NASCAR Weekend @ The Glen

Mother of Invention wrote:

Sparkz47 wrote:And now the announcers are already talking about changing the track. Even when everyone walks away completely unharmed we have to start a witch hunt.

why wait till someone dies, when you can prevent death.

Sparkz47 wrote:

Mother of Invention wrote:

Sparkz47 wrote:And now the announcers are already talking about changing the track. Even when everyone walks away completely unharmed we have to start a witch hunt.

why wait till someone dies, when you can prevent death.

There's a difference in taking reasonable precautions and remodeling an entire track based on a couple of big incidents. I heard a lot of drivers and media during the red flag talking ad nauseam about more run-off. In my opinion, racing needs unforgiving tracks. Otherwise, where's the punishment? To me, at least, racing loses a lot when a driver's only penalty for screwing up a corner is running over into more asphalt and losing a couple of seconds. I don't want to see anyone hurt, but crashes are a part of racing. A major part of racing is the fact that one slip up, and your car is a pile of trash.  

Although the COT isn't everyone's cup of tea, no one doubts that it's safe. When you have these tanks of cars that have been proven to keep drivers uninjured in head-on collisions of at least 170mph, an ARMCO barrier close to the track is an acceptable risk. In my opinion, tracks should be unforgiving and push car and driver to the limit. I'm not a huge fan of run-offs the size of airstrips, slow-down chicanes, or penalties and blame being assigned for every unforeseen circumstance. I think that the major racing series have a duty to keep the level of danger within reason, but to also not strip racing of every little risk. Or else, what's the point?

Also, before the "Hi, Boozooka" comments start rolling in, I'm in full support of reasonable run-off to avoid ridiculous impacts or safety features such as tire or SAFER barriers. But, like I said above, the tough nature of tracks like the Glen (or Nordschleif, Bathurst, Indianapolis, etc.)  further serves to showcase the skills of the competitors. As long as they're strapped in good and proper (as they are in the COT), some walls on either side won't be a major threat.

TL;DR - Keep it safe, but keep it tough

(Huh, I didn't really mean to make this mammoth of a post, but, well, there's my opinion on safety in motorsports for you.   )

Cynon wrote:

Sparkz47 wrote:

Mother of Invention wrote:

Sparkz47 wrote:And now the announcers are already talking about changing the track. Even when everyone walks away completely unharmed we have to start a witch hunt.

why wait till someone dies, when you can prevent death.

There's a difference in taking reasonable precautions and remodeling an entire track based on a couple of big incidents. I heard a lot of drivers and media during the red flag talking ad nauseam about more run-off. In my opinion, racing needs unforgiving tracks. Otherwise, where's the punishment? To me, at least, racing loses a lot when a driver's only penalty for screwing up a corner is running over into more asphalt and losing a couple of seconds. I don't want to see anyone hurt, but crashes are a part of racing. A major part of racing is the fact that one slip up, and your car is a pile of trash.  

Although the COT isn't everyone's cup of tea, no one doubts that it's safe. When you have these tanks of cars that have been proven to keep drivers uninjured in head-on collisions of at least 170mph, an ARMCO barrier close to the track is an acceptable risk. In my opinion, tracks should be unforgiving and push car and driver to the limit. I'm not a huge fan of run-offs the size of airstrips, slow-down chicanes, or penalties and blame being assigned for every unforeseen circumstance. I think that the major racing series have a duty to keep the level of danger within reason, but to also not strip racing of every little risk. Or else, what's the point?

Also, before the "Hi, Boozooka" comments start rolling in, I'm in full support of reasonable run-off to avoid ridiculous impacts or safety features such as tire or SAFER barriers. But, like I said above, the tough nature of tracks like the Glen (or Nordschleif, Bathurst, Indianapolis, etc.)  further serves to showcase the skills of the competitors. As long as they're strapped in good and proper (as they are in the COT), some walls on either side won't be a major threat.

TL;DR - Keep it safe, but keep it tough

(Huh, I didn't really mean to make this mammoth of a post, but, well, there's my opinion on safety in motorsports for you.   )

I'm really, really not a fan of huge amounts of runoff for the reasons you mentioned. That's why the news about the Parabolica made me die a little inside.

Sparkz47 wrote:There's a difference in taking reasonable precautions and remodeling an entire track based on a couple of big incidents. I heard a lot of drivers and media during the red flag talking ad nauseam about more run-off. In my opinion, racing needs unforgiving tracks. Otherwise, where's the punishment? To me, at least, racing loses a lot when a driver's only penalty for screwing up a corner is running over into more asphalt and losing a couple of seconds. I don't want to see anyone hurt, but crashes are a part of racing. A major part of racing is the fact that one slip up, and your car is a pile of trash.  

