivers out there, but for whatever reason, I have a bit more faith in Barrett not causing havoc unlike Milka, Marty and a few others...

[SarahFan]

can we revisit this drivers performance yet?


or should we wait until after Texas.....

[peasant]

can we revisit this drivers performance yet?


or should we wait until after Texas.....

He has to get over his back problems yet. chalk another one up to the Dallara??

[beachbum]

can we revisit this drivers performance yet?


or should we wait until after Texas.....Sure why not. Now that Lazier is in the car, perhaps the real problem is more obvious - the car. Some people are very quick to both give a driver credit when they have a great car and run fast, and pummel a driver when they are driving a POS and are slow. At Kansas, Stan out qualified RHR. At Texas, RHR managed to out qualify Lazier in the same car. Yup has to be the driver. I don't see a cry to yank RHR because he is very slow.


chalk another one up to the Dallara?? Why? Because Stan chose to set out Texas? He had a very hard hit, and unlike you, me, and most drivers, he is in a occupation (stunt work) where even a minor back injury could severely limit his career. He is probably just a bit more careful about taking care of himself.

The Dallara has proven to be very safe, but as many have pointed out, when you add safety, eventually a new problem area shows up. In an older car, we wouldn't be taking about Vitor's back, we would more likely be posting memorials or wondering if he would walk again. All modern open wheel cars put a stress on the back in a crash. Ask PT

[SarahFan]

hes ran last at every session this year except 1....qulified dead last twice, second to last once...got bumped from Indy....was running last when he put it into the wall at Milwaukee and didn't start...

and your excuse is it must be the car because lazier is slow this weekend


ok.... sounds like he gets a few more races... I'll bump this thread in July then

[peasant]

The Dallara has proven to be very safe, but as many have pointed out, when you add safety, eventually a new problem area shows up. In an older car, we wouldn't be taking about Vitor's back, we would more likely be posting memorials or wondering if he would walk again. All modern open wheel cars put a stress on the back in a crash. Ask PT

Seriously, that's garbage. Those dallaras have never been particularly safe, they tend to fly, and they break a lot of backs. They've been improved a bit, but they could definitely be better.

[peasant]

hes ran last at every session this year except 1....qulified dead last twice, second to last once...got bumped from Indy....was running last when he put it into the wall at Milwaukee and didn't start...

and your excuse is it must be the car because lazier is slow this weekend


ok.... sounds like he gets a few more races... I'll bump this thread in July then

I think we have to give him a few more. He's never been as bad as lazier was at texas. He improved massively on his initial roadcourses, and he seems to have a clue on not affecting the race as a backmarker. Which some of fools that have been out there don't have. And you have to seriously wonder about the quality of that car.

[NickFalzone]

I agree, until they put another driver in that car that runs better than Stanton, I'm going give him the benefit of the doubt. Lazier certainly did not make much of it at Texas. I don't think Barrett is a great driver, but he's learning and just have a hunch that he's probably at least at the level of a Duno or Conway on the ovals and was getting better each time he went out.

[peasant]

I agree, until they put another driver in that car that runs better than Stanton, I'm going give him the benefit of the doubt. Lazier certainly did not make much of it at Texas. I don't think Barrett is a great driver, but he's learning and just have a hunch that he's probably at least at the level of a Duno or Conway on the ovals and was getting better each time he went out.

I suspect hell be a hell of lot better than Duno all round - but that's not saying anything at all.

As for conway, he really has been distinctly underwhelming.

[NickFalzone]

I was really just saying that Barrett skill-wise is on the level of the backmarkers, though as you said I suspect he's probably a little better. Conway has shown a few flashes of skill out there, but for the most part he doesn't have the experience to be driving at this level. Although D&R's equipment hasn't been so great, when Scheckter gets in one of their cars several races into the season and straight off is finishing 6 or 8 positions ahead of his teammates in both races, clearly there's some disparity in talent.

[beachbum]

Seriously, that's garbage. Those dallaras have never been particularly safe, they tend to fly, and they break a lot of backs. They've been improved a bit, but they could definitely be better.Sure, whatever you say. I think a few people like Vitor or Kanaan may disagree with the safety claim. And just how many backs have they broken? Remember, the DP01 so loved by the other crowd put PT in the hospital with what? A broken back.

The other thing to remember is Stan makes his real living as a stunt man. As such, he must be acutely aware how some injuries must be treated with respect. He doesn't say anywhere he broke his back, just that is was injured. Right now, you could say the same about Jeff Gordon who is suffering serious back problems. (you know those COT cars just break backs. We do know they fly, almost over the fence) Jeff has to drive, Stan doesn't.

