IndyCar 2011

frostie500

Terrible news, I always a fan of Dans and especially after his victory at Indy this year it seemed that he was just on the verge of getting a ride for next year, especially with the testing of next years car.

demac

RIP Great Racer.

amacachi

Was meant to be an awesome night of racing and instead it's this.

TheChrisD

On the IndyCar homepage:

Killinator

Turned the 'race' on just after the crash,
I openly admit I'm not a massive IndyCar fan and rarely watch it, but even I'm hurting after the news.

RIP Dan and a speedy recovery to the other few drivers injured tonight.

kmart6

Terrible news....RIP!

Cookie_Monster

That was some obscene accident!

Great to see such a tribute being done though.

RIP

TheChrisD

5-lap tribute underway.

dcr22B

I can't believe it, terribly tragic news and my thoughts are with Dan Wheldon's family and friends.

RIP

Glico Man

Horrid, horrid news

Been a big fan of his for a while and always hoped he'd get a shot at F1... RIP

Kersh

RIP Dan. Terrible news.

gs39t

Dan, rest in peace. Thank you for the memories.

andyman

I just heard the news. I haven't seen much IndyCar this season but Wheldon was always a favourite of mine. I'm actually devestated now.

RIP Dan, thanks for the memories

acquiescefc

remembering being jetlagged at 5am watching this id recorded a week before cos i was away.

im sad its going to get more hits forthe wrong reason.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_kMXSbiJVY

andyman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCZP4P4No8Q

Derek Daly's reaction. His son, Conor, has always said that Dan was like a coach to him and you'd often see Conor mention driving with Dan and Graham Rahal on Twitter. Must be an awful time for the Daly family as well.

Sparks43

R.I.P Dan


No more needs/should be said

G-Money

I never watch Indycar but for some reason decided to watch it last night and saw the crash live. Kind of wishing I hadn't watched it.

During the warm-up lap the american commentators had a live mic link to Dan Wheldon's car and he was talking to them.

Hard to believe 12 or 13 laps later he was dead.

RIP.

amacachi

Any word on the other drivers taken to hospital?

amacachi

I decided to put this here rather than the Wheldon thread and I hope it's not seen as insensitive but some of the stuff already being spouted about safety etc. by people who should either know better or who just haven't got a clue is really getting on my nerves. Obviously one hopes that improvements to safety can be made and if so will stop deaths in the future but someone like Tony Jardine talking about how concerning it was that the cars burst into flames is just amazing. The burst of flames in high-speed crashes on current cars does nothing. I've read elsewhere about how worrying it is that there was so much debris. Moreso than flames, cars shedding pieces is a good thing. Look at Johnson's crash in the Sprint Cup the other night, had it be a solid wall he hit it would've been a helluva lot worse. It was IndyCar that paid for the development of the SAFER barrier and NASCAR still race on fast tracks where only the turns have the barrier. Some of the insinuations are just really annoying me.

TheChrisD

Yup. Johnathan Legard had similar comments about something he obviously knows feck-all about.

(Not that he knows more about F1!)

amacachi

TheChrisD wrote: »

Yup. Johnathan Legard had similar comments about something he obviously knows feck-all about.

(Not that he knows more about F1!)

Aye, talking about how it was the biggest money race in US history and it attracted drivers who shouldn't have been there. It's like these people don't pay attention to anything until after they're asked for an opinion on it.

amacachi

Also do any of them realise that their suggestion to limit power to lower speeds would do little but bunch the pack up even more?

EDIT: The more I read, the more annoyed I am. Coulthard seems to think IndyCar was, and is 20 years behind F1 in terms of safety. I assume that means he thinks IndyCar is where F1 was 2 years BEFORE they had a proper safety car procedure? Some absolutely ridiculous crap being spouted from so many quarters from people who, if their interest in the sport was 10% as high as they claim, should really know better.

gs39t

I've seen some of Legard and Coulthard's comments. Complete nonsense. Then again, the cynical side of me says BBC, Sky etc didnt really care about anything other than showing a huge fireball crash.

F1 is the sport that will send a crane onto a hot racetrack to recover a car, so dont talk about F1 being all high and mighty with safety.

amacachi

gs39t wrote: »

I've seen some of Legard and Coulthard's comments. Complete nonsense. Then again, the cynical side of me says BBC, Sky etc didnt really care about anything other than showing a huge fireball crash.

