"ARCA driver dies in practice; Renshaw taken to hospital

ARCA competitor Eric Martin was killed in a violent crash at Lowe's Motor Speedway on Wednesday in a practice session leading up to Thursday night's EasyCare 150."

story: http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlot...ts/4246350.htm

I am very sad to see something like this. My condolences to his family and friends.


[Modified by phat-S, 3:42 PM 10/9/2002]

 

Heard it over the radio on the way home. Very sad indeed

 

Most unfortunate!

 

most unfortunate!!

and to those who said and thought i was driving like a puss......hmmm.....yeah....whatever...put your *** in the seat!!! we'll see how much you like that wall!!!!

 

Always hate to see anybody get hurt or killed.
Sad indeed.

Chad, you were driving like a puss. That isn't the question. The question is were you justified in doing so? I think so. That place is intimidating as hell, especially to those of us who usually race without walls.

Scott, who could only flatfoot NASCAR 3 and 4 by not looking at the walls. If I looked at them, I instinctively lifted. That whole self-preservation thingy some of us have going on.

 

As one of the more experienced arca drivers said in an interview on a show I saw yesterday, it was not really about the walls, or the track, or car. His personal opinion was inexperience by everyone involved that all added up to cause such an incident. The way this thing unfolded is quite revolting. The car spun around and made contact with the wall. That was not really a big deal actually. People hit walls like that all the time in oval racing. But after it came to a stop on what looked like the straight, the driver was clearly moving (normally I might add) inside the car. Then some *ten* seconds later after the car came to a stop, another car going flat out at 160 mph hit him straight on. This is just wrong. Such as thing should just *not* happen. There was such a relatively long break in between that these two events can be considered separate incidents. Were there no yellows, no radio communication, no nothing going on? What the heck happened there? It is so sad to see someone die in such a way. Just imagine what the poor guy in the stranded car must have thought in those last few seconds when he was basically seeing his end come his way. Really sad. And it just shows yet again the fundamental flaws of oval racing. Why do we have to subject fellow racers to race around going 160+ mph in on an oval surrounded by concrete walls? The two fundamental flaws are: 1 if anything goes wrong, you *will* hit a hard object at a tremendous speed that does not move. 160 mph + *average* speeds are just insane when you are just feet away from walls all the time. I don't think driver "skill" gets demonstrated here. And 2, in this caged arena called an oval, if something is to go wrong and you loose control, you don't just go off the track into at least *some* runoff area somewhere. Instead after the hit you are thrown right back in the middle of the track by these walls, in the way of 40 other cars coming at you at not 80 mph, but 160+ mph. Yeah I guess this kind of racing does produce "good and exiting racing" depending on your definition of racing, but clearly in my view, it is not worth the obvious fundamental risks. Racing is dangerous and people will always loose their life doing what they love, but the number of deaths on oval racing is really getting up there. I really find this incident sad and personally believe that such a wreck should have been easily avoided and not have happened in the first place.

I wish his family all the best given the sad circumstances.

 

After the initial hit with the wall, he radioed into the pits telling them that he was okay. One of the contributing factors to this was that during practice sessions, ARCA rules don't require spotters up in the grandstands like they do for the races. The spotters are just standing on the trailers in the infield, so they can't see all that well, and have large blind spots. Even still though, Alex is 100% correct that there was way more than enough time that she should have been aware of what was happening around the bend, and that wreck never should have happened.

Matt

 

Ok, guys, if you see a caution, PLEASE check up! I do not want to get T boned if I spin.. Very sad to hear about this...

 

bingo... this is the main issue I have with it.

sad to hear about any kind of impact... but death is even worse.

 

From what I've heard on the news, the spotter of the driver that hit him was in a bad spot and did not see that section of the track. She (the driver of the 2nd car) never saw him until it was too late. Having driven there last month, I know I couldn't see crap aheadof me in that turn because of the banking.

O-man called me a p$%#y for checking up going into NASCAR 3 at "only 110". I really didn't think then I was that much of a p#$%y, even with my cage and harnesses. Now I'm sure of it.

 

I finally saw the video of the incident last night. That was a horrible thing to see. To see that he was ok after his crash (movement inside), and then that car coming into the picture at 160 mph. wow.....sad. I can't believe that she didn't see him, but then again I don't know what its like to drive in the circumstances.

 

I'm sorry I saw this thread. I was hoping this topic would go away before I got a chance to express my opinions...

