"I'll post this here, because the other thread referenced is really more of a technical fantasy exercise, but every time we talk about big changes or mandates in car design and even participation by those less accustomed to the high speed open wheel oval challenge, I'm also reminded of the unintended consequence of the big bump in frequency and severity of driver injuries during the early days of the IRL. And that those numbers seem to have improved (knock wood)."
I've taken part of your response from the front engined revisited thread because it applies here too.
While I have made some proposals for front engined cars, the location of the engine is not the key factor. I would be perfectly happy with not making big changes or mandates in car design or participation by those less accustomed to the high speed open wheel oval challenge.
I would be perfectly happy with cars that look and run exactly or nearly exactly as what we have now. I personally would prefer a car more like the previous generation IRL car. And I would contend that what we have now actually encourages participation by those without proper experience for those challenges.
But I also question the legitimacy of your claim of a "big bump in frequency and severity of driver injuries during the early IRL days on a couple of levels.
1. Do you have actual statistics that would bear out your claim or are you going by anedotal evidence. If you are going by anedotal evidence, do you remember that many of those type of claims were actively pushed by those opposed the anything/everything IRL? Do you remember the internet wars by those on each side who would take any negative whether real or perceived and use it as "proof" that the IRL or CART was (fill in the blank with any or all negative terms you can think of and even make up a few new ones while you are at it."? The fact that there were any injuries/fatalities is enough to warrant trying to improve the breed, but I contend that you'll not have actual statistical evidence of accidents being more frequent or more severe. Please correct me if I am wrong.
2. Do you not agree that the real intention of most R&D is done to make the cars faster and if that comes with more safety then it's a good thing and will almost surely be tauted as the underlyling reason for the "technical advance" whether it actually was or not?
3. And would you not also agree that ANY money spent on R&D in order to make the cars faster is a complete waste of time and money since any gains realized will only be taken away by rules changes designed to keep the speeds within a certain range?
I've taken part of your response from the front engined revisited thread because it applies here too.
While I have made some proposals for front engined cars, the location of the engine is not the key factor. I would be perfectly happy with not making big changes or mandates in car design or participation by those less accustomed to the high speed open wheel oval challenge.
I would be perfectly happy with cars that look and run exactly or nearly exactly as what we have now. I personally would prefer a car more like the previous generation IRL car. And I would contend that what we have now actually encourages participation by those without proper experience for those challenges.
But I also question the legitimacy of your claim of a "big bump in frequency and severity of driver injuries during the early IRL days on a couple of levels.
1. Do you have actual statistics that would bear out your claim or are you going by anedotal evidence. If you are going by anedotal evidence, do you remember that many of those type of claims were actively pushed by those opposed the anything/everything IRL? Do you remember the internet wars by those on each side who would take any negative whether real or perceived and use it as "proof" that the IRL or CART was (fill in the blank with any or all negative terms you can think of and even make up a few new ones while you are at it."? The fact that there were any injuries/fatalities is enough to warrant trying to improve the breed, but I contend that you'll not have actual statistical evidence of accidents being more frequent or more severe. Please correct me if I am wrong.
2. Do you not agree that the real intention of most R&D is done to make the cars faster and if that comes with more safety then it's a good thing and will almost surely be tauted as the underlyling reason for the "technical advance" whether it actually was or not?
3. And would you not also agree that ANY money spent on R&D in order to make the cars faster is a complete waste of time and money since any gains realized will only be taken away by rules changes designed to keep the speeds within a certain range?
Comment