Reflection

[Racing Truth]

Yesterday, after Dana's tragic passing, an interesting, yet somewhat disconcerting question popped into my head. It also presented an interesting paradox.

No TRUE race fan (i.e. not the rednecks) wants to see ANY crash. The perfect race for us is one in which there is no crash, thus meaning no chance of injury or worse. I think we can agree to that. A day like yesterday is the worst for us all.

Paradoxically, though, I wondered if, deep down, a very small, twisted, almost perverse part of the allure that we feel to the sport as a whole is that element of danger, and yes, even death? Would we, deep down, feel the exact same about the sport if there was no added danger (when compared to daily activities)?

Thinking about it made me uncomfortable, and I can't say I came up with a fully satisfactory answer. I'd like your thoughts.

[cameraman]

I would not be as interesting if almost anyone could do it, hence the huge crowds at the weekend cone-crushing fests. That said inherent safety does not reduce the interest of the sport. You don't see too many players killed in World Cup soccer matches.

As for racing, while the last 10 laps of yesterday's race showed some serious driving skills I could not get away from the fact that Wheldon or Castroneves were at a very high risk of getting killed the entire time. Side by side oval racing at 215 mph (at 100% throttle the entire time? wtf is up with that?) is just plain too damned dangerous for me to enjoy. That was the first non-Indy IRL oval I have watched in a few years and I felt like I was waiting for the crash. I don't get that feeling at road races even though I know CdM almost took Wilson's head off last year at that turn 1 fiasco in Denver.

I suppose it comes down to you you feel is acceptable risk. Greg Moore defined it for me in 1999. Dana just reaffirmed it for me.

Needless to say I am not a fan of merging the series.

[dando]

No TRUE race fan (i.e. not the rednecks) wants to see ANY crash. The perfect race for us is one in which there is no crash, thus meaning no chance of injury or worse. I think we can agree to that. A day like yesterday is the worst for us all.

Paradoxically, though, I wondered if, deep down, a very small, twisted, almost perverse part of the allure that we feel to the sport as a whole is that element of danger, and yes, even death? Would we, deep down, feel the exact same about the sport if there was no added danger (when compared to daily activities)?

I have long held that this is one reason for Indy's demise, and the blood thirsty following for Daytona. Despite the crappy chassis, the speed reductions @ Indy have eliminated the risks of running on the razor's edge. Wankers running around in circles never lifting their foot is about as eggciting as Sarah Fisher naked. :saywhat: Some percentage of race fans just have the morbid curiosity of a rubber necker. :shakehead

-Kevin

[trauma1]

this was coming and most knew it was inevitable considering on how lucky the league has been, the crashes of brack, rice and the other were horrific in thier own, now robby gordon says this is the reason he left the irl, it's no surprise to me, it sucks , the sad thing is the irl will do nothing to prevent this in the future, they've do nada before so why wish for them to get it now, even the nascar boys say it's not a safe way to race.

[Racing Truth]

To clarify, I'm NOT talking about the bloodthirsty Rednecks who cheer for any wreck. :shakehead

I'm speaking of the sport of auto racing as a whole, not a series v. series discussions. Indeed, some cars are more dangerous than others and some forms of racing are inherently more dangerous than others, but no form of racing, race car is without added danger. We all know this, and I guess its the larger philosophical question I'm aiming at.

I, personally, am more comfortable watching racing with reduced risk, but we all know that risk still exists.

I hope I'm articulating my point clearly here, and I apologize if I have not.

[jonovision_man]

I think you are.

The danger has its appeal.

Death doesn't, for most people.

I think you used the right word in your first post... it's a paradox. Kind of like the guy jumping busses on a motorcycle, the danger of the task draws you in, but most people don't want to see that danger realized as injury or death.

jono

[cart7]

Yesterday, watching the side-by-side Russian roulette show with Wheldon and Helio my 17 year old asks this.

"Dad, what if those cars actually touch?"

"Well, at the very least there'll be a big wreck, at worst a car will go airborne. It won't be pretty."

"Why are they racing like that then?"

"Because of the horsepower and aerodynamics of the cars they're kinda stuck side by side till someone backs out. IRL fans seem to like this."

"Dad, I think those drivers are nuts, why would they want to race like this and why would anyone want to watch this? It's kinda scary."

"Good question and yes it is."

IRL fans who seem to get off on that type of racing seem to be satisfying a certain titilation within. They'll jump on their high horse justifying their side-by-side, russian roulette by claiming all racing is dangerous (which it is) but never seem to answer the question as to why they're drawn to such a potentially deadly thrill show. I consider some of them real sicko's.

[Spicoli]

I think you are.

The danger has its appeal.

