Thoughts from Tomas

[SarahFan]

Hey



I wanted to reach out to my fellow race fans at ********** and ask you your thoughts on what you think the IndyCar of tomorrow should be like. As I driver I love the Speedway and love pushing the car to the limit every time I get strapped in. I love the mental challenge and I also love the racing.

What I don't want to see is for our cars go slower. I am all for safety but I think we are missing the danger factor our sport needs. I enjoy the feeling in the pit of my stomach when I am on the absolute edge at high speed and I think the fans enjoy the speed too. 220 mph is just not quick anymore - we need to push the boundaries of speed and push the dedication of the drivers. We are not going for a Sunday drive we are professional IndyCar racing drivers! This sport was build to break the barriers of technology and speed as well as to test the will of best drivers in the world. When a fan sits in the crowd and sees a crash it can look bad, and yes there are still huge risks involved in racing, but now 90 percent of time you just walk away unhurt!

Drivers start becoming more complacent and less respectful. If next year the Month of May starts and we are doing 240 mph average speed I suspect we will have a couple more people attending qualifying day, that’s for sure!

We need to see affordable technology back in the sport. It’s a bit of a contradiction but it is possible by enforcing a rule that any development by teams has to be shared with every other team thus increasing the overall speed of cars.

I am not an engineer or nor fully understand the intricacies of running a very complex sport. But as I driver I can tell you I want to go quicker and I want to risk more! I want to separate drivers who really want to and who really want to lay it on the line, and those who don’t. I want the fans to look at us and have admiration, respect and are in awe

for what we do like it used to be! I don’t want it to be ‘Hey, are you in that series with that chick?’ I want IndyCar to be known as the series with the fastest cars, the best racing and the best talent!

I have massive amount of respect for Danica and think she is an extremely talented driver - no matter her gender. I respect her as an equal I also think she has done a lot of good for the sport, but we need more than just Danica! We need new track records, we need new technology, and we need to bring the excitement, the danger, the fear and the respect back to the sport we all love.

I’d love to hear what you fans think, as you’ve heard a view from a driver. I’m looking forward to reading your replies!



All the best



Tomas Scheckter

[Mark in Oshawa]

Interesting. I wonder if the other driver's agree with him? I do know Jacques Villeneuve had a similar take on racing in general a few years back and raised some hackles over it.

I am for higher speeds and more open rules but I can tell you that if the insurance people don't see a margin of safety in this ramp up in speeds vis a vis the safety of the people in the stands, then this is wishful thinking. It is why NASCAR wont take the plates off their cars at Daytona or Talladega, and it is why the IRL cars are where they are. CART was tickling along at 240 mph laps at Fontana and went too fast for their drivers when they tried Texas. IN the case of Texas, it was the first time the cars on the track dished out more than the drivers could handle.

The danger of more speed could put the IRL back into the zone where they cannot control the consequences of this greater speed and I don't forsee the insurance people allowing this to happen.

Tomas is right on a lot of things, but he isn't seeing it from the liability side and how the organizers and promotors HAVE to look at it.

Faster at Indy I am all for, but at some point, the IRL would really have to be careful...

[SarahFan]

Which insurance people mark?

Can you provide some sort of tangible proof to support your statement it is in fact the insurance people dictating the sub 230 speeds at Indy

[Chamoo]

Which insurance people mark?

Can you provide some sort of tangible proof to support your statement it is in fact the insurance people dictating the sub 230 speeds at Indy

Mark is spot on in his assessment that insurance brokers won't be happy with the IRL increased speeds. Whether there is proof of it or not on the internet, it is a reality. With all the risks involved with Indycar, insurance companies realize that betting all that money that someone won't die or be badly injured would turn into a bad bet if speeds rise and safety doesn't.

[Chamoo]

CART was tickling along at 240 mph laps at Fontana and went too fast for their drivers when they tried Texas. IN the case of Texas, it was the first time the cars on the track dished out more than the drivers could handle.

