Massa criticises “dangerous” IndyCar but Alonso says the risks are similar in F1

23 comments on “Massa criticises “dangerous” IndyCar but Alonso says the risks are similar in F1”

1. 

   Miltiadis (@miltosgreekfan)
   27th August 2018, 15:11

   There were two huge accidents in the recent IndyCar & F1 races.
   In the first case, a car was violently destroyed lefting a multi-injured driver & the second driver(Huner Reay) was 10 cm from severe head injury at least…
   In F1, the heavily critised Halo prevented any kind of injury, as it broke the suspension & the wheel of the flying McLaren, that was heading into Leclerc’s cockpit.
   Many F1 drivers have expressed their unwillingness to compete at Ovals. At the start of the 00’s , M.Schumacher said that he would never compete in Indy 500.
   Button & Massa after their recent retirements said the same. Its not easy to compete at the lottery called Oval. Losing J.Wilson & D.Wheldon in those extreme accidents, shows that Oval racing needs safety improvements.
   1. 

      RogerA
      27th August 2018, 16:01

      @miltosgreekfan Wheldon’s accident was caused by pack racing which is something Indycar no longer do as the new cars have eliminated that sillyness.

      Wilson’s death wasn’t caused by oval racing & could have just as easily happened in Pre-Halo F1. He was hit by debris that had come off another car, The yellow had come out & he had slowed down to around 100mph when he was struck.
      1. 

         ferrox glideh (@ferrox-glideh)
         27th August 2018, 17:18

         The fundamental problem with ovals is that debris has nowhere to go but back on the track. Even without pack racing, the chances of hitting someone else’s crashed car or debris on an oval track is much higher than any other kind of circuit.
         1. 

            socksolid (@socksolid)
            27th August 2018, 20:30

            I think the issue is the speed at which drivers arrive to the scene of accident. Both in f1 and indycar the debris is pretty much concentrated at the scene of the accident. Wrecks of the cars tend to end up off the track in indycar ovals due to the banking and momentum whereas in f1 the cars typically stop on track.

            In indycar ovals the speeds are much higher and the cars packed much closer together. In f1 it is rare that more than two cars are involved in an accident (unless the accident happens in the first corners). In indycar it is typical to have more than 2 cars heavily involved in an accident.

            Ovals have three major issues. High speed, cars close to each other and when accident happens everybody must drive at high speed through the scene of accident as the accident is unfolding while not being able to clearly see where the cars in front are. Just look at how many cars were involved in the wickens crash. People were crashing just to avoid accidents.

            In f1 it is really rare cars need to suddenly take evasive maneuvers to avoid an accident in front of them. In indycar they need to do it everytime on ovals when there is accident. You can hear the spotters telling the drivers go high, go low because the drivers can not even see where to go at times. On ovals every accident is high speed, multiple cars involved, high g-forces, poor visibility, lots of heavy debris, lots of cars close to each other.
            1. 

               Kevin
               28th August 2018, 2:02

               People were crashing because fluid on the track. Not to avoid accidents. Hinch crashed trying to avoid, but didn’t crash to avoid.
      2. 

         Miltiadis (@miltosgreekfan)
         27th August 2018, 20:42

         @RogerA
         As @ferrox-glideh & @socksolid said, the issue is the speed that they arrive & the lack of reaction time.
         Indy have been good on safety, but we have seen cars flying due to aerodynamic issues as well
2. 

   Fer no.65 (@fer-no65)
   27th August 2018, 15:27

   I’ve never really followed Indycar to comment on it, but I’ve seen F1’s progress and it’s very good. I’m glad they are pushing Indycar to comment about it with these remarks, tho!
3. 

   RogerA
   27th August 2018, 16:02

   i do not think the commens are totally fair to say that indycar has not done anything for safety.

   Indycar have in fact come up with several safety improvements that F1 have adopted. For example the side impact structures now mandatory in F1 were developed by Indycar as was the rear crash structures & High cockpit sides, The anti-penetration panels are another thing that came from Indycar. Indycar introduced the HANS device 2-3 years before F1. The safer barriers that have saved so many lives was developed by IMS/Indycar.
   1. 

      George O'Donnell (@georgeod)
      27th August 2018, 16:16

      I agree. INDYCAR and Indianapolis Motor Speedway developed the SAFER (Steel And Foam Energy Reduction) barrier, and was involved in the development of the HANS device which have improved safety greatly. Even safety measures such as having a speed limit in the pit lane were used in Indycar before F1!

      I think what irks me the most about Felipe’s comments is that it is so easy to dish out criticism, but the reality of proposing a better solution is so much harder.
      1. 

         Phylyp (@phylyp)
         27th August 2018, 16:22

         Good and informative comments, RogerA and @georgeod , and if it is how IndyCar contributed, then it probably shows how safety should work in motorsport, with all series spurring one another on to adopt and improve appropriate safety measures.
      2. 

         medman (@medman)
         27th August 2018, 18:33

         +George O’Donnell
         IndyCar has done much to improve safety over the years, and innovated much in racing, that much is true. But it can also be said they need to do more for driver safety, and in that respect Felipe is correct. Those catch fences are an abomination. It’s usually going to wind up in disaster when you have vehicles launching into catch fencing at 200+mph. IndyCar does a good job protecting the fans at the track, but seems to be tone deaf to driver concerns at times, despite the drivers voicing their safety concerns time and again about various circuits for years.
         1. 