Death doesn't, for most people.

I think you used the right word in your first post... it's a paradox. Kind of like the guy jumping busses on a motorcycle, the danger of the task draws you in, but most people don't want to see that danger realized as injury or death.

jono


who here (old enough to remember) didn't dig this dood?

http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B00009B0LP.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

and that was just about the same stuff.

[Racing Truth]

I think you are.

The danger has its appeal.

Death doesn't, for most people.

I think you used the right word in your first post... it's a paradox. Kind of like the guy jumping busses on a motorcycle, the danger of the task draws you in, but most people don't want to see that danger realized as injury or death.

jono

You put it better than I did. Thanks. :thumbup:

[Sean O'Gorman]

As a spectator, I don't want the danger, and I don't think about the danger, but if it happens, I don't hide from it.

I'd imagine from the driver's perspective, it is a bit different. Obviously no driver wants to die, but I wouldn't be surprised if the danger is almost appealing. It is what seperates the real racers from the autocrossers and such. As one motorsports photographer put it once:


Cone-dodging is just not dangerous enough. All women have fantasies about how good they'll look in black at the hero's funeral. That's why they're attracted to dysfunctional, bad-boy types. Auto-crossing is down there with bowling on the danger list. Racing, skydiving, turbo-train chicken... That's where the babes are.

[Insomniac]

I find myself recording F1 races and playing them back later. Here is pretty much what happens when I've done this the last couple of years. Watch the pre-show and first few laps until the parade starts. Hit FF until I see an important event (crash, someones car has some type of problem, a competitive car pits or someone actually makes a pass (which most of the time is a leader getting through traffic)).

So a crash gets me to "notice" and pay attention a lot more. I can't say I want to see a crash, but at the same time, when there is one I can't help but watch it. I'm always glad when no one is hurt.

I ask myself this. If racing could have crashes and it was guranteed there would never be an injury, would I want them to happen? I'd say yes, because it just adds something to the event. You feel like people are really putting it all on the line to win. Unfortunately, real life isn't a video game, so I'm happy when no one gets hurt.

You can see around here, there is a lot more excitement when something happens in a race as opposed to nothing. Unfortunately, when most of the race is a parade, that something isn't cars battling but accidents.

[Insomniac]

this was coming and most knew it was inevitable considering on how lucky the league has been, the crashes of brack, rice and the other were horrific in thier own, now robby gordon says this is the reason he left the irl, it's no surprise to me, it sucks , the sad thing is the irl will do nothing to prevent this in the future, they've do nada before so why wish for them to get it now, even the nascar boys say it's not a safe way to race.

There isn't much the IRL can do here in this situation. This isn't a problem with safety/car, unless you want to discuss protecting the driver even more, but that is a problem with all OW cars. The only other alternative is them setting some type of higher requirement to drive an IndyCar. But, however you do it, everyone will have to drive one for the first time. Perhaps having people drive on more Road Courses would help, but even then, there is still great in racing anywhere.

[RacinM3]

The simple answer is yes. There is an allure to both fans AND drivers that is brought about by the danger. It's elemental.

The death part has no appeal to anyone. At least it shouldn't.

[Racing Truth]

The simple answer is yes. There is an allure to both fans AND drivers that is brought about by the danger. It's elemental.

The death part has no appeal to anyone. At least it shouldn't.

That's kind of the conclusion I came to, as well.

[racer2c]

Racers are heros because of the danger.

[Ed_Severson]

I certainly think there must be some appeal in it, at least from the aspect of danger.

I would agree that most racing fans find the action of seeing someone get killed or even moderately injured in a racing car distasteful, maybe even revolting. However, there's definitely some degree of fascination with the idea of it. As long as it's a possibility, the driver becomes somewhat elevated in the eyes of the fans, who simultaneously cheer his bravado and, ultimately, gather to utter somber remembrances of him if he's killed.

Why do we watch? The answer to that question is a bit different for everybody, but in general, I would think there are several reasons:

1) Appreciation for the general aesthetics -- the lines and colors of the cars, the sounds, the sensation of speed, even the somewhat daydream-like concept of spending a day at the track instead of at work.
2) Appreciation for the technology involved.
3) Appreciation for the skill involved.
4) Appreciation for the intestinal fortitude involved.

I don't know that there are too many race fans out there who would deny their respect for the bravery of anybody willing to strap in and risk serious injury or death. Certainly, forms of the sport which we perceive ourselves capable of participating in -- club racing, for example -- are less appealing to most than high-level professional racing, because we as fans appreciate that most of the guys doing it possess skills that exceed our own. Likewise, I would think that most would have some appreciation for the drivers having an exceptionally high level of certain character traits -- courage, emotional detachment from potential consequences -- relative to what we possess as fans.