Anyone in a slow car, even Lazier, can't avoid being in the way of other cars. At Texas, the in-cars showed how many times he caused potentially serious avoidance as he suddenly appeared in the low line well off the pace. Even a good shoe like Lazier can't take a **** like the 3G car and make it anything other than a rolling road block. Blame the car, not the driver.

Now in the case of Roth last year, he had good cars. He just couldn't drive.

[peasant]

Sure, whatever you say. I think a few people like Vitor or Kanaan may disagree with the safety claim. And just how many backs have they broken? Remember, the DP01 so loved by the other crowd put PT in the hospital with what? A broken back.

1996
Series Driver Venue Type Injury

1. IRL Butch Brickell Disney Oval Broken Neck
6. IRL Buddy Lazier Phoenix Oval Broken back
7. IRL Scott Brayton Indy Oval FATALITY

1997
Series Driver Venue Type Injury

1. IRL Eliseo Salazar Disney Oval Broken Back (Thoracic compression fracture)
4. IRL Sam Schmidt Phoenix Oval Spinal Fracture (Thoracic compression fracture)
13. IRL Jim Guthrie Colorado Oval Broken Back (Thoracic compression fracture?)


1999 Series Driver Venue Type Injury
1. IRL Stan Wattles Atlanta Oval Broken back
5. IRL Robby Unser Texas Oval Back Injury/Hospitalized


2000
Series Driver Venue Type Injury

1. IRL Sam Schmidt Disney Oval Paralyzed/Broken Neck
2. IRL Davey Hamilton Disney Oval Hospitalized/Back Injury
3. IRL Jacques Lazier Disney Oval Broken Back (Thoracic compression fracture)

2001
Series Driver Venue Type Injury
5. IRL Scott Goodyear Indy Oval Fractured Vertebrae (Thoracic compression fracture)

2002
Series Driver Venue Type Injury

2. IRL Anthony Lazzaro Phoenix Oval Fractured Vertebrae (Thoracic compression fracture)
4. IRL Eliseo Salazar Indy Oval Torn Artery/Broken back (Thoracic compr. fracture)
5. IRL Jacques Lazier Nazareth Oval Broken Back (2nd Thoracic compression fracture)
8. IRL P.J. Jones Indy Oval Fractured Neck

2003
Series Driver Venue Type Injury

1. IRL Gil de Ferran Phoenix Oval Concussion & Fractured Vertebrae
2. IRL Roger Yasukawa Phoenix Oval Back Pain, kept overnight
5. IRL Craig Dollansky Indy Oval Broken lower back
6 IRL Arie Luyendyk Indy Oval Unspecified injuries to upper back
10. IRL Tom Wood (IPS) Kentucky Oval Broken middle back, right knee, right foot & both ankles
11 IRL Sarah Fisher Nazareth Oval Airlifted, Contusion of the back
12 IRL Kenny Brack Texas Oval Broken back, femur, ankles, sternum
13 IRL Tony Renna Indy Testing Oval FATALITY 10/22/03

2005
Series Driver Venue Type Injury

3. IRL Paul Dana Indianapolis Oval Compression fractures of 2 vertebra
4. IRL Buddy Rice Indianapolis Oval Concussion, severe back contusions, partially torn spinal ligament
5. IRL Bruno Junqueira Indianapolis Oval Concussion, Broken back, broken ankle
6. IRL Larry Foyt Indianapolis Oval Chipped vertebra
7. IRL Tomas Enge Nashville Oval Fractures to his T-12 and L-1 vertebra
8. IRL Ryan Briscoe Chicagoland Oval Fractures to both clavicles, bad concussion, bruised lung, broken foot, damage to his T1 and T2 vertebra, trouble breathing

that edited list good enough for you?? (thanks Kal)

Why don't you cut the crap, thats a whole lot of back injuries. Particularly large numbers in 2003 and 05. When was the new Dallara introduced??



The other thing to remember is Stan makes his real living as a stunt man. As such, he must be acutely aware how some injuries must be treated with respect. He doesn't say anywhere he broke his back, just that is was injured. Right now, you could say the same about Jeff Gordon who is suffering serious back problems. (you know those COT cars just break backs. We do know they fly, almost over the fence) Jeff has to drive, Stan doesn't.

Anyone in a slow car, even Lazier, can't avoid being in the way of other cars. At Texas, the in-cars showed how many times he caused potentially serious avoidance as he suddenly appeared in the low line well off the pace. Even a good shoe like Lazier can't take a t*rd like the 3G car and make it anything other than a rolling road block. Blame the car, not the driver.

Now in the case of Roth last year, he had good cars. He just couldn't drive.

I didn't say stanton had broken his back. But you've got to wonder exactly how bad it is. I like stanton, I hope he does well, he's a way more interesting character than most sportspeople. I suspect that 3g Car is as you described a ****, laziers performance at texas suggests that may be the major problem.