1) WTF is up with a form of racing that requires "spotters" on the radio to keep the drivers informed of WTF is actually going on out there to keep them from harm... on the hot racing surface they are all sharing at 160+ mph... anyway?

2) WTF is up with a form of racing that is held primarily at paved bullrings where blind-spots are so large due to banking angles that "properly positioned spotters" are even a remote consideration, much less an absolute necessity, to avoid potential driver harm?

3) WTF is up with a sanctioning body that could ever let more than 10 seconds go by without displaying yellow flags/lights for the oncoming drivers to comprehend?

4) WTF is up with a sanctioning body that would allow a driver out there who could NOT see or understand trouble ahead within 10 seconds of when it happens... especially one with spotters advising and crew chiefs monitoring the worker channel and etc?

Add it all up for yourselves. My belief is that NASCAR exists to entertain. And in doing so, it makes a LOT of money for everyone involved. What it doesn't do is give the racers that warm fuzzy feeling that they are safe. Because they definitely aren't. Not under the care of a sanctioning body that would let the things happen that I listed above. Love it or hate it, watch it or ignore it. But please stop calling it racing. NASCAR is a professional bloodsport... a modern-day gladiator's ring. "Make it a good show, at any cost." WTF is that all about?????

Jon

 

Al good points except for one thing. This was an ARCA race ARCA races are the lower that even nascar busch's serires. Also Arca is <U>not</U> part of nascar and they do not have the money that nascar has either.

 

I believe I understand your issues/concerns Jon. I *think* that it is necessary to separate a couple items here in defense of a couple of parties involved. As for the driver that hit Martin's car (and I have heard virtually nothing on this via tv or radio so I am not sure what they are saying locally) - it is exceptionally difficult to see ahead of you coming off the banking - is that entirely the fault of track builders? I'd say it is just as difficult to see anything that happens where direction change + elevation change greatly affects visibility (and I can think of many places at RA, RRR, VIR, CMP as well as LMS that do this). If indeed this was the fault of the caution lights not being turned on, that's the fault of the caution lights not being tripped. If its the trailing driver's fault, then its the trailing driver's fault - I don't see how it could be both, these two things are mutually exclusive IMnot-so-educatedO. The reason I posted this was that many of us had just been to LMS and some of us (H1, H2, AI, AIX cars) were travelling speeds not too far off the speeds of the ARCA cars (I was told 150 to 160 exiting the banking). As I said, it seemed pertinent - perhaps it was not.

 

Good points phat s. However I would not even look at it this deep. But step back and realize that this is all oval related stuff. Whether it is nascar, IRL, or CART (for their oval races) or something else, a sanctioning body just can't get past the fundamental safety flaws in oval racing, period. It's 80% show 20% racing, and the 20% racing is 90% engine/chassis builder in my opinion and 10% actual driving. Since there is still a fraction of "racing" in this whole thing, you can't really say it is not racing at all. But you sure can say that it is a show many times more show than it is racing and show does not go hand in hand with safety.

phat s, I agree with the most part of this. You can definitely hit a stationary car on a road course due to elevation changes, etc.. However, the difference is in the *speed* of impact. The average speeds on a road course are half or less than those you find on most ovals, which except for short ovals, the whole track can be considered just as a long straightaway in terms of speeds. First of all, the chances of such an incident on a road course is much less since when a car spins off the track, it really does spin off the track and does not get pushed back on the racing line by concrete walls. Second of all if you do have such an incident which is of course possible, but much less likely, the energy will be much less. When that car was hit at 160+ mph, it just exploded from such an impact. Unless you are looking at F1, CART, or even maybe the 900 class in the ALMS (all of which are leagues ahead of winston cup cars in terms of raw performance!), such speeds just do not exist on road courses. And if they do exists, in road atlanta's case at least which is considered a high speed road course, the Audi R8s only hits 170 mph at the end of the backstraight and frontstraight. Not in some low visibility banked turn.

The difference here is the speed. Ovals allow for much high speeds, and that just puts on a much more visibly attractive *show*. Does it not? Ovals also make you pay *much* more dearly for make any kind of mistakes, by both A) hard and possibly deadly contact with the concrete wall that is just a few feet away, and B) by containing everything inside the walls and throwing the cars back on the track making you a very easy target for all the other cars going 160+ mph all the way around the track at all times (even 10 seconds after the car in this particular case came to a complete stop).