F1 is the sport that will send a crane onto a hot racetrack to recover a car, so dont talk about F1 being all high and mighty with safety.

A lot of it is smacking of the usual British xenophobia often seen in the media. Brundle re-tweeted something Mario Andretti said though so it seems he at least is thinking.

Let's look at some things that have been said:

Lower power: Yeah, good plan. Reduce it so they can't get over 180 and even the biggest piece of **** that a 10 year old could design could go flat out. With any aero they'll still hit 210. Lower power would mean far more pack racing!
American v F1 safety: Coulthard said IndyCar is and in the 90s was 20 years behind F1 for safety. Eh, what? 20 years ago F1 didn't generally use safety cars. The American media covering Imola 94 couldn't believe how long it took to get ambulances etc. to Senna. Then a car was sent out onto the track. Brazil 2002 and Heidfeld drives into the Safety Car. Love to see the punishment someone would get for what happened there in 2003 with Alonso.
Money: Someone could've really told Legard that it was only Wheldon who was going for the $5 million. It didn't attract a particularly big number of inexperienced drivers.
Vehicles: Have they never even looked for the big crashes on youtube like Briscoe or Brack? Brack survived in an older vehicle and Briscoes crash and survival amazed me. The fact they burst into a few licks of flame is pretty much irrelevant, if not a positive.
Field size: Personally I didn't see a huge issue with the size of the field. If the last 8 cars weren't around on Sunday the cars involved still would've been involved.


As Mario Andretti said, it was a complete freak event. Power tool off similarly and was fine. Obviously if track improvements at Vegas and elsewhere could be made then they certainly should be. One thing I would say is that the drivers should all be told to brake as little as possible when someone is wrecking ahead as it's speed differentials that caused Power and Wheldon to take off.

Sorry for waffling, but for the same people who would complain about Safety Cars being used every time there's oil on the track or a minor crash or rain to then talk about how backward another series is in terms of safety is just disgusting, there's almost a smugness to it. I listened to a little from Anthony Davidson earlier and he's one of the few Brits not pointing at those ignorant Americans. As for Franchitti, if someone complains about every track, every location, every rule, eventually they're going to be right.

frostie500

I have to say I'm in complete agreement, it seems that everyone that BBC, Sky or radio stations talked to had little understanding of oval racing in general and Indy Cars in particular.

I know that noone wants to see anyone seriously injured or killed but they also need to temper that with the knowledge that Indy Car racing has its place on the motorsport landscape. I was sick of hearing people talk about the oval circuit dominated series, lets get one thing straight there are 8 oval race tracks used per season in a 17 or 18 race calendar. NASCAR is oval dominated, Indy Cars are balanced.

It was a terrible accident and a tragedy that Wheldon died but, and I mean this in all respect, the cause of his death was obviously the catch fenching that lines the circuit. This fenchings job is to keep airbourne cars in the vicinity of the circuit and not in the stands. The fenching is there to protect fans from a flying car and therefore did its job. Anytime a car takes off the driver is in the lap of the Gods, there is little that can be done to prepare for such an accident unfortunately.

Could you imagine how horrible it would have been to see Wheldon and Power's cars go into the stands? I don't mean to sound flippant but every racer knows the risks they take when they buckle up their chin strap and the engine gets fired up. Everyone in the sport strives to make it as safe as possible but there is always the underlying knowledge the motorsport is dangerous.

As I said I dont mean to come across as insensitive but I have been very disappointed by the comments of a lot of pundits. The amount of times that I heard "concrete lined circuits" but no reference to the SAFER barrier and lots of other inaccuracies really annoyed me.

amacachi

http://www.grandprix.com/columns/maurice-hamilton/dealing-with-tragedy.html Covers it nicely. Not the most knowledgeable on US racing obviously but at least he doesn't pretend otherwise. Gives a deserved shoutout to Davidson, other than himself and Brundle (who other than a retweet from Andretti hasn't said much which is fair) I've been really disappointed with the BBC.

I'm sure others will know better than me but they were saying that they've been moving to oval tracks to get money. I could've sworn the IRL started as a way to have a purely oval series and has moved towards more road/street courses for the money. It's that kind of thing that a cursory glance at wikipedia could correct that are really getting my goat.

TheChrisD

If there's one thing that's annoyed me about some of the articles written, it's that a few of the authors are pinning part of the blame on the fact that there were 8 rookies in the field.