[beachbum]

Ok, you made a point. You REALLY don't like the Dallara, to the point of including the old cars, and any back or serious injury. But since statistics can be interpreted many ways, equally "logical" conclusions from your list include: people should never race on an oval, and Indy will "break your back".

But look at the physics. With the current cars and setups, the current cars tend to spin and hit the wall backwards. With the very high G's, the back is vulnerable. You statistics do show that, especially since most accidents at Indy involve a car hitting backwards. To be fair, your should include all hits where there were no injuries.

To blame the injuries on the car and not the nature of the crash is irresponsible. Since there is no way to compare the performance of the Dallara in such an impact to any other car, (since no cars in any other series face the same type and severity of impact) listing the incidents where no injuries occurred could "prove" the Dallara protects the drivers in a rear impact. That is an equally bogus deduction.

If you bothered to watch the Versus coverage before Indy, you may have seen a segment where they discussed back injuries and how much the IRL is doing in that area. The official explained that they could identify a number of causes, particularly seat construction and design. A very simple flaw in the seat construction could seriously effect its ability to protect in a crash. Even something as simple as the headrest could have a major impact on injuries. (Robby Buhl cringed when that was mentioned, as DRR had an old design in Conway's car when he crashed)

You obviously have never done any failure analysis. Suggesting the car is the only factor when you haven't seen the impacts, the forces involved, or the seats contribution to protection or damage, or any other factor is just showing your bias. I haven't seen all of the crash data either, so I can't made a logical deduction about the cause of injuries in any Indy car crash.

Racing cars in these conditions is very dangerous. People are going to get hurt. How they get hurt changes as safety improvements are added. Just as some cars were blamed for foot injuries some years ago, cold analysis pinned the problems on the location of the feet in front of the wheel and the rules pertaining to foot box design. Now that those areas are improved, we are seeing back injuries becoming the more common injury.

As I said in the first post, if the Dallara wasn't as safe as it is, we wouldn't be talking about Vitor's back, we would be mourning his passing. But carry on, it is an interesting rant.



1996
Series Driver Venue Type Injury

1. IRL Butch Brickell Disney Oval Broken Neck
6. IRL Buddy Lazier Phoenix Oval Broken back
7. IRL Scott Brayton Indy Oval FATALITY

1997
Series Driver Venue Type Injury

1. IRL Eliseo Salazar Disney Oval Broken Back (Thoracic compression fracture)
4. IRL Sam Schmidt Phoenix Oval Spinal Fracture (Thoracic compression fracture)
13. IRL Jim Guthrie Colorado Oval Broken Back (Thoracic compression fracture?)


1999 Series Driver Venue Type Injury
1. IRL Stan Wattles Atlanta Oval Broken back
5. IRL Robby Unser Texas Oval Back Injury/Hospitalized


2000
Series Driver Venue Type Injury

1. IRL Sam Schmidt Disney Oval Paralyzed/Broken Neck
2. IRL Davey Hamilton Disney Oval Hospitalized/Back Injury
3. IRL Jacques Lazier Disney Oval Broken Back (Thoracic compression fracture)

2001
Series Driver Venue Type Injury
5. IRL Scott Goodyear Indy Oval Fractured Vertebrae (Thoracic compression fracture)

2002
Series Driver Venue Type Injury

2. IRL Anthony Lazzaro Phoenix Oval Fractured Vertebrae (Thoracic compression fracture)
4. IRL Eliseo Salazar Indy Oval Torn Artery/Broken back (Thoracic compr. fracture)
5. IRL Jacques Lazier Nazareth Oval Broken Back (2nd Thoracic compression fracture)
8. IRL P.J. Jones Indy Oval Fractured Neck

2003
Series Driver Venue Type Injury

1. IRL Gil de Ferran Phoenix Oval Concussion & Fractured Vertebrae
2. IRL Roger Yasukawa Phoenix Oval Back Pain, kept overnight
5. IRL Craig Dollansky Indy Oval Broken lower back
6 IRL Arie Luyendyk Indy Oval Unspecified injuries to upper back
10. IRL Tom Wood (IPS) Kentucky Oval Broken middle back, right knee, right foot & both ankles
11 IRL Sarah Fisher Nazareth Oval Airlifted, Contusion of the back
12 IRL Kenny Brack Texas Oval Broken back, femur, ankles, sternum
13 IRL Tony Renna Indy Testing Oval FATALITY 10/22/03

2005
Series Driver Venue Type Injury

3. IRL Paul Dana Indianapolis Oval Compression fractures of 2 vertebra
4. IRL Buddy Rice Indianapolis Oval Concussion, severe back contusions, partially torn spinal ligament
5. IRL Bruno Junqueira Indianapolis Oval Concussion, Broken back, broken ankle
6. IRL Larry Foyt Indianapolis Oval Chipped vertebra
7. IRL Tomas Enge Nashville Oval Fractures to his T-12 and L-1 vertebra
8. IRL Ryan Briscoe Chicagoland Oval Fractures to both clavicles, bad concussion, bruised lung, broken foot, damage to his T1 and T2 vertebra, trouble breathing

that edited list good enough for you?? (thanks Kal)

Why don't you cut the crap, thats a whole lot of back injuries. Particularly large numbers in 2003 and 05. When was the new Dallara introduced??

