Thursday’s announcement and report on the crash at Las Vegas that took Dan Wheldon’s life was a mixed performance by IndyCar.
Give IndyCar credit for responding positively in the aftermath of Dan Wheldon’s tragic death at the 2011 season finale in Las Vegas. The report was detailed, and releasing the details indicated an openness the series desperately needed to display. Further, IndyCar is being cautious about scheduling the high-banked ovals in 2012, having already nixed a return to Vegas next year and showing hesitancy about other high-banked venues like Texas. The series pledged to continue to examine car and track characteristics with an eye toward safety.
Perhaps the best move was the earlier reassignment of Brian Barnhart out of the post of Race Director. His inconsistency and poor judgment on many occasions had made him a toxic presence that neither the drivers nor fans could trust to be the at-the-track steward of the series.
That’s not to say IndyCar did everything right. Randy Bernard using the term “perfect storm” to describe the Wheldon crash blurs the fact that some contributing factors were in IndyCar’s control. The pack racing sited as the primary cause was a combination of identical chassis, engine, and aero packages on a high-banked track; that was neither new nor unique to Las Vegas. Many questioned the safety of Las Vegas beforehand, and IndyCar made no changes to try to increase car separation.
Granted, we’ll never know if rule changes would have made a difference. Still, the lack of introspection about IndyCar’s own decision making process is troubling. Compare that to NASA’s analysis of the Challenger and Columbia tragedies in which NASA laid most of the blame at its own feet.
As fans –and I’m a huge Indy racing fan since 1966—we should press IndyCar to find the right combination of competition and safety. The series took a step forward yesterday. Let’s keep them moving in that direction.
Please help us real race fans pull out of the he said she said aspect of the Carl/Brad K. feud. You may be the last gun slinging motorsport personality that might tackle the real catalyst of the feud(in my opinion the spotter for Carl who failed to inform him of brad being a whole fender on the inside of him before he attempted the block at the 09’ dega race) and the technical evaluation of the last lap turn 1 incident which lead to the front stretch-gate. Once again I stress this is my opinion, but as a long time race fan of 31yrs, it appeared brad went in turn 1 and lost the nose of the known aerodynamically challenged "car of today" run in the Nationwide series.
Aaron S.
Charlotte, NC
P.S. This is nice question for Mr. Harvick to address and am anxiously awaiting tonight’s broadcast.
Just joined the group...first time to comment. I have 2 things regarding the NNS race @ Gateway.
(1) I came home and caught the end of the race when it was red flagged w/ 8 laps to go. I don't understand why NASCAR ran so many laps under caution, leading to a green-white-checker finish. The race was STOPPED w/ 8 laps remaining. Any clean up was done during that time, so they should have only had 1 or 2 laps caution laps. Any thoughts / explanation?
(2) As a fan, I'm not for or against Carl Edwards or Brad Keselowski, but it appears to me that Brad was deliberately punted out of the race on the last lap. It's one thing to make contact on the rear bumper, but Edwards clipped him on the right rear and even did major damage to his own left front in the process. In my opinion that type of contact / move with that much force calls for a black flag on Edwards part and certainly not a win. That deliberate move to either corner of a car is made to purposely take the opposition out. Rubbin' is racin', but wreckin' is wreckin' - or am I missing something? Thoughts / comments. Thanks.