Obviously they're oblivious to the fact that all but one of those came up through Indy Lights, and out of those only Kimball hadn't won an oval race (although he did come second in the 2010 Freedom 100), and Cunningham has won the Freedom 100 three times! So it's not like the rookies have no oval experience whatsoever...

G-Money

I read somewhere, can't remember where but I thought it was a good idea. They suggested that instead of having fencing, they should have some sort of plexiglass material that wouldn't rip the cars to shreads but would still let the spectators see the racing.

From the sounds of it, most of the drivers were concerned that there were too many cars in the race and they'd be too tightly bunched together and if anything happened, they'd be powerless to avoid an accident.

I also think I read one of the drivers saying another issue was the fact that the cars tend to run 3 abreast along that oval and you can't watch two other cars at the same time. I guess that happens in F1 too on the way to the first corner, but it rarely seems to last more than a few corners before they spread out.

amacachi

G-Money wrote: »

I read somewhere, can't remember where but I thought it was a good idea. They suggested that instead of having fencing, they should have some sort of plexiglass material that wouldn't rip the cars to shreads but would still let the spectators see the racing.

Certainly worth looking into but I'd imagine the cost would be astronomical. It would have to be strong enough to stop NASCAR cars too which weight the best part of two tonnes. While it's easy to make plexiglass that stops anything breaking through, a NASCAR car especially would just push through it without regular reinforcement so there would have to be parts with pillars to reinforce it. I'd be interested (though wouldn't like to watch) in seeing close-ups of Wheldon's impact because from the general footage he seemed to land upside-down on the wall to me. I imagine it was either that or one of the posts along the fencing that caused his death. I think the wall kind of protrudes from under the fencing which, if it is, would definitely be something that should be addressed because having an exposed corner would be very stupid.

From the sounds of it, most of the drivers were concerned that there were too many cars in the race and they'd be too tightly bunched together and if anything happened, they'd be powerless to avoid an accident.

They're always "concerned". Tracy is known as a mouth for a reason and Franchitti is like a broken clock, he'd have to be right at some point. Some of the others from a road-racing background complain about every 1.5+ mile oval other than Indy. Texas has higher banking and they've been racing there the whole time.

I also think I read one of the drivers saying another issue was the fact that the cars tend to run 3 abreast along that oval and you can't watch two other cars at the same time. I guess that happens in F1 too on the way to the first corner, but it rarely seems to last more than a few corners before they spread out.

I think the drivers need to take a look at themselves to be honest. I may get blasted for this. I've said before that I wasn't sure if I enjoyed watching the racing at Texas because I just feel sick the entire time. I have last year's race and right from the start the drivers are going like it's the last lap of 200-odd.

The one slight way I think they could address the issue of "The Big One" is to ask the drivers to all react in a similar way. Last weekend some drivers stood hard on the breaks while others kept the accelerator hard down. That was the main issue as far as I could see. It seemed that it was mainly the top drivers who kept the boot down, maybe that says something?

G-Money

amacachi wrote: »

They're always "concerned". Tracy is known as a mouth for a reason and Franchitti is like a broken clock, he'd have to be right at some point. Some of the others from a road-racing background complain about every 1.5+ mile oval other than Indy. Texas has higher banking and they've been racing there the whole time.

What I read was they thought 34 cars around a 1.4 or 1.5 mile loop was too many. I'll admit, I never watch Indycar and I know very little about it so I don't know if that Vegas track is longer than a normal oval or how much different it is.

I've developed a little bit of an interest in it now but unfortunately for all the wrong reasons.

amacachi

G-Money wrote: »

What I read was they thought 34 cars around a 1.4 or 1.5 mile loop was too many. I'll admit, I never watch Indycar and I know very little about it so I don't know if that Vegas track is longer than a normal oval or how much different it is.

I've developed a little bit of an interest in it now but unfortunately for all the wrong reasons.

The length of the track has nothing to do with it since the were running within less than half a mile of each other. The track could've been a million miles long but when they're all running together it's irrelevant.

EDIT: They've been running on 1.5 mile ovals for ages. There's been no real issues at Texas for over a decade while there have been big crashes at Chicagoland and Indy which are 1.5 and 2.5 mile tracks with less banking.

TheChrisD

G-Money wrote: »

I'll admit, I never watch Indycar and I know very little about it so I don't know if that Vegas track is longer than a normal oval or how much different it is.