I didn't say stanton had broken his back. But you've got to wonder exactly how bad it is. I like stanton, I hope he does well, he's a way more interesting character than most sportspeople. I suspect that 3g Car is as you described a t*rd, laziers performance at texas suggests that may be the major problem.

[peasant]

But look at the physics. With the current cars and setups, the current cars tend to spin and hit the wall backwards. With the very high G's, the back is vulnerable. You statistics do show that, especially since most accidents at Indy involve a car hitting backwards. To be fair, your should include all hits where there were no injuries.




To blame the injuries on the car and not the nature of the crash is irresponsible. Since there is no way to compare the performance of the Dallara in such an impact to any other car, (since no cars in any other series face the same type and severity of impact) listing the incidents where no injuries occurred could "prove" the Dallara protects the drivers in a rear impact. That is an equally bogus deduction.



You're contradicting yourself pal.

This has been gone into in many places b4. There have been major prblems with back injuries and the cars taking flight. Issues which the IRL were extremely slow to address. I don't ever recall an issue with the structural soundness of the car being discussed.

Yes the cars spin and tend to hit backwards, yes they fly - but they're safe because they are strong? strange argument.

BTW, if you're gonna make a reply, could you make it a lot shorter and to the Point?
Long posts seem to me just a technique to bore a person you disagree with to silence.

[beachbum]

You're contradicting yourself pal.
BTW, if you're gonna make a reply, could you make it a lot shorter and to the Point?
Long posts seem to me just a technique to bore a person you disagree with to silence.No problem.

[chuck34]

Peasant, your rant against the Dallara doesn't make much sence. Racing is dangerous, and the Dallara has been racing for years. You including '96 in your little rant just proves one thing, you don't like the IRL and are trying to blame them for anything you can think of. The DP01 was pretty crappy for safety as far as I could tell. PT hitting the wall AT 30 MILES AN HOUR, breaking his back, and being out for weeks, isn't something I'd be too proud of.

Plus this doesn't start and end with Dallara. Panoz had it's share of problems. As well as Lola, remember all the foot problems in the early 90's? Not to mention all the stuff "way back".

Racing is dangerous, and EVERYONE is working to improve safety. And like Bum says, a few years ago we may have been mourning Vitor and TK.

[chuck34]

I didn't notice any contradictions in that post. Pretty well thought out and worded. As for cars taking flight, any one watch any F1 races over the same period of time?

The 1st gen IRL car did leave a lot to be desired, and the IRL was perhaps a bit tardy addressing it. The newer one is substantially better.

Oh and you forgot to mention PT's accident that put him out for a few races. A back injury if I recall and it happened at substantially lower speed then any of the IRL crashes.

Not picking on you, just trying and be fair.

Don't forget the Merc cars at LeMans in '99, or ALL the P1 cars just last year. How could anyone get in those death traps?

[peasant]

No problem.

Excellent! Wheres the laugh smilie!!

[peasant]

Talking about the DP01 in a discussion about the dallara? Isn't that Known as deflection??

And I'll concede I shouldn't have gone so far back with those stats, I couldn't remember when the dallara came out, and I was lazy about checking the date. Sorry about that.

Doesn't get away from the issues.

[peasant]

I didn't notice any contradictions in that post. Pretty well thought out and worded. As for cars taking flight, any one watch any F1 races over the same period of time?

The 1st gen IRL car did leave a lot to be desired, and the IRL was perhaps a bit tardy addressing it. The newer one is substantially better.

Oh and you forgot to mention PT's accident that put him out for a few races. A back injury if I recall and it happened at substantially lower speed then any of the IRL crashes.

Not picking on you, just trying and be fair.

Wah you are picking on me, mummy!!




But look at the physics. With the current cars and setups, the current cars tend to spin and hit the wall backwards.



To blame the injuries on the car and not the nature of the crash is irresponsible.


That's contradictory. The cars tend to spin, causing rear impacts. But the car isn't responsible for the the injuries that are caused by' the nature of the crash'??????? Explain that one please.