So I don't think this has too much to do with what or how much $$$$ the sanctioning body has...


[Modified by Hracer, 4:53 PM 10/13/2002]

 

While you will get no argument from me that oval racing is inherently more dangerous than road racing, this latest ARCA incident is not at all unlike the accident that killed Mike Gagliardi, when his Trans-Am car spun back in front of another car at Mosport last year. As I understand it, his car was utterly destroyed.

Just to keep things in perspective. It's easy to make generalizations but we don't learn much from them...

ARCA is unusual that it puts (relatively) inexperienced drivers on superspeedways. I don't think that is necessarily the best answer but there has got to be a way for people to gain some experience on tracks of this nature. It seems to be worth some consideration that, since ARCA cars don't run the restrictor plates actually they are actually faster than the NASCAR Cup cars at the big tracks. Slowing them down would seem like a reasonable answer.

I would, however, disagree with the contention that the driver contributes only a tiny percentage of what it takes to go fast in a stock car. That is a popular myth that can quickly be dispelled by asking ANYONE with the experience to compare it directly with road racing. In fact, without being unduly harsh to those involved in this most recent incident, a relative lack of skill - combined with really high speeds and unforgiving tracks - might have been a factor in what seems like an unusually high fatality rate in ARCA in the past decade.

Finally, oval track racing is a "show" because it is really is racing (unless I am using a different definition of the word). The attributes that make it entertaining to watch are the same ones (unfortunately) that make it more dangerous - close quarters, relatively short laps, full-course yellows, and big fields. Hracer's point about cars not being able to "get away" is a good one. Oval tracks have walls to keep the cars from reaching the spectators, who want to be close to the action.

To suggest that it is a blood sport is a cheap shot and a little outrageous - did thousands of Christians fight lions at their local arenas hoping to make it to the big show in the Coliseum one day? NASCAR and IRL drivers all know the risks and, if one of them decides to quit taking them, there are hundreds of others out there willing to get into his or her seat.

Kirk

 

Really great discussion. Two points I am interested in.

I already stated my opinion above and before I change it I do need some evidence of it being false. So I would really like to hear someone in the field actually say that in oval racing having a good engine builder and good chassis builder does not contribute *more* than those two factors do in road racing, where you are much less on average going at WOT. I am not disputing the fact that a good motor and chassis are not always factors in being faster in any kind of racing, but my opinion is simply that this becomes even *more* evident in oval racing. This by no means implies that you do not need skill to drive on an oval. Sure you do, but my thoughts directly reflect what both Montoya and JV said in a press conference I heard of referenced on TV. (I really wish I could get more information on that conference, which from what I heard really pis%ed off TG. ) They both stated that (IRL in this case) is not as much "a driver's" race as it may seem. They argued that all the cars are so well planted that a lot of people are able to drive them fast. They say that yes there are talented drivers racing there, but they just do not get the chance to “out drive” everyone else due to the nature of the "racing" in IRL or more specifically oval racing. These two guys are champions in both oval and road racing circuits, so their opinion should be valid I think.


Again I think this is open to our own interpretations what "racing" really means for all of us. I see less "racing" in super speedways than on a road course because of a couple of factors. The ability to be in someone's draft for the whole lap basically keeps you right behind the other car, and can also very easily set you up for a pass if you get enough of a run. That means very bluntly that if drafting plays 1/10th of a car's speed, that means the driver in the lead car has to drive 10/10ths while the following driver only at 9/10th and they will still both run the same pace. Of course these x/10 ths # are not accurate, but do illustrate what I mean. Drafting plays too much of a role in my opinion in oval racing and takes away from the driver's skill, which if it is more than the other driver, will enable him/her to open up a marginal lead for every lap he/she is faster. Being able to stay right up with the other car might improve the "show" and (false impression of) "close racing" aspect and take away from the *real* racing. Seeing cars in close proximity has very little to do with *good* racing. You see cars side by side on a major highway all the time and that does not at all imply that they are racing. Just because you see two IRL cars side by side or nose to tail drafting each other for laps in a row, it does not reflect great racing, at least in my eyes. Yes it is close and exciting indeed, but the main reason for this comes down to the laws of physics much more that the two driver's independent performance on the track to keep them “together“. I don't know if this makes sense. But to me, two drivers separated by 10 seconds on the track, each driving the wheels off their cars and either increasing or decreasing the interval between them by a few tenths per lap is a lot more *racing* than a group of cars bunched up on an high speed oval because basically it is *hard not* to be bunched up under these circumstances. My own personal interpretation of "racing" does not necessitate 2 cars side by side. In that case rally would not be called "racing" since there is no passing and no side by side visual appeal. In my opinion of "racing", the drivers are driving at 10/10ths and are awarded accordingly on the track with either being able to gain or loose distance to the other fellow drivers. The ability of constant drafting benefits "the follower" and at the same time inevitably bunches and keeps cars together in groups. To me this just seems like you are diluting the real racing and adding more "show" to it. So to wrap it all up: my opinion is that having cars go 3 wide or having a group of 10 cars stuck nose to tail for the duration of an oval race is *less* "racing" and more "show" than what the same cars & and drivers would be doing on a road course. On the road course you might not have the artificially injected "show" of cars being in close proximity due more to the rules of physics than anything else, but you will have more pure racing, IMO. And when you do get side by side action in road racing, it just makes it that much better knowing that it is the drivers who are contributing to it, not the rules of physics.