1.5-miles in the standard "cookie cutter" oval size. They've run on mostly 1.5-milers for ages now without any problems, the highest field size outside of Indy I'd seen was 30 this year for the twin Texas races.

Although I really don't see how 34 cars at a 1.5-miler is worse than 26 cars at the .875-mile Iowa Speedway, which contrary to other short ovals acts more like a proper speedway albeit at 180mph rather than 220mph.

amacachi

Also none of the last 8 or 9 cars in the field were involved. The main thing about the accident was that it happened at the front. Obviously it's too early to criticise anyone in particular and I don't know myself what's the "correct" thing to do but the problem I thought was the difference in speeds. Whether they should all be braking or all be keeping the boot down, I don't know, but if they all kept the boot down there would've been no take-offs. I've noticed it's often the better drivers who keep their boot down in such accidents and seemingly take bigger risks, maybe there's something to that?

acquiescefc

Personally think its double-file restarts that caused this.

amacachi

acquiescefc wrote: »

Personally think its double-file restarts that caused this.

Howso? Even with single-file restarts they get side-by-side within a few laps at most 1.5 mile tracks I thought.

TheChrisD

acquiescefc wrote: »

Personally think its double-file restarts that caused this.

Are you just trying to be a troll?

There had been no caution prior to this so double-file restarts had no bearing. They may still have been double-file from the initial start, but that happens on ovals very easily and it's how they run most of the time, and generally it's clean. See Carpenter vs Franchitti at the end of Kentucky for proof.

frostie500

amacachi wrote: »

Obviously it's too early to criticise anyone in particular and I don't know myself what's the "correct" thing to do but the problem I thought was the difference in speeds. Whether they should all be braking or all be keeping the boot down, I don't know, but if they all kept the boot down there would've been no take-offs. I've noticed it's often the better drivers who keep their boot down in such accidents and seemingly take bigger risks, maybe there's something to that?

I dont think it will ever be possible to account for the "human element" of an accident like this. Some drivers keep their foot down others lift but it always depends on where they are in relation to an accident. Its not possible to force anyone to keep their foot down when facing an accident.
i think its very hard to take much from this accident to blame any of the drivers in the field. There simply was no place for them to go. Maybe you apportion some of the blame on James Hinchcliffe who moved lanes entering turn one but its a move we see time and again in oval racing so theres no blame to be attributed to him.
In the accident we saw Wheldon keep his foot down approaching the accident (he was definitely faster than anyone around him) and commit to getting to the highside as fast as possible, arguably the safest spot in an accident like this was to get as close to the wall as possible because the bottom of the track, and the apron, had cars in it. It was unfortunate that he came very close to making it to the top and avoiding the accident but racing is always a matter of inches.
I dont think it was bravery or a commitment to staying on the throttle it was just the only decision that he could make, just like for Will Power he had to throttle off to try and avoid the cars ahead of him due to his line entering turn one.
Basically what I'm saying is that none of the drivers make a conscious decision to lift off or stay on the throttle it is simply a decision made on the basis of their position relative to any accident.

amacachi

frostie500 wrote: »

I dont think it will ever be possible to account for the "human element" of an accident like this. Some drivers keep their foot down others lift but it always depends on where they are in relation to an accident. Its not possible to force anyone to keep their foot down when facing an accident.
i think its very hard to take much from this accident to blame any of the drivers in the field. There simply was no place for them to go. Maybe you apportion some of the blame on James Hinchcliffe who moved lanes entering turn one but its a move we see time and again in oval racing so theres no blame to be attributed to him.
In the accident we saw Wheldon keep his foot down approaching the accident (he was definitely faster than anyone around him) and commit to getting to the highside as fast as possible, arguably the safest spot in an accident like this was to get as close to the wall as possible because the bottom of the track, and the apron, had cars in it. It was unfortunate that he came very close to making it to the top and avoiding the accident but racing is always a matter of inches.
I dont think it was bravery or a commitment to staying on the throttle it was just the only decision that he could make, just like for Will Power he had to throttle off to try and avoid the cars ahead of him due to his line entering turn one.
Basically what I'm saying is that none of the drivers make a conscious decision to lift off or stay on the throttle it is simply a decision made on the basis of their position relative to any accident.