[beachbum]

Excellent! Wheres the laugh smilie!!I wasn't laughing.

[peasant]

I wasn't laughing.

That's alright I was.

[CCWS77]

Ask yourself why Katherine Legge's crash at Road America, in which her car disintegrated, was less injurious to her then was Paul Tracy's crash at lower speed? If your answer is the car was different that year you are biased and dumb. PT crashed directly into a wall and came to immediate stop. This is totally non comparable to a crash in which you bounce off something and slow down over time. Hopefully race cars are designed so the driver can survive the second even if initial impact was 250MPH. The former is probably fatal above what 40?, no matter what you do to the car.

The point is risk of hitting the wall at an angle on an oval in an expected outcome, cars should be designed for it or else that is failure. There is no way to plan for crashing straight into a wall unless you are building a tank not a racecar.

[chuck34]

Talking about the DP01 in a discussion about the dallara? Isn't that Known as deflection??

And I'll concede I shouldn't have gone so far back with those stats, I couldn't remember when the dallara came out, and I was lazy about checking the date. Sorry about that.

Doesn't get away from the issues.

It's not known as deflection. It's known as comparing "state of the art". Sure we would all like race cars to be more safe. And the engineers are moving to that every day. But you must know what you are comparing to. In comparison to ANYTHING else out there today, I would say that the Dallara is probably the safest.

If it wasn't the safest and they weren't doing anything about it, you would have a point. But it is just about the safest race car out, if not the safest oval racing car ever, and they are making changes EVERYDAY to make it SAFER. So I am missing your point completely, I guess.

And adding in the '96 stats is not only lazy, it was stupid. Sorry to come down on you, but you were bashing someone for not having the "facts" then you screw something so obvious like that? Come on man.

What is your issue? I can't seem to find it. Other than you seem to want to bash the Dallara. Do you really have a point?

[peasant]

It's not known as deflection. It's known as comparing "state of the art". Sure we would all like race cars to be more safe. And the engineers are moving to that every day. But you must know what you are comparing to. In comparison to ANYTHING else out there today, I would say that the Dallara is probably the safest.

If it wasn't the safest and they weren't doing anything about it, you would have a point. But it is just about the safest race car out, if not the safest oval racing car ever, and they are making changes EVERYDAY to make it SAFER. So I am missing your point completely, I guess.

And adding in the '96 stats is not only lazy, it was stupid. Sorry to come down on you, but you were bashing someone for not having the "facts" then you screw something so obvious like that? Come on man.

What is your issue? I can't seem to find it. Other than you seem to want to bash the Dallara. Do you really have a point?

The point was stantons back pain, I wonder how bad it really is. And I suggested back injuries were common with the Dallara, (Actually they're over common in the IRL in general) - beachbum disagreed discussion ('cough cough')followed.

Of course you could re read what you didn't understand, Maybe you'll follow things better a 2nd time?

[chuck34]

The point was stantons back pain, I wonder how bad it really is. And I suggested back injuries were common with the Dallara, (Actually they're over common in the IRL in general) - beachbum disagreed discussion ('cough cough')followed.

Of course you could re read what you didn't understand, Maybe you'll follow things better a 2nd time?

Now that's what I call deflection. You didn't talk about any of the points I just made. Instead you try to insult my reading comprehension.

You went on a rant about how bad the Dallara is, and I mearly pointed out the fact that it is state of the art. How did I not follow what you were saying? Perhaps you should try to understand things a little more.

[peasant]

Now that's what I call deflection. You didn't talk about any of the points I just made. Instead you try to insult my reading comprehension.

You went on a rant about how bad the Dallara is, and I mearly pointed out the fact that it is state of the art. How did I not follow what you were saying? Perhaps you should try to understand things a little more.


Seriously, that's garbage. Those dallaras have never been particularly safe, they tend to fly, and they break a lot of backs. They've been improved a bit, but they could definitely be better.


You seriously call that a rant? 3 sentences? If you feel insulted take a look at an earlier post of yours refering to a post of mine as 'stupid'. Yes, it was pointed out I'd posted stats going to far back and including stats that weren't relevant. Fair enough, I've admitted that was wrong. But that doesn't dismiss the stats that were relevant. As far as I can see, those Dallars still tend to spin and hit arse first, increasing the chances of Broken backs, not state of the art in my opinion.

Now if you disagree, and have an engineering type of background or somesuch that you will use to explain to me something you feel I don't understand, feel free. I don't mind learning something new

If you disagree and don't have anything more to add other than your already stated disagreementS, how bout we leave it at we agree to disagree, and move on?