I guess ultimately, I can really only speak for myself, but I'd be surprised if my attitude about this question is much different than anyone else's. I've been trying for a few years to get into motorsports as an engineer, and from that perspective, I know that there's a good possibility that if I make it, I'll be at the track someday minding my own business, doing my relatively low-hazard job, and some driver will make a mistake, or just be unlucky, and won't go home at the end of the day. I absolutely dread that possibility, because I've seen enough good guys get killed in racing cars in my capacity as a fan to fill fifty lifetimes, and I know it must take on an unbelievable new dimension of pain if you're a participant when that happens.

Because of that, regardless of their skill, personality, or politics, anybody who's got enough guts to get in a race car and risk death or injury has my respect, and that's why those guys are the stars -- we make them the stars through our admiration for their skills and bravery. If it wan't dangerous, the driver just becomes another cog in the wheel, and maybe his skill set isn't any more special or any less expendable than the engineer's, or the mechanic's, or the press agent's. But in reality, the team is built around him, because not only does he have the skill set, he's the only guy on the team with enough guts to put himself in harm's way and trust that everyone else has done their jobs properly.

It's not much different than the status a war veteran takes on in society -- for most, putting yourself in harm's way unnecessarily to provide some benefit to the public is considered commendable, and we find ourselves encouraging that behavior among those who possess the character traits to do it. But as soon as the risk becomes a reality, we wonder what in the hell was so exciting about it in the first place, and question whether or not it was all worth it in the long run.

I'd say "paradox" is an apt description. We want to know that the possibility of serious injury or death is real -- because it exponentially increases the spectacle -- as long as we don't have to face the sobering consequences. Unfortunately, we can't always have it that way, and yesterday was a textbook example of that reality.

[Racing Truth]

I certainly think there must be some appeal in it, at least from the aspect of danger.

I would agree that most racing fans find the action of seeing someone get killed or even moderately injured in a racing car distasteful, maybe even revolting. However, there's definitely some degree of fascination with the idea of it. As long as it's a possibility, the driver becomes somewhat elevated in the eyes of the fans, who simultaneously cheer his bravado and, ultimately, gather to utter somber remembrances of him if he's killed.


I'd say "paradox" is an apt description. We want to know that the possibility of serious injury or death is real -- because it exponentially increases the spectacle -- as long as we don't have to face the sobering consequences. Unfortunately, we can't always have it that way, and yesterday was a textbook example of that reality.

I've been trying to figure out how to put into words what I was thinking. In these 2 paragraphs, Ed sums it up FOR ME anyhow.

Many thanks. :thumbup:

[pchall]

IRL fans who seem to get off on that type of racing seem to be satisfying a certain titilation within. They'll jump on their high horse justifying their side-by-side, russian roulette by claiming all racing is dangerous (which it is) but never seem to answer the question as to why they're drawn to such a potentially deadly thrill show. I consider some of them real sicko's.

I've seen IRL fans praise this as "sphincter puckering" action. :confused: You're right about enjoying that stuff being weird. I had to switch to NASCAR at Bristol and just post the final results in the Futility Watch after copying from T&S. It was very uncomfortable for me to watch the in-car shots from the dangerous nonsense.

[oddlycalm]

It is what seperates the real racers from the autocrossers and such. So I guess that means that you haven't seen the autocross video where the frustrated guy in the black Mustang stand on it and collects a tree....? ;)

oc

[Fio1]

The simple answer is yes. There is an allure to both fans AND drivers that is brought about by the danger. It's elemental.

The death part has no appeal to anyone. At least it shouldn't.

Well said! :thumbup:

[RacinM3]

The danger is a funny thing from a driver's perspective. At the 2005 25 hours of Thunderhill, I was doing a night stint when I came across the wreck of Johannes van Overbeek's Porsche (remember, Fio?). I think he had lost a tire and the car flipped up a hill multiple times, digging into the dirt and catapulting in the air. I saw the site a few times behind the pace car before they cleaned it up. They got it cleared, and when the green came back out no one thought twice about bombing into turn 1 at 100+, at night. I guess you have to have a short memory. Or no kids.

[mueber]

Jono said it for me.

The risk is what makes racing drivers special. When I see a wreck, after it is established that the driver is OK, my next thought is for the mechanics who have to fix it, and the car owner who has to pay for it. I'm sure many of us like other sports that aren't "dangerous." We don't "need" the danger to be entertained, but we appreciate that the danger is what makes motorsports unique.

BTW, the only race I ever went to that I felt uncomfortable about was a sprint car race on the high banks at Winchester. The potential for disaster was just too obvious.