Disclaimer: Again I am not saying there is no racing in oval racing (or no skill involved!), but just *less* than what I see on a road course. This is all of course just my own twisted view on things, so in case I am or seem confused, please someone make me see the light! We all have our own definition of "racing" and I'm sticking with mine.


[Modified by Hracer, 11:01 PM 10/13/2002]

 

GORDON KIRBY'S INSIDE TRACK
Posted on October 9, 2002
http://www.cart.com/News/Article.asp?ID=4886

CART champions both, Jacques Villeneuve and Juan Montoya were happy visitors to the CART FedEx Championship Series pits and paddock in Miami last weekend.
Montoya lives in town, not far from the track, and was the Grand Prix Americas honorary starter while Villeneuve was there with his manager Craig Pollock.

Founder of the BAR F1 team, Pollock said he personally was interested in investing in or owning a CART team. Pollock also left the door open to the much-rumored possibility of Villeneuve returning to CART next year although Jacques threw cold water on the idea.

"Everybody's interested in seeing it happen, Jacques included," Pollock said. "But it has to be the right deal and the right deal has to suit both parties."

Asked to put a percentage on the possibility, Pollock was less positive.

"As it stands today, slim," Pollock observed.

Responded Villeneuve: "I'm going to continue in F1 next year. F1 is the top of motorsport racing and it would be hard to move out of F1."

Still, Villeneuve remains a big supporter of CART and Champ Car racing where he captured the 1995 title (and the Indy 500) before going on to Formula One where captured the World Championship in 1997.

"There's a good mix of races and tracks in Champ Cars," Jacques said. "That's what makes it so good. The cars are big muscle cars and you need a lot of talent to drive them fast. The two years I spent in CART were extremely important to my career and I've always been a big fan of the series."

Villeneuve and Montoya are renowned as plain speakers as well as pure racers. They agree on many things including the high level of challenges in racing Champ Cars.

"I want to see CART keep going strong because it's a great racing series," said Montoya in Miami. "It gave me a lot of valuable lessons for Formula One. You've got to say that Formula One is a different league from any other series in the world, but CART's standards are very high and I learned a lot in Champ Cars.

"I learned about a variety of racing--a lot of street courses and road courses as well as small ovals, medium ovals and fast ovals--and a lot about strategies. When you race in Formula 3 or F3000, it's just *****-out racing. In Champ Cars you've got to play it a lot more clever and by playing it clever you learn a lot and there are a lot of good things you can take on to Formula One."

Villeneuve was very critical of the IRL during last month's United States Grand Prix at Indianapolis and he made similar comments in Miami.

"The IRL hurt CART a lot by doing a cheap series that there was no reason for its existence," Villeneuve remarked. "What the IRL has created is entertainment. It's not racing. It's too bad because there is talent there, but it doesn't show and the thing is, it's so dangerous. They have the Indy 500, but the rest of the series is really nothing.

"The other thing is the car's aren't really so interesting. They can't take downforce off and they don't have enough power so they're flat all the way around and there's no driving skill involved. I think it's wrong and it's sad that it's hurt CART. It should have been done in a way that it didn't hurt CART. Hopefully, the people who are moving to the IRL will regret their move."

Villeneuve said he sees considerable hypocrisy in the IRL's originally stated goals compared to the direction it's gone.