Just to nip it in the bud, I'm not blaming any particular driver.
I've only been watching for a few years and in that time I've noticed the top drivers, Franchitti, Dixon, Castoneves etc. tend to keep the boot down when there's an accident ahead. Maybe that's part of what has them at that higher level compared to other drivers. Like I said, I don't know what the "right" way to react is but if everyone kept their foot down there may be a higher chance of individuals getting involved in the wreck but a much lower chance of cars taking off.
Also generally ya want to be on the low side when there's trouble ahead. I haven't seen on-board from Wheldon and my internet's on the blink so I can't re-check Power's footage but I thought he stayed pretty low as he should but there was a car ahead that had slowed massively which sent him airbourne.

frostie500

amacachi wrote: »

Just to nip it in the bud, I'm not blaming any particular driver.
I've only been watching for a few years and in that time I've noticed the top drivers, Franchitti, Dixon, Castoneves etc. tend to keep the boot down when there's an accident ahead. Maybe that's part of what has them at that higher level compared to other drivers. Like I said, I don't know what the "right" way to react is but if everyone kept their foot down there may be a higher chance of individuals getting involved in the wreck but a much lower chance of cars taking off.
Also generally ya want to be on the low side when there's trouble ahead. I haven't seen on-board from Wheldon and my internet's on the blink so I can't re-check Power's footage but I thought he stayed pretty low as he should but there was a car ahead that had slowed massively which sent him airbourne.

Oh I know you weren't putting on any blame on any of the drivers, I think everyone will be in agreement that there was little anyone could have done to react to this accident.
I would say though that while you are right in saying that by and large the lowside is the place to be in an accident on an oval in this specific accident there was already ten cars on the lower half of the track when Wheldon arrived and there was no chance of him getting anywhere safe at the bottom of the circuit so going high was the only real option open to him.
Power did stay low, he was right on the apron, but he had absolutely nowhere to go when the car in front braked to avoid the acciedent.

amacachi

I shall check the video when I get the chance. As a general "rule" though if everyone kept the boot in there's only ever be wings lost aside from the initial accident. :pac:

Hate talking about this at times, now and again I forget that someone actually died and feel like a tool for talking about it like any other racing incident.

frostie500

amacachi wrote: »

Hate talking about this at times, now and again I forget that someone actually died and feel like a tool for talking about it like any other racing incident.

I know what you mean but to actually talk objectively about how to improve the safety and avoid another fatality I think its important to look at the accident and talk about what you think could be done differently in future.

I think it's been clear to see how much this accident actually affected fans of racing and has brought safety back to the forefront of peoples minds throughout the sport. I think that complacency had crept in across the board and this could have a lasting impact.

It will be very interesting to see how Indy Cars reacts to this. When Tony George was in charge we saw drivers deaths swept under the carpet but between the new for 2012 car and the widespread coverage of this it is clear that Indy Cars needs to act.

amacachi

Next year's car could make a huge difference. As you and I were talking about before, it would be too expensive for 2 different chassis but the aero kits could be excellent. I'm hoping for aesthetic reasons the "anti-interlocking" design only applies to the aero kit for ovals. Fingers crossed it's not too late but the one thing I'd look at now it having part of the crash-structure at the back 20-30 centimetres higher than the level of the front wing so as to kind of draw the car behind into the car in front in accidents. Obviously it would take more knowledge and equipment that I have to see how effective it would be but I'd imagine it would at least reduce the likelyhood of cars taking off at most speed differentials and up to a point drastically reduce the chances.

I had to laugh at someone saying it was due to ground effect that the cars took off. There's a chance someone else may come along and laugh at me but I'd be amazed if it was an important part of the reason.

frostie500

amacachi wrote: »

Next year's car could make a huge difference. As you and I were talking about before, it would be too expensive for 2 different chassis but the aero kits could be excellent. I'm hoping for aesthetic reasons the "anti-interlocking" design only applies to the aero kit for ovals. Fingers crossed it's not too late but the one thing I'd look at now it having part of the crash-structure at the back 20-30 centimetres higher than the level of the front wing so as to kind of draw the car behind into the car in front in accidents. Obviously it would take more knowledge and equipment that I have to see how effective it would be but I'd imagine it would at least reduce the likelyhood of cars taking off at most speed differentials and up to a point drastically reduce the chances.

I had to laugh at someone saying it was due to ground effect that the cars took off. There's a chance someone else may come along and laugh at me but I'd be amazed if it was an important part of the reason.