[chuck34]

You seriously call that a rant? 3 sentences? If you feel insulted take a look at an earlier post of yours refering to a post of mine as 'stupid'. Yes, it was pointed out I'd posted stats going to far back and including stats that weren't relevant. Fair enough, I've admitted that was wrong. But that doesn't dismiss the stats that were relevant. As far as I can see, those Dallars still tend to spin and hit arse first, increasing the chances of Broken backs, not state of the art in my opinion.

Now if you disagree, and have an engineering type of background or somesuch that you will use to explain to me something you feel I don't understand, feel free. I don't mind learning something new

If you disagree and don't have anything more to add other than your already stated disagreementS, how bout we leave it at we agree to disagree, and move on?

Aparently you miss the point of what "state of the art" means. It does not mean that it is perfect, not by any means. But it means that this car is about the best around right now. If you put any other car on a track like Indy we would probably have a lot more injuries.

It is not the Dallara's fault that they tend to hit "arse first", at least not at Indy. It has more to do with track design. Remember all the foot injuries that were happening in the early '90s? Now they are all back injuries. Think about what changed between then and now. They added the pit exit lane and took away the apron. That shortened up the distance from the apex to the wall. In the past the cars were able to spin around another half revolution, hitting feet first. Now they hit about half a revolution earlier, or arse first.

Look at a modern formula type car (Dallara, DP01, F1, FIL, FA, whatever) They are all layed out this way, driver, engine, transmission. The engine and transmission both have to be supper strong so that they can carry the suspension loads without flexing. So the "weak link" in this chain is the driver. That means that all the force is transmitted to him, and specifically right through his spine because of driver position.

There are two ways to mitigate the forces transmitted through a drivers spine in a rearward crash. One is to change the driver's position (sit him up straighter). But that isn't a good solution because you will probably just change the injuries from compression type to more shearing type. Plus it will seriously f' up the aero of the car.

The second way is to add more impact absorbing material between the driver and the point of impact. The IRL did this very early on by adding the crash attenuator to the back of the transmission. This doesn't really do much because it is really pretty small, and only works in direct rear situations. The other is to add crushable material in the driver's seat. If you've never seen an IndyCar seat, they basically look like a styrofoam cup molded to the driver's body. This crushes on impact, but lots of times it crushes completely down until it can't crush anymore, then all the forces just go straight to the driver again.

This is true of any modern rear engine formula car. It's just that Dallara has had more laps on high speed ovals over the past decade than any other car, so naturally, they have a higher percentage of injuries than any other car.

Sorry I got a bit snippy with you yesterday, I was having a bit of a bad day. And yes I am an engineer, but I don't work directly on these cars.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Chuck...you have laid out the case on WHY the guys are hitting the wall "arse first" at Indy very well, and you have given a very good analysis of the way the cars transmit that shock of hitting the wall to the spine. What I find fault with is this myth that the DP-01 couldn't take that same hit with the appropriate adds on for oval racing. An attenuator on the transmission, and some reinforcement and oval specific bits and pieces and there is likely little to choose from between a Dallara and a DP-01 safety wise. Modern race cars are over engineered and constantly being upgraded. There is NO rational reason at all to believe the DP-01 is any more dangerous than the Dallara. NONE.

That PT crash was not at 30mph, it was likely a lot higher than that and was a freak occurence. No race car is ever 100% safe. With the right circumstances on the race track and the right angles of impact, serious injury will be given to a driver if it is his misfortune to be in one of those rare accidents. One only has to watch video of the death of Krosnoff at Toronto to get that. The Indycar Lola was as tough a race car as you would want, and was designed to run at Indy, yet once airborne it hit a light standard and cracked open like a broken egg. There are no ways to make any race car 100% safe, so to say that the DP-01 is more dangerous than the Dallara is a bit of reach since they never have raced on the same tracks. Furthermore, in your defense of the Dallara and what the IRL did, you point out that they constantly upgrade. The Panoz never really was given that chance either.

Now....as for Stanton and his back, I wish the guy well, but I don't think he belongs behind the wheel of an IRL car talent wise, but who is to say the team isn't the problem either?

This is the whole problem with OW racing now. We argue half the time about who shouldn't be there, and the people in question wouldn't be there if OW racing was truly healthy.

[chuck34]

Mark, I am going off of my memory (I know that's a dangerous thing) when I say that the DP-01 was not designed for oval racing. So in all honesty I don't KNOW that the DP-01 would be any less safe (and I'm not sure I said that, or at least I didn't mean to). I based that on my memory of Panoz saying that it wasn't designed for ovals. I don't know exaclty what all goes into making a car "safe" for ovals, but I assume that there is some extra room in the cockpit for seat padding (that was one of the issues with PT's crash along with the belts), the sidepods probably are a bit more crushable, etc. But again I don't KNOW this, I'm going off of what I thought Panoz had said. If I've gotten that wrong then I'm sorry.