"The one main reason I'm against the IRL is because they've lied so much," Jacques declared. "It started as an all-American series, but they really don't care about that. It was just an excuse to get the American public and sponsors interested and saying, 'Oh yeah, that's a good thing.' But now there's not much American left in it, and when it becomes political like that, I have a hard time to believe in it."

Montoya echoes Villeneuve's opinion.

"The IRL and oval racing is good fun," Montoya said, "but I don't really think it's preparation for Formula One. When you see those cars running along with their noses up in the air, that's bollocks. When you see them running around side-by-side for 20 laps, it may look good to some people, but that's not racing. They're down on power and everybody's stuck together."

The 1999 CART champion and 2000 Indy 500 winner says there's no comparison between CART and IRL cars.

"IRL racing is quite disappointing," Montoya said. "I raced those cars and I've got to say the opportunity I had was good because I won the Indy 500, but those cars don't compare with Champ Cars. There's no way that winning the Indy 500 could be stronger than winning in Champ Cars."

Montoya believes CART will rebound from the loss of Honda and Toyota and some of its teams.

"CART has great teams and it's a shame that some of the teams are leaving to go to IRL," Juan said. "It's all about money and who's paying, but we'll see what happens in the future. You've got to say Toyota and Honda aren't the only two manufacturers around the world interested in racing. There are a lot more manufacturers out there who could come in. Look at Formula One. So we'll see if Mercedes comes back, for example. It would be nice to see manufacturers coming back to support the series."

Montoya repeated the often-stated theory that the driver is more important in CART than in Formula One.

"That's something I really admire about Champ Cars," Juan said "It was like when I was fighting with Dario for the championship in 1999. We both had the same engine, car and tires and when it's like that, you really have to step up the game.

"Sometimes in Formula One if you have a good car you can be sometimes first or second on the grid but realistically in the race the best you can do is third, where in Champ cars if you do a good job, then it results in a win. I think that is a very strong point for Champ Cars."

Montoya says it would be a more productive move for many drivers to race in CART rather than Formula One.

"In Formula One it's good when you're with the good teams," he said. "If you're with Ferrari, McLaren or Williams, you're fine. You'll be up there. Outside of that, you're nowhere. You would be much better racing Champ Cars.

"When I came to CART in 1999, I had a couple of choices to be in Formula One with smaller teams, but I decided to come to Champ Cars and it was the best thing that happened to my career. It really gave my career a boost."

It's tough to argue against most of what these two former CART champions have to say. In fact, it's a pleasure to hear their clear, unqualified thoughts and opinions.

Former CART Champions Jacques Villeneuve (left) and Juan Montoya may have moved onto Formula One, but both have plenty of good things to say about the CART FedEx Championship Series.

 

Is the IRL Racing or is it a Show?

When I hear words like easy flat, or wide-open-all-the-way -round, I cringe. Maybe I'm getting too old, and today's mindset has changed, but I remember the days when winning an auto race meant the best driver won. Now I'm not so sure anymore.

A popular definition of a sport is - An activity involving physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often undertaken competitively. This implies there is some level of skill involved, and at the end of the day, may the best athlete, or team of athletes win.

Auto racing has come under much criticism over the years for not being a true sport, because the machine (the car), not the athlete (the driver), often determined the winner. Those of us who truly understand the sport know how hard it is to be a fast race driver, and to win a race. We also recognize that it is a team sport. The pit crew, the mechanics, the engineers, the managers, all make up a winning team.

What really caught my attention was the statement Jacque Lazier made on TV recently after trying out the super smooth, recently diamond grinded, Indy Motor Speedway. He said, "it's so smooth it's easy flat." Indy was always a low-banked high-speed oval that required real skill to navigate quickly. It is/was the Super Bowl of auto racing that only the very best mastered.....but now it's easy flat.

While I don't fault the Indy Motor Speedway for wanting to make their track smooth and fast. However, when a race car has either too much downforce, not enough HP, or a combination of both, that enables a driver to circulate the majority of tracks on the IRL circuit at full throttle the entire race, I begin to lose faith in our sport as being a true sport.

Certainly traveling at those high speeds is dangerous and takes nerve. Even driving easy flat requires the driver to make many decisions during the race and to keep the car from hitting others around him. We all know the consequences could mean death, hence why drivers are sometimes called Gladiators. However, being brave is one thing, being a great driver is quite another.