Yeah it would be great if we could get back to the days of Reynard, Lola, Eagle and Penske all building cars for Indy Cars but as you say its not cost effective these days (nothing really seems to be in racing anymore!) I would be very surprised if the anti-interlocking wheels was only for ovals, I think in the aftermath of this Indy Car bosses would be forced into doing all that is possible to keep cars on the ground at all times and they would have to fight a PR war that would be impossible to win.

The crash structure idea is one though that I think we will see examined in more detail. I think its the most important thing for Indy Car bosses, and lets face it Dallara, to look into in the aftermath of this accident.

About the ground effect who said that? There was no ground effect technology on the cars used in this race, Dallara's new car however will use it. i would say this is typical of people finding out one piece of information about Indy Cars and running with it even though they have never watched a race in their lives!

I read the article by Maurice Hamilton and it was spot on by the way, about time someone with a profile in the sport spoke out against others in the industry (whether journalists or whatever) and their comments about this accident and Indy Cars in general

amacachi

frostie500 wrote: »

Yeah it would be great if we could get back to the days of Reynard, Lola, Eagle and Penske all building cars for Indy Cars but as you say its not cost effective these days (nothing really seems to be in racing anymore!) I would be very surprised if the anti-interlocking wheels was only for ovals, I think in the aftermath of this Indy Car bosses would be forced into doing all that is possible to keep cars on the ground at all times and they would have to fight a PR war that would be impossible to win.

It's unfortunate that PR will be so important, I hadn't seen much of an issue with wheels interlocking, Briscoe's huge crash and Mike Conway at Indy last year were cars going across other cars rather than locking wheels. The locking wheel has happened more on street courses than anywhere else but it's hardly a major safety concern.

The crash structure idea is one though that I think we will see examined in more detail. I think its the most important thing for Indy Car bosses, and lets face it Dallara, to look into in the aftermath of this accident.

The strucure itse'f has been excellent for years but I'd like to see them use it for keeping cars down. Also something that feels silly to say, I don't know if I hope there was a defect with the roll-hoop area on Wheldon's car. There was a picture around of the car and it had just caved in. If it was defective then it's extremely worrying (and will lead to a lot of negative press etc.). If it wasn't defective then that's even more worrying in a different way.

About the ground effect who said that? There was no ground effect technology on the cars used in this race, Dallara's new car however will use it. i would say this is typical of people finding out one piece of information about Indy Cars and running with it even though they have never watched a race in their lives!

Fairly sure the last cars in Champcar did use ground effect and had a feeling the last Indycar didn't but wasn't certain. Tony Jardine the genius came out with the ground effect statement. Jardine was also talking about the flames being worrying, I'd say if he saw Ryan Briscoe's crash he'd think it was worrying how the car split in 2. :pac:

I read the article by Maurice Hamilton and it was spot on by the way, about time someone with a profile in the sport spoke out against others in the industry (whether journalists or whatever) and their comments about this accident and Indy Cars in general

Aye, was glad to see Davidson getting a mention in it. Tony Stewart has been supportive and while I disagree with Jimmie Johnson about how they shouldn't race on high-banked ovals it's a measured opinion he's giving. It's amazing to see the difference in the press from the US compared to the UK. I've said for years that journalism is dead (:pac: ) but I really have been amazed at the ignorance of so many journalists. Aside from some rubbish being spouted I just wonder how so few had any interest or knowledge of IndyCar or at the very least why they didn't do just a little bit of research. I dunno, just assumed more would know about more than just F1 :pac:

TheChrisD

amacachi wrote: »

Fairly sure the last cars in Champcar did use ground effect and had a feeling the last Indycar didn't but wasn't certain.

Yup, DP01 had ground-effect which delivered what was claimed to be 60% of the car's downforce at 200mph.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panoz_DP01

See these two pics as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2007%2711-PanozDP01-BottomPanel-crwp.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2007%2711-PanozDP01-UndersideAero-crwp.jpg

amacachi

Really is incredible how engineered those "simple" spec-cars are.

amacachi

Just to beat this drum one last time, the difference in media reaction to Simoncelli's death is stunning.

kop77

Official IndyCar findings: Dan Wheldon

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/dec/15/dan-wheldon-indycar-findings-las-vegas?CMP=twt_gu

TheChrisD

I watched the press conference live as it happened.

Hopefully this shuts up the naysayers.

amacachi

What was the craic at the news conference?