This is too long to properly quote on my phone.
I understand your position, and you're right, it is shared by other people as well. This conversation is as old as motorsport itself. I'll never forget Bernie talking about the ratings boom after F1 was being labeled a bloodsport in the aftermath of Senna/Ratzenberger/Wendlinger. I'm sure NASCAR experienced the same with Earnhardt. That's just how some people are. It's also happens to be gross in my opinion.
No one wants an accident but much like the trapeze or high-wire, racing brings along the element of danger and death defiance that drives appeal. Anyone can drive a car. Only a select few can do it at these speeds.
I agree, minus the death defiance. Motorsport is dangerous by it's very nature, and part of the attraction. The threat of death however shouldn't be appealing to anyone. You shouldn't need the occasional death to legitimatize the danger. Danger of injury, fine. Death, there's no place for it. That's the line in the sand most race fans do not want to see crossed. People need to be accepting, because it happens, but never OK with it. If something can be done, it should be done.
You're unrealistic. Call me perverse, i don't give a rip. I've seen more death than I care for. It doesn't change the fact that it's a part of the sport. I'm not allowing people to kill themselves by calling for a stay on these ill-conceived suggestions. So don't distort my words to try strengthening your position. That's just fucking lame, and is the way most of these arguments go. It's not going to shake my opinion.
I don't believe in the concept of needing the threat of death to keep people from driving like idiots. If you take a stance against furthering safety to better driving etiquette, then you're accommodating of the potential results. Allowing, accommodating, where's the difference? There is no difference. A vote against is a vote for.
It was a fluke because cars have hit the infield before without rolling over. If he didn't hit the wall top first, he'd be alive. Badly injured, but alive. His death was not down to the impact alone, it was down to the angle of impact. I'm fine with them paving the infield, though. I'm in favor of many safety measures, like paving runoffs in F1. *gasp* I can actually champion safety without liking the idea of closed cockpits. Surprises abound.
Your problem is you're throwing fluke around like percentage of probability doesn't exist. If you spin at 230, fly through the grass infield, launch yourself off a paved access road, and strike a wall, it's no fluke you die. If you could redo that crash 10 times, the same result would likely happen again. That's not a fluke. Changes needed to be made. Changed were made.
Debris strikes are more likely in older cars due to exposure. You're explanation for why there were fewer makes no sense.
Of course it make sense. You agreed with me a few sentences later. You can't be struck by a stationary object. In the more spread out/weeded out fields of yesteryear, that object is just sitting there for far more people coming by, not cartwheeling down the track at head height striking the 12th guy. Modern racing is different, and has different safety needs.
In any collision, debris can fly. The surface area of the driver that was exposed was greater in older cars. Hence, it's more likely to be a problem. But it didn't happen because it's a completely flukish event.
It's slightly more likely you'd be stuck in an older car because of the cockpit design, but you're less likely to have someone (someones, odds increase) so close to an ongoing crash. The closer the cars, the more likely a strike. That's my view.
Divide the number of debris strikes by the total number of collisions and the percentage you'll come up with lies squarely in the improbable zone.
Dude, we've had two in the last two seasons in Indy Car. Let's wait for one more person to take one in the head, and then let's do something. Right? Sorry next guy/gal up, got to get out of the improbability zone first.
As for the VSC, it's a result of driver error, plain and simple. If Jules slowed down properly, he'd be alive and the norm of local yellows would still exist. I don't care much about the VSC though. It's not a major detractor to me. Pit lane speeds have also fluctuated over the years. It's a standard in most racing series, so clearly a smart idea.
I assign minimal blame to Bianchi for what happened to him. Of course, he's the nut behind the wheel and he crashed, but I don't believe cars at 9 tenths should share the track with marshals and equipment. This is not a phenomenon you see at non-FIA sanctioned events (ie Stateside). It's never made any sense to me.
Death was a real possibility for any accident back in the day. It's not bloodlust, it's the thrill of watching guys defy the odds to conduct one of the greatest battles ever. It would still be thrilling in today's safety cars, but they're always the threat of death given the speeds cars operate at. The spectre of death lies around every corner. Perhaps the increased safety has made you forget that, but who would've thought that Senna would've died from his accident when Rubens had a far more horrific one?
I haven't forgotten anything, That's why I keep saying motor racing is dangerous, and it's part of the sport. Death and danger aren't one and the same however. That's my argument.
Senna-Rubens, you're making my point for me. Danger - Rubens - good. Getting hit in the head with debris - Senna - bad. It's been 20 years, now everyone is aware that strikes to head pose the greatest risk to open cockpits. No one reacts the same as they did then.
I choose not to forget that there are real and dire consequences for mistakes in this sport. It's what makes the successes that much greater for me. It's a dangerous sport. Not everyone is brave enough or talented enough to perform the job without meeting disaster.
Well I'm glad you're entertained by the potential of grave misfortune to others. I get the same rush from motorsport too, but I'm perfectly content with less disastrous disasters.
For the record, I happily romanticize racing from decades gone by like the 50's, 60's and 70's as life or death racing, but that's history. It's come and gone. Superseded by human progress. Thank god.
You're entitled to your wrong opinion. I've watched auto racing for 29 years now. I think I know why I watch it. I just choose not to ignore the source of the thrill. If anyone could do it, I wouldn't watch. It's a sport for the brave because of the danger. You can choose not to accept that, but I really don't care.
Thrill, danger, death. Not the same. It's going to be the last time I point that out.
Krosnoff hit a tree or lightpole because his car was launched into the air from wheel to wheel contact. Or do you want to ignore that? The car didn't teleport into the air, and you have no idea if he'd have survived it given hire the car essentially disintegrated on the chain link fence. He landed in his tub. That crash was insanely brutal and were the wheels shrouded, it would never have happened.
What, that was the first time a guy ran over the back of someone else? Happens all the time. Hardly a death knell. People like open wheels. People want open wheels. They can have them, but only if the cars and tracks can be made safe. That's what they have done, and will continue to do.
You can spit vitriol all you want. It's the same, childish antics people use whenever they run up against an argument they don't like, but can't readily dismiss. Blah blah blah I'm a barbarian. No, I'm a realist, and I've found a level of satisfaction with the sport and it's safety regulations. Shame on me for voicing my thoughts.
Now you're just whining. Rebuttals are childish antics? Mkay. By all means, stick by your guns. I'm not telling you you're wrong. I just don't believe in what you say both factually and morally.
Hehe. I take comfort in knowing I'm not alone in my views. NASCAR is insanely safe and insanely boring. Why do many of us watch the Isle of Man trials each year? Because only a chosen few have the cojones to attack that track and top the sheets. Why did Pikes Peak become a boring non-event? Because they took out its fangs. Racing involves danger, and that's what makes a racing drive different from a daily driver. They defy the odds. They defy death. Cheers.
We are not on the same page whatsoever.