When I hear 'easy flat,' I go ballistic. Does football's Super Bowl determine the best team of athletes? How about Baseball's World Series, Basketball's championship, or Ice Hockey's Stanley Cup? Does our World Series determine who has the most horsepower? God help us if that's what it's coming to. Even drag racing, a HP dominated sport, requires a driver to balance traction and throttle, and to steer a 3,000 HP rocket ship in a straight line for 1/4 mile, to win.

Road course racing remains to this day, the most challenging form of auto racing. With the heavy braking, variety of corners, upshifting and downshifting, using the clutch (downshifts only), taking one had off the wheel to shift while turning, driving in the rain......all require far more skill from a driver than an 'easy flat' oval. F1, even with all its high-technology, to this day is regarded as the true measure of a great driver because 1) it's 100% road courses, 2) the cars have a high HP-to-weight ratio making them a handful to driver and easy to spin out, and 3) the variety of circuits is a challenge.

Sometimes I wonder if we haven't lost sight of the fact that our sport must be both a sport and a show, i.e. good entertainment. If not, race drivers will be looked upon down the noses of the stick-and-ball sport lovers who feel their sport(s) require pure athletic ability to excel.

CART attempted to put more driver skill back in the sport years ago when it took downforce away from the cars. This served two purposes, 1) it slowed the cars down in the corners because speeds were getting dangerously fast, and 2) low downforce meant the driver had to make a true lift off the throttle entering the corners and drive the car through the corner balancing the throttle with steering input.

What CART struggled with, however, was the quality of its show. The Handford Device (also implemented to slow the cars) created such dirty air, that a car running behind, with low downforce, could never get close enough to the car in front exiting the corner, so the driver can make the pass down the straight. In addition, the combination of tire marbles and low downforce, took away the great side-by-side racing through the corners that every fan loves to see. However, it certainly was a measure of driver talent, and the great driving talents of this world, like Juan Montoya, showed us what our sport, if we are to call it that, is really about - the best driver/athlete.

So how do we solve this dilemma, to reach a happy medium between an easy flat IRL series that requires very little driver talent, but puts on a great show for the fans, and CART, which requires a huge amount of driver talent, but sometimes the 'show' suffers?

The answer is not en easy one, especially because oval tracks are involved. Oval track racing means speed, high speed. If you give them too little HP, the cars are easy flat. If you give them too much downforce, they are easy flat. If you give them too much HP, they become a coffin with wheels. If you give them too little downforce, they put the audience to sleep, though the driver certainly gets a good workout.

The challenge before the IRL, and CART to a lesser extent (fewer ovals), is to not lose sight of the fact that auto racing is a sport, and not P.T. Barnum show-biz. If I wanted to be strictly and mindlessly entertained, I could go to the "World Figure 8 demo-derby championships at Islip Speedway in Long Island, NY. If I want to see the best drivers race, I want to know that at the end of the day they've really accomplished something grand.

Cristiano Da Matta says it is much more demanding for a driver to win on a street or road circuit. In a recent LA Times article written by Shav Glick he states, "On a superspeedway, the car is 95% and the driver only 5%, on short ovals, the car is 85% and the driver 15%, but on street and road courses it's 50-50," he said. "It's never boring running on a big oval, not when you're going 250 mph, but you don't get the same challenges you get on a road or street course where you have to have more understanding of what your car is doing."

Heroes in sport are always about the best athlete, and auto racing should be no different. All the heroes in auto racing history have been great drivers, and easy flat does not make great drivers,......nor heroes.

 

Thanks Alexis for finding that article.


Also this quote sure was interesting:

But what does Da Matta know anyways...


edit: just wanted to say that due to the sensitive original topic a new thread for such a discussion might have been a better idea instead. Still any discussion is a lot better than no discussion.


[Modified by Hracer, 9:40 AM 10/14/2002]

 

Doesn't get much more "expert" than JV and JPM, does it? I concede the point comparing the relative contribution of driver skill on the ovals with that required on a road course - with the same cars. I already believed that was the case, even if I didn't clearly state it.

I don't want this conversation to become another CART vs. IRL discussion but when IRL starts running on road courses, there will be room for some accurate comparisons of the quality of "racing" - which is the point at hand, to a degree.

K

 

I wasn't really intending for this to lead to the type of racing as the point. I brought it up (and gave the link to some AI/AIX friends) because, frankly, there are alot of guys running "at" or "near" these speeds that were at "this" track coming off "this" turn using bolt-in cages or cages with low or no door bar protection that I thought might look at this incident and safety with a more keen eye.