All they have to do is make sure the cars don't have the downforce that makes them stick to the track in the corners like they do now. If they do 300 MPH down the straight at Indy but only 180 in the corners, they will be safer then what they are doing now I believe.

Finding that balance for multiple tracks that include the high banked tracks like Texas and Kansas would be difficult, but it could be done.

[SarahFan]

Mark is spot on in his assessment that insurance brokers won't be happy with the IRL increased speeds..

if it's spot on then it should be easy to support..... simply do so please

[I am evil Homer]

Ken I work in insurance, covering things such as UK sporting events. If F1 suddenly introduced rules that meant cars going faster at Silverstone down Hanger Straight, of course we'd look at the potential liability that a crash could cause at the higher and make a risk assessment.

It may not be as simple as insurers 'dictating' the F1 rules but it would definitely increase the premium the circuit would have to pay. And at a point the policy/cover becomes prohibitively expensive - sometimes by design ;) - to the point where you can't get cover. So sort of 'back door' rule making.

You won't find any of that documentation on the internet

[NickFalzone]

It's kind of funny to me that the one driver Tomas singles out in his commentary is one of the few drivers that would probably be perfectly happy with speeds going down. I agree with what Tomas is saying, and from what I've read recently on the Izod sponsorship, many people inside and outside the sport feel the same way. I do not think that insurance is a significant issue here, unless we're talking huge speed increases (we're not). Tomas is talking about moderate increases in speed, and in particular he is saying the cars should not be made slower. Can't imagine too many would disagree with that. As far as I know, insurance doesn't even apply to the drivers or the cars, it applies to the track-only. They're more concerned about speeds that will potentially cause fans in the stands to get injured. I don't think a 3-5 mph increase at Indy is going to get the insurers up in arms about cars flying into the stands, particularly since those higher speeds were achieved regularly in the past, with much less safe equipment.

Also, I'd like to point out something that Tomas said that's even more important than the speeds. He wants the cars to be harder to drive. I think that says a lot about the current car when he calls it a Sunday drive, and when guys like him are putting it all out there and it doesn't even matter because the spec is so safe, and so close from one car to another.

[SarahFan]

Ken I work in insurance, covering things such as UK sporting events. If F1 suddenly introduced rules that meant cars going faster at Silverstone down Hanger Straight, of course we'd look at the potential liability that a crash could cause at the higher and make a risk assessment.

It may not be as simple as insurers 'dictating' the F1 rules but it would definitely increase the premium the circuit would have to pay. And at a point the policy/cover becomes prohibitively expensive - sometimes by design ;) - to the point where you can't get cover. So sort of 'back door' rule making.

You won't find any of that documentation on the internet

but heres the thing..... they were going 230+ 15+ years ago.... since they developed safer racecars, tire tethers, SAFER, built new catch fences, HANS etc....

taking inflation out of the equation..... why would it cost more today that in 96'?

[SarahFan]

I don't think a 3-5 mph increase at Indy is going to get the insurers up in arms about cars flying into the stands, particularly since those higher speeds were achieved regularly in the past, with much less safe equipment.

.

I agree....


Homer.... whats your take...

what in your professional opinion would the cost of going 240 vs 230 cost IMS

if IMS is currently paying $X.... it would be $x+ what?

[I am evil Homer]

Without seeing what current liabilities they offer or are demanded it's hard to say with any certainty. 10 mph...okay...so let's say that's a 4% increase in overall speed. In the UK I think you'd be looking at around a 15% increase in insurance. Safety is not the be all and end all Le Mans cover has increased year-on-year due to inflation and more rigourous risk assessment, despite them putting 2 chicanes on the Mulsanne, cutting average speed.

Not to sound like this is a US problem, as its not, but due to the nature of laws in America you have to take an even more cautious approach. Believe me i;d love to know how much it costs to insure the Indy 500 from the tracks perspective!!!

It's horrificly complex when you have moving cars in the equation...the physics involved of calculating the possibility of something coming off, speed, damage etc. With other event, ie, football, you cover the usual accident stuff plus potential but a football hitting someone isn't really that big a deal..broken nose maybe.