I completely understand that no race car is 100% safe. I hope I didn't come across as saying they were 100% safe because I have actually been arguing that same point. Peasant seems to be trying to say they should be 100% safe. And I hope that I wasn't implying that the DP-01 would be less safe because like I said, I don't know that. I assumed based on manufacturer recomendations.

As for Stanton, I agree. I hope that he gets well and then sticks to his stunt work. Or at least goes and runs Atlantics or Lights or something else before trying the "big" cars again.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Mark, I am going off of my memory (I know that's a dangerous thing) when I say that the DP-01 was not designed for oval racing. So in all honesty I don't KNOW that the DP-01 would be any less safe (and I'm not sure I said that, or at least I didn't mean to). I based that on my memory of Panoz saying that it wasn't designed for ovals. I don't know exaclty what all goes into making a car "safe" for ovals, but I assume that there is some extra room in the cockpit for seat padding (that was one of the issues with PT's crash along with the belts), the sidepods probably are a bit more crushable, etc. But again I don't KNOW this, I'm going off of what I thought Panoz had said. If I've gotten that wrong then I'm sorry.

I completely understand that no race car is 100% safe. I hope I didn't come across as saying they were 100% safe because I have actually been arguing that same point. Peasant seems to be trying to say they should be 100% safe. And I hope that I wasn't implying that the DP-01 would be less safe because like I said, I don't know that. I assumed based on manufacturer recomendations.

As for Stanton, I agree. I hope that he gets well and then sticks to his stunt work. Or at least goes and runs Atlantics or Lights or something else before trying the "big" cars again.


You and I are having this discussion on the other thread, so I wont bury you in the same thoughts entirely but let me just say that the politics of what was going on with the IRL vs CCWS at the time was a factor in what might have been said. Champ Car was trying to sell this new car as a new start and they were done with ovals because they were turning their back on what the IRL and ovals represented. That was the WORDS...but you can bet they built in enough structure and crushable space to take a hit that an oval might give this car. You and I both watched Indy this year, and this "safe" Dallara broke Vitor Meira's back. I don't blame the Dallara for this injury and I don't blame the DP-01 for PT's back issue at Long Beach.

The DP-01 is basically an updated version of the Lola in dimensions, and safety structures. The Lola that last raced at Indy in 97 may not have been as safe as the Dallara, but by small degrees. MAYBE. All these modern carbon fibre monocoques are designed to give the maximum amount of protection to the driver as possible, REGARDLESS of where the car is raced. They do NOT design a car to crash on an oval, they design it to CRASH. PERIOD. AT high speeds may I add. They don't design a car like this and think "oh it will never go THAT fast and smack a wall on a 45 degree angle". They design it for every possible crash scenario because no one can say for sure what uses that car may have 2 years from now.

The only parts I suspect that might need redesigning would be the aero bits and maybe some packaging depending on whether the power plant changed or not. The basic tub does the same job that the Dallara's tub does.

Chuck, I respect you are an engineer, so you have to maybe think a little about this. In your job, you often design things to do more than what is required. You can bet the boys who designed this car would do the same.

Hoop should wade in on this at some point, since he follows it closer.

[chuck34]

Mark, I agree that what was said at the time may not have been the truth. That makes sence. Who knows what's real? Probably no one here does.

You make a good point about over designing. But it is done on both cars. The max speeds seen on road courses are, lets say 200mph. So you are going to design a car that can take, I don't know, 20% more, or 220mph. The max speeds seen at Indy are about 240mph. So you take the same 20% "overage" and come up with 268mph. Then convert that to energy (like I did on the other thread) and come up with 32.6% more energy at Indy than on a road course. That is significant.

Now I'm not saying that the DP01 couldn't handle this. Maybe it can. I'm also not saying that the Panoz designers didn't design for the specific case of Indy, which would honestly made a lot of sence. All I have to go on is my recolection that the Panoz designers said at the time that it was not designed for ovals. And I remember thinking that was a dumb thing to do. That's why I remember it so well, because I thought it was such a short sighted thing to do. However, I can't find any articles that say one way or the other now, so I must submit that I am probably wrong.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Mark, I agree that what was said at the time may not have been the truth. That makes sence. Who knows what's real? Probably no one here does.

You make a good point about over designing. But it is done on both cars. The max speeds seen on road courses are, lets say 200mph. So you are going to design a car that can take, I don't know, 20% more, or 220mph. The max speeds seen at Indy are about 240mph. So you take the same 20% "overage" and come up with 268mph. Then convert that to energy (like I did on the other thread) and come up with 32.6% more energy at Indy than on a road course. That is significant.