[High Sided]

Death is the element of this sport that draw's out the best in the sport. Moore, senna, Zanardi, and all the rest that died or seriously injured prove that thier desire to win is beyond that of a normal athelete. racers mentality, i got it and respect, admire, and honor those that die proving to me that they haven't yet taken that from the sport. the way its going 20 years from now drivers will be sueing for injurys. i survived crashing a cbr 600 when some wanker ran over me braking my neck paralyzing my right arm and left hand and reminded now 13yrs with phantom pains. still to this day i would have prefered dying over this, never being able to race again. i would have gone doing what i loved best and that was pushing myself beyond any mental limits only to get better, sometimes crashing, sometimes winning, always knowing the risk and blocking it out. i watched a friend wreck and was with him as the medics took off his helmet. laying there with eye's half rolled back mumbling as they put him in the ambulance. i thought about going to the hospital but knew his wife was so i blocked it out and ran 600k's around the old gateway collecting a 1st in class for the effort. terry got better and again became a close competitor of mine on the track. :thumbup: horrific accidents with and without death honor the men and all they risk.

[Fio1]

The danger is a funny thing from a driver's perspective. At the 2005 25 hours of Thunderhill, I was doing a night stint when I came across the wreck of Johannes van Overbeek's Porsche (remember, Fio?). I think he had lost a tire and the car flipped up a hill multiple times, digging into the dirt and catapulting in the air. I saw the site a few times behind the pace car before they cleaned it up. They got it cleared, and when the green came back out no one thought twice about bombing into turn 1 at 100+, at night. I guess you have to have a short memory. Or no kids.

Ya, I remember I was in the car as well. I first though he rolled down the hill to that point. Later, I learned he made contact with a slower car. You block it out. And, sometimes being in the car when you see something like that is the best thing, so you don't think about it too much. Kind of like getting back on the horse after you fall off.

[Mike Kellner]

I just had to get in on this. (Yes, I am still around)

I think danger is an important element in what is is that attracts people to racing. No one wants to see anyone get injured or killed, but it is the risk they face which separates racers from game players. It is why game station players are not heroes, while Special Forces guys are. To an extent, the safety improvements have taken some of the drama out of auto racing. You took a lot more risk climbing into any race car in 1966 than in 2006.

Race car drivers are supposed to be heroes; if it is perfectly safe, where's the heroism?

My take on safety is: it is safe enough, safer than it has ever been. There always will be risk, and the risk is what makes it interesting. I am not saying they should not address real safety concerns when they appear, but the emphasis should be directed at trying to bring real competition and interesting racing back.

My own feeling on the wheel to wheel pack racing NASCAR and The IRL have produced with stage management is, it is boring and fake, and is a huge safety hazzard. My opinion is, Faster cars running the type of oval races we had until the mid 90s would be safer over all. Remember the measure of safety is the number of dead and broken bodies per year, and that is the product of the odds in any one crash times the number of crashes per year.

mk

[L1P1]

I did a lot of thinking about this after Greg Moore's death. I think the danger is definitely an ingredient in the cocktail, but IMHO, it needs some perspective to validate it. I think most people tolerate (or perhaps celebrate?) the risk inherent in, say, being an astronaut - because that is something that is moving mankind as a whole forward in some significant way.

I think about the old footage of drivers being launched from their cars at Indy - or huge flameballs rolling down the track - and I think that each one of those instances have advanced us forward. Seat belts, fuel cells, etc., etc. Even a track record (or a land speed record) seems a worthy goal to risk all for.

But in recent years I've increasingly felt that the risk is outweighing the overall reward. Why should anyone risk all in a spec chassis with a spec engine? Yeah, sure, I think most drivers like spec cars because they become more relevant to the equation. But is winning in such a series worth risking death?

I give huge kudos to ChampCar for introducing a chassis that will reduce the risk of wheel-to-wheel contact. While we're at this point in American OW history, I think safety is the one area where real progress can still be made. Otherwise the IMS may come to be as infamous as the Roman Colosseum.

[pineapple]

We're all armchair thrillseekers whatever the sport.

We come back for more to see if the remaining guys have the talent and desire to do better than the guy who just bought the farm.

Safety features have made racing today less of a pure bloodsport than yesteryear, but the promise of ever-present danger and triumph over it is the show we all pay to see.

[RacinM3]

A driver was killed last Saturday at Buttonwillow, driving a Factory 5 Cobra.

There was nothing thrilling about that.

Strangely, the incident crossed my mind on the warm-up lap for my race afterward, as I passed the spot of the incident.

It didn't cross my mind again until after the race. Interesting how one can turn those emotions on and off sometimes.