Last time we did motorsport (national level) it was based off the FIAs safety requirements but they are not fullproof. It cost the circuit £15m for one day.

But it has to be that complex to cover every eventuality...one stray nut hitting a spectator is enough...just look at what happened to Felipe Massa and he had tyhe highest spec helmet on. One death in the crowd at F1 would render that circuit pretty much uninsurable.

God i'm at work, trying to get away from work...and talking about work!

[SarahFan]

Last time we did motorsport (national level) it was based off the FIAs safety requirements but they are not fullproof. It cost the circuit £15m for one day.





can you elaborate on the above....

are you saying it cost a racing circuit roughly $30,000,000 (US) to insure itself against spectator injury for a single of racing?

[garyshell]

Which insurance people mark?

Can you provide some sort of tangible proof to support your statement it is in fact the insurance people dictating the sub 230 speeds at Indy


Here we go again. Despite the logic, Ken wants to see the physical contract and won't settle for anything less.

So Ken do you HONESTLY think that the insurance people don't care and turn a blind eye to the speeds run at the various tracks? And that they don't have risk assessment teams that weigh heavily on the cost of insurance or even it's availability? They sure as hell do for every other industry they insure. Why should the IRL be immune? Please provide some sort of tangible proof that they are immune to the same sort of business practices that the insurance industry has with other types of business.

Gary

[SarahFan]

Here we go again. Despite the logic, Ken wants to see the physical contract and won't settle for anything less.

So Ken do you HONESTLY think that the insurance people don't care and turn a blind eye to the speeds run at the various tracks? And that they don't have risk assessment teams that weigh heavily on the cost of insurance or even it's availability? They sure as hell do for every other industry they insure. Why should the IRL be immune? Please provide some sort of tangible proof that they are immune to the same sort of business practices that the insurance industry has with other types of business.

Gary

come on Gary ..... I've never suggested immune... Nothing even close to that

but homer made a statment about the cost of insurance for a single day of motorsports..

Let's apply some logic..... Let's that same same $# and apply it to the 500....

250k paying spectators on raceday ... Insurance cost 0f $30mil .....that's $120 per person .....

Well my seat this past may was amn grandstand at pit in ..... And I paid $85 ...

Those numbers don't jive


So exactly what is your objection to my asking Homer to elaborate?

[garyshell]

Which insurance people mark?

Can you provide some sort of tangible proof to support your statement it is in fact the insurance people dictating the sub 230 speeds at Indy


Here we go again. Despite the logic, Ken wants to see the physical contract and won't settle for anything less.

So Ken do you HONESTLY think that the insurance people don't care and turn a blind eye to the speeds run at the various tracks? And that they don't have risk assessment teams that weigh heavily on the cost of insurance or even it's availability? They sure as hell do for every other industry they insure. Why should the IRL be immune? Please provide some sort of tangible proof that they are immune to the same sort of business practices that the insurance industry has with other types of business.

Gary


come on Gary ..... I've never suggested immune... Nothing even close to that

but homer made a statment about the cost of insurance for a single day of motorsports..

Let's apply some logic..... Let's that same same $# and apply it to the 500....

250k paying spectators on raceday ... Insurance cost 0f $30mil .....that's $120 per person .....

Well my seat this past may was amn grandstand at pit in ..... And I paid $85 ...

Those numbers don't jive


So exactly what is your objection to my asking Homer to elaborate?

Don't try to shift the argument Ken. Where do you see me making any objection to your discussion with Homer? I made an objection to your question to Mark. At every turn where ANYONE has suggested that the insurance companies make risk based demands on the sanctioning bodies or promoters, your canned reply has been to ask for tangible proof. If you don't think they are immune to this then why do you ask for proof that they are?

I do agree that the numbers that Homer mentioned seem strange, but that has NOTHING to do with my original reply to you.