Although the COT isn't everyone's cup of tea, no one doubts that it's safe. When you have these tanks of cars that have been proven to keep drivers uninjured in head-on collisions of at least 170mph, an ARMCO barrier close to the track is an acceptable risk. In my opinion, tracks should be unforgiving and push car and driver to the limit. I'm not a huge fan of run-offs the size of airstrips, slow-down chicanes, or penalties and blame being assigned for every unforeseen circumstance. I think that the major racing series have a duty to keep the level of danger within reason, but to also not strip racing of every little risk. Or else, what's the point?

Also, before the "Hi, Boozooka" comments start rolling in, I'm in full support of reasonable run-off to avoid ridiculous impacts or safety features such as tire or SAFER barriers. But, like I said above, the tough nature of tracks like the Glen (or Nordschleif, Bathurst, Indianapolis, etc.)  further serves to showcase the skills of the competitors. As long as they're strapped in good and proper (as they are in the COT), some walls on either side won't be a major threat.

TL;DR - Keep it safe, but keep it tough

(Huh, I didn't really mean to make this mammoth of a post, but, well, there's my opinion on safety in motorsports for you.   )

SpeedDemon37 wrote:

Sparkz47 wrote:There's a difference in taking reasonable precautions and remodeling an entire track based on a couple of big incidents. I heard a lot of drivers and media during the red flag talking ad nauseam about more run-off. In my opinion, racing needs unforgiving tracks. Otherwise, where's the punishment? To me, at least, racing loses a lot when a driver's only penalty for screwing up a corner is running over into more asphalt and losing a couple of seconds. I don't want to see anyone hurt, but crashes are a part of racing. A major part of racing is the fact that one slip up, and your car is a pile of trash.  

Although the COT isn't everyone's cup of tea, no one doubts that it's safe. When you have these tanks of cars that have been proven to keep drivers uninjured in head-on collisions of at least 170mph, an ARMCO barrier close to the track is an acceptable risk. In my opinion, tracks should be unforgiving and push car and driver to the limit. I'm not a huge fan of run-offs the size of airstrips, slow-down chicanes, or penalties and blame being assigned for every unforeseen circumstance. I think that the major racing series have a duty to keep the level of danger within reason, but to also not strip racing of every little risk. Or else, what's the point?

Also, before the "Hi, Boozooka" comments start rolling in, I'm in full support of reasonable run-off to avoid ridiculous impacts or safety features such as tire or SAFER barriers. But, like I said above, the tough nature of tracks like the Glen (or Nordschleif, Bathurst, Indianapolis, etc.)  further serves to showcase the skills of the competitors. As long as they're strapped in good and proper (as they are in the COT), some walls on either side won't be a major threat.

TL;DR - Keep it safe, but keep it tough

(Huh, I didn't really mean to make this mammoth of a post, but, well, there's my opinion on safety in motorsports for you.   )

But I suppose that an argument could also be made for the drivers who did not initially go off course that have been caught up in some of these nasty wrecks (McDowell yesterday, Gordon and Burton in 2009, etc.).

So I guess that I'm not quite sure what I think about this.

Sparkz47 wrote:

SpeedDemon37 wrote:

Sparkz47 wrote:There's a difference in taking reasonable precautions and remodeling an entire track based on a couple of big incidents. I heard a lot of drivers and media during the red flag talking ad nauseam about more run-off. In my opinion, racing needs unforgiving tracks. Otherwise, where's the punishment? To me, at least, racing loses a lot when a driver's only penalty for screwing up a corner is running over into more asphalt and losing a couple of seconds. I don't want to see anyone hurt, but crashes are a part of racing. A major part of racing is the fact that one slip up, and your car is a pile of trash.  

Although the COT isn't everyone's cup of tea, no one doubts that it's safe. When you have these tanks of cars that have been proven to keep drivers uninjured in head-on collisions of at least 170mph, an ARMCO barrier close to the track is an acceptable risk. In my opinion, tracks should be unforgiving and push car and driver to the limit. I'm not a huge fan of run-offs the size of airstrips, slow-down chicanes, or penalties and blame being assigned for every unforeseen circumstance. I think that the major racing series have a duty to keep the level of danger within reason, but to also not strip racing of every little risk. Or else, what's the point?

Also, before the "Hi, Boozooka" comments start rolling in, I'm in full support of reasonable run-off to avoid ridiculous impacts or safety features such as tire or SAFER barriers. But, like I said above, the tough nature of tracks like the Glen (or Nordschleif, Bathurst, Indianapolis, etc.)  further serves to showcase the skills of the competitors. As long as they're strapped in good and proper (as they are in the COT), some walls on either side won't be a major threat.

TL;DR - Keep it safe, but keep it tough

(Huh, I didn't really mean to make this mammoth of a post, but, well, there's my opinion on safety in motorsports for you.   )

But I suppose that an argument could also be made for the drivers who did not initially go off course that have been caught up in some of these nasty wrecks (McDowell yesterday, Gordon and Burton in 2009, etc.).

So I guess that I'm not quite sure what I think about this.

If it's fine when it happens on an oval, why is it suddenly wrong on a road course?

crl wrote:Does anyone recall an IndyCar driver having a nasty impact with the Armco at The Glen?