Now I'm not saying that the DP01 couldn't handle this. Maybe it can. I'm also not saying that the Panoz designers didn't design for the specific case of Indy, which would honestly made a lot of sence. All I have to go on is my recolection that the Panoz designers said at the time that it was not designed for ovals. And I remember thinking that was a dumb thing to do. That's why I remember it so well, because I thought it was such a short sighted thing to do. However, I can't find any articles that say one way or the other now, so I must submit that I am probably wrong.

See..I heard that too and didn't believe a word of it. You being the engineer thought they were being honest, me with my love of political intrigue knew damned well they would never admit that this car could run on an oval even if the damned thing was offset to the left.

[peasant]

I completely understand that no race car is 100% safe. I hope I didn't come across as saying they were 100% safe because I have actually been arguing that same point. Peasant seems to be trying to say they should be 100% safe. And I hope that I wasn't implying that the DP-01 would be less safe because like I said, I don't know that. I assumed based on manufacturer recomendations.
.

No I wasn't saying I thought they could be 100% safe. My original point is they have a history of broken backs, and flying - consistent faults I think the IRL was slow to address. More particularly I wonder if Stanton Barretts back is actually fractured (poor ) given that tendency.

That's the only thing I would - or could - disagree with you on. It's easy to get into these combative type arguments on the internet, unfortunately they don't usually have much worth. Thanks for taking the time to explain your points better.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Peasant, I think Chuck is very astute and knows that no car is 100% safe. You assertion that the Dallara is a back killer was more or less valid when it first came out, along with the G-Force, but I think that isn't an issue today.

I would like to say that there is likely NO single seater car with a transmission sticking out the back that is going to be gentle to its driver when you back it into the fence at 220mph. THAT is just part of the deal.

[peasant]

Peasant, I think Chuck is very astute and knows that no car is 100% safe. You assertion that the Dallara is a back killer was more or less valid when it first came out, along with the G-Force, but I think that isn't an issue today.

I would like to say that there is likely NO single seater car with a transmission sticking out the back that is going to be gentle to its driver when you back it into the fence at 220mph. THAT is just part of the deal.

So perhaps it would be better if they weren't so inclined to swap ends? How heavy is the rear end of that NA car compared to cossie turbo?

By the way You'll notice I clarified that I wasn't of the belief that cars could be 100% safe in my last post. And yes I'd agree they seem safer than they were, but I'm not convinced the problem is totally solved.

[Mark in Oshawa]

So perhaps it would be better if they weren't so inclined to swap ends? How heavy is the rear end of that NA car compared to cossie turbo?

By the way You'll notice I clarified that I wasn't of the belief that cars could be 100% safe in my last post. And yes I'd agree they seem safer than they were, but I'm not convinced the problem is totally solved.


They swap ends because drivers pushing to the limit will oversteer into a wreck, and that means the back breaks and hits the wall usually first. People who have a lot of push just grind into the wall nose first, hardly fun.

The engines are probably very comparable in weight. A v-8 is a v-8 after all.....

The problem can never be solved completely. You have a transmission attached to the engine with all the bits on the rear attached to those two units. It is going to be STIFF because flexing is BAD on a race car. Ergo, if it hits the wall first (see fast drivers pushing too hard, it is why we pay em the big bucks) and it will transmit the shock to the driver. We can put a crush box on the back and put lots of foam in the seats, but basically, you cannot get around this.

[chuck34]

So perhaps it would be better if they weren't so inclined to swap ends? How heavy is the rear end of that NA car compared to cossie turbo?

By the way You'll notice I clarified that I wasn't of the belief that cars could be 100% safe in my last post. And yes I'd agree they seem safer than they were, but I'm not convinced the problem is totally solved.

See Mark's post on this as well. But it isn't a difference between an NA car and a cossie turbo. It is physics. Race engineers set up the cars to have a bit more rear weight. Probably in the 55% range, maybe less, but over 50%. It just "works" that way. That means that if the car breaks loose it will tend to spin arse first. If you want a more detailed explaination see a physics book, the Milliken book I'm quoting from, or just PM me and I'll see what I can do. It will be too long and boring to explain here.

And you are right, the "problem" is not totally sovled. And it won't ever be really. We can only strive to lessen the outcomes.

[peasant]

Fair enough guys. Although not utterly convinced I don't have the knowledge to discuss it further.

[chuck34]

Fair enough guys. Although not utterly convinced I don't have the knowledge to discuss it further.

Go ahead and as questions about things you don't understand. Maybe I can help, or someone else on this board. At the very least it will help me to understand things better too. The only dumb question is the one not asked.

I hope I don't sound like some sort of know it all. I do know some things, but what I don't know is astounding. And as I've said before, the more I learn, the more I know I don't know.