Gary

[NickFalzone]

What Ken is asking, and is a legitimate question, is whether insurance is THE REASON for why the cars are generally going slower than they have in the past and not being allowed to increase speeds despite much safer cockpits/walls,etc. Or is it because of just a general concern on the IRL's behalf regarding safety? I honestly don't know the answer. But it has been portrayed by IRL officials as having to do with their concern for driver safety, and NOT an issue with huge insurance hikes. So when others say that the IRL is doing is simply as cost containment, I have to wonder, because that has never been reported during an interview or press conference that I'm aware of.

[I am evil Homer]

can you elaborate on the above....

are you saying it cost a racing circuit roughly $30,000,000 (US) to insure itself against spectator injury for a single of racing?

Single day of racing yes...the card was, if memory serves, 7-8 races - BTCC for 3 races, Ginetta Cup, Renault Clio cup and Porsche Carrera cup. Actually and this was 5 years ago so it may have covered two days as the qualifying for the above happened on a Saturday and that was open to the public.

Oh and this is a national UK circuit, not Silverstone, Brands Hatch or Donnington who all hold international series.

I honestly don't think insurance firms do say "x is too fast" and I don't think it's the reason for slowing the cars, relatively speaking. It may have been a factor but not the reason...after all at those speeds a minor collision can have immense consequences.

[SarahFan]

Single day of racing yes...the card was, if memory serves, 7-8 races - BTCC for 3 races, Ginetta Cup, Renault Clio cup and Porsche Carrera cup. Actually and this was 5 years ago so it may have covered two days as the qualifying for the above happened on a Saturday and that was open to the public.

Oh and this is a national UK circuit, not Silverstone, Brands Hatch or Donnington who all hold international series.

I honestly don't think insurance firms do say "x is too fast" and I don't think it's the reason for slowing the cars, relatively speaking. It may have been a factor but not the reason...after all at those speeds a minor collision can have immense consequences.


Question Homer...

the circuit wrote a check for $30million to the insurance company......or the circuit was insured for liability up to $30million?

[garyshell]

Question Homer...

the circuit wrote a check for $30million to the insurance company......or the circuit was insured for liability up to $30million?


Ken,

I agree it has to be the latter. Otherwise, how did ANYONE except the insurance company make any money?

Gary

[Mark in Oshawa]

Which insurance people mark?

Can you provide some sort of tangible proof to support your statement it is in fact the insurance people dictating the sub 230 speeds at Indy

Since I am not in the IRL head offices, no I cant. However Brian France of NASCAR has repeatedely said on many occasions that it was insurance reasons that they put the plates on Cup cars at Talladega and Daytona. One doesn't have to be a rocket scientest to figure out that no insurance company will underwrite a race if they think there is a chance they may actually have to pay out millions in compesation to families killed if a car flies over the fence into the stands.

Ken, you can speculate all you want on how fast cars should go at Indy, and so Can I, but we both know if we are logical that there will be a point where the organizers wont be able to insure the event. It hasn't happened at Indy, but there is probably some worry that if speeds went up to the 235mph lap CART cars were tickling close to in the 90's, people would get nervous. Insurance people are NOT racers, but they are the ones who will pay out millions if the boffins are wrong in the aftermath of a major wreck. Who knew that Mario's car would fly like a leaf in a hurricane that day he did some testing in a Dallara? What about Dario's big flight in Michigan a few years back? THat was with THIS car/engine rules......

Just because a catastrophic event involving a race car and spectators hasn't happened on an oval doesn't mean it WONT if we allow speeds to start climbing. If the IRL wants the cars to go faster again, and Tomas Scheckter wants it to happen, that is fine....until the insurance people get sweaty palms. I suspect at Indy, that would be around a 235mph lap. Much faster than that, and you can bet the boys and girls will be doing 250 plus on the straights.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Here we go again. Despite the logic, Ken wants to see the physical contract and won't settle for anything less.