            Kevin
            28th August 2018, 2:11

            As a fan, in a motorsport, you race for the fans and job is to protect the fans. These Indy tracks are all tracks that Nascar or other forms of stock cars run at. You have a stock car hit some sort of fence designed for Indycar, and fans will die. The only race I’ve been to, Austin Dillon violently wound up in the catch fence at Daytona rows in front of me. If those fences were not built the way they are, people would have died that night. A few years earlier, Kyle Larson crashed into the fence at Daytona and his engine landes on the other side and a tire ended up in someone’s lap. Daytona upgraded their fences after that and it has already saved lives. Fans don’t sign on the dotted line like drivers do. They have a warning printed on the back of their ticket saying they assume liability for death or injury.
   2. 

      ferrox glideh (@ferrox-glideh)
      27th August 2018, 17:23

      SAFER barriers are an amazing technology and Indycar should be proud of introducing them. The Halo is an amazing technology and F1 should be proud of introducing it. As a kid I grew disillusioned by motorsport because of the fatalities. Since the sport has worked towards better safety in recent decades, I have once again become an F1 fanatic.
4. 

   Dane
   27th August 2018, 16:18

   Would F1’s halo have stopped Massa from being hit by a spring? Maybe, maybe not.

   IndyCar is set to use the aeroscreen which definitely would stop that kind of debris.
   I think it’s unfair to say they are not doing much for safety.
5. 

   anon
   27th August 2018, 16:26

   Danger is Indycar’s only competitive advantage. Gets bums on seats. Take that away it’s a second-rate spec-car series on rutted street circuits.
   1. 

      Dave
      27th August 2018, 17:35

      @anon
      Agree with your most of your assessment (except for bum drivers) but Indy surpasses F1 in that most of the drivers have a shot at a top spot on the podium if not a WDC.
      F1 fails miserably in that arena as only 2 or 3 drivers have a shot at winning – always been the same.
      Technology wise, it’s first rate – racing wise, it’s near if not at the bottom of the heap.
      1. 

         David BR (@david-br)
         27th August 2018, 19:15

         (except for bum drivers)

         anon means danger gets spectators (sat watching in the seats)
6. 

   ferrox glideh (@ferrox-glideh)
   27th August 2018, 17:25

   Sad, but true.
   1. 

      ferrox glideh (@ferrox-glideh)
      27th August 2018, 17:26

      (meant to be a reply to anon)
7. 

   StefMeister (@stefmeister)
   27th August 2018, 21:24

   Oval racing can be more dangerous than road racing but I don’t think oval racing is necisarily unsafe. In fact it’s arguably the safest it’s ever been due to the safety improvements made to the cars over the years as well as the safer barriers.

   The biggest problem in terms of safety comes when the cars get air & hit the fencing. However as Dario Franchitti’s crash at Houston in 2013 showed us this can be just as much a problem at lower speed on a road/street circuit as it can be on ovals.
   https://youtu.be/mJ3vw79o6n4?t=37s

   As far as i’m aware the fencing design isn’t that different, Doesn’t look like it’s too different at least.
   https://willthef1journo.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/img_1593.jpg
   https://www.geobrugg.com/portal/pics/Products/FIA-debris-fence/HEADER-FIA-NEW.jpg

   Pocono – https://i.axs.com/2015/08/79358206-image_55d8e989bb323.jpg

   There is always the argument that they shouldn’t race on ovals but the problem is that then Indycar loses it’s identity just like Champcar did when it abandoned Ovals. The ovals are what gives the series it’s identity in a way, They create the diversity that many Indycar fans (And drivers) like & Without them it basically becomes a marginally faster version of F2.

   Keep the ovals & just work on why the more modern cars lift easier than the one’s from 20 odd years ago did. The cars back then were faster, They collided/crashed on ovals just as frequently yet stayed planted & didn’t ever get into a position to hit the fence on the ovals.
   1. 

      StefMeister (@stefmeister)
      27th August 2018, 21:25

      Should read “As far as i’m aware the fencing design isn’t that different to what F1 tracks use”.
8. 

   Miltiadis (@miltosgreekfan)
   27th August 2018, 21:27

   Perhaps they way Felipe expressed it wasn’t ideal, as Indy have done some solid safety addictions, but i can understand why he wanted to say it
   (specially Felipe with his injury history).
   I’ll give you two examples who show how unsafe driver’s head are in Oval racing.
   -Indy 500 of 2017, Dixon crashes into Howard & goes flying at full speed. He collides with the walls at the outside of the circuit, but for his good luck, he doesnt go with the head. He would have died instantly if the hit was head-on…
   -Pocono 2018, the flying car of Wickens passes some centimetres from Hunter-Reay’s head…
9. 

   DaveW (@dmw)
   28th August 2018, 17:31

   The question of which series is safer seems academic. But I’ve found that it’s not really simple. I’ve tried to find raw data on injuries and fatalities per mile for different forms of racing. I discovered only that the main, clear observation is the dramatic fall in injuries and deaths over time since the 70s and 80s in both series. And nowadays, fatalities are so rare that it’s hard to draw meaningful conclusions on the question or make projections about deaths/mile or whatever.

   Personally I find it hard to watch high speed Indycar oval races knowing that a mere spin potentially means hitting a concrete wall at 200mph or more. But in reality, hitting anything at racing speeds can be fatal. Human bodies are ludicrously frail in relation to the speeds we even drive on the roads.

Comments are closed.