So Ken do you HONESTLY think that the insurance people don't care and turn a blind eye to the speeds run at the various tracks? And that they don't have risk assessment teams that weigh heavily on the cost of insurance or even it's availability? They sure as hell do for every other industry they insure. Why should the IRL be immune? Please provide some sort of tangible proof that they are immune to the same sort of business practices that the insurance industry has with other types of business.

Gary\

Funny, when he said Toronto was on death's door and in danger of being not run, I asked for proof and he didn't provide it. I think my opinion on this subject is a lot more valid than his opinion on Toronto's future.


I don't know why he is questioning Homer's assessment. 15 million pounds to ensure a GP sounds a bit much, but he is the insurance man, not me. After the IRL had people die in the stands in Charlotte due to a wheel flying off, you want to again tell me the IRL isn't paranoid about insurance issues? That was a few years back but you can bet anyone underwriting an IRL event is VERY aware of that and asking questions the IRL has to answer before giving the go-ahead. No insurance, no race. No governing body of racing can race without the financial implications of a car going into the stands being covered. While we all love fast cars, and Tomas's assertion that more speed would be nice is something I agree with, I suspect it isn't going to be much faster and it is something the IRL would have to keep an eye on...because the underwriters will as well.

[SarahFan]

Since I am not in the IRL head offices, no I cant. However Brian France of NASCAR has repeatedely said on many occasions that it was insurance reasons that they put the plates on Cup cars at Talladega and Daytona. .

well cooooolll!.... if its been repeatedly then it shouldn't be hard to find.... i'd love to read about.....

[SarahFan]

\

Funny, when he said Toronto was on death's door and in danger of being not run, I asked for proof and he didn't provide it.


l.


no i didn't..... but i unequivically stated numerous times it was strictly pure speculation on my part..

and frankly mark you continue to look foolish trying to paint it otherwise....

[SarahFan]

\




I don't know why he is questioning Homer's assessment. 15 million pounds to ensure a GP sounds a bit much, but he is the insurance man, not me.


for the second time.... I'm questioning becuase the #'s make absolutly no sense....in fact I'd go so far to call them comlplete rubbish...

simply take the 15/30 million dollar # and apply it to the 500's attendance and ticket prices.....no other ecevent comes close, certainly not a regional UK race......

if you wanna swallow that hook line and sinker be my guest.... me? not going to do it

[SarahFan]

http://www.planet-irl.com/podcasts/pt.mp3

^ above is a podcast from last night with PT...about midway thru they discuss tomas' post....

[NickFalzone]

I didn't catch all the details at the end of that Podcast, but they were talking about problems with the Edmonton race. Were they suggesting that the 2010 race might not happen, or races further down the road? It sounded like they lost quite a bit in 2009, but they still renewed with the IRL as of a couple months ago... so not sure what that means.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Just to add a little perspective to the issue, this is not a new thing. Cars, and parts like wheels, have been visiting spectator areas since racing began. Some incidents are well known like LeMans (50s?), Indy several times, a few NASCAR events, etc. There have been incidents at lower level events too. There was a car at an SCCA club event a couple years ago that went off course through a fence and hit a grandstand (very lightly occupied and no injuries) which I personally saw. Insurance companies have experience with it. The only question is how much will they charge to cover it?

That's just it Starter. I am stating that no insurance company is going to want to cover a governing body where they think there is a very casual attitude towards a car doing into the stands. When it happened at Daytona and Talladega, NASCAR brought in the plates. Only Ken seems to think they overeacted. He is also being naive if he thinks the insurance company in question for the track didn't make a phone call to ISC and NASCAR.

As for the Insurance man saying it was 15 million pounds to insure the British GP, I don't know how much I would want to believe that number except to say a man in the Insurance biz would have a better idea than Ken would.

As for your assertions Ken, I have given up a long time ago getting you to respect my opinion. You haven't said one thing on the subject of Toronto that wans't your opinion, but you seem to NOT tolerate my opinion. Hence my disdain for your continued assertion that the insurance companies are NOT a factor in the speeds being allowed to creep up.