You say "....pack racing sited as the primary cause...." Just for my own edification where exactly is that listed as the "primary cause"?

I did a search of the entire 49 page report for "prmary cause" and came up with nothing.

I have familiarity with the term as I spent 28 years in the Air Force and was involved in accident investigations, where the term was used. But I cannot find anything remotely like that in the Dan Wheldon accident report.

You say "...IndyCar made no changed to increase car separation." Ok, but what exactly does that mean? What could they have done? Decrease the number of cars on the track? If so, by how many and what amount of distance (in feet) would that have made? There was 233 feet per car. (218 according to the footnotes on pg 5 of the report if they were "evenly spaced") So how many cars should have been allowed, and then show how that number of cars would have prevented the crash.

All in the spirit of academic discussion.

JoeBag, you are correct. Upon another review of the report, it does not identify a primary cause. The section on suitability of IndyCar Series race cars to high-banked ovals on pages 19 and 20 cites both pack racing (which it characterizes as normal) and the availability of the entire track as a racing groove.

Perhaps I was factoring in that others had certainly considered pack racing a major factor as well as my own experiences watching NASCAR races at Talladega, where pack racing and big wrecks often go together.

Some rough math based on the statement on page 9 that "at the conclusion of the 10th lap...the physical distance between the leader and the 34th place race car covered approximately 1/5 of the track and was an interval of 4.2 seconds" might be illuminating. That puts 34 cars within approximately 1584 feet of each other. At single file, that would be roughly 46.6 ft/car; at 2-wide, 93.2 ft/car; at 3-wide, 139.8 ft/car. Take out the 15 ft. length of the car itself(page 5 of the report), and the separation is very small.

FYI, after reading your posting, I looked at some video again to try to judge how many "rows" were effectively there. That's problematic with a moving field, but the best I could tell was that there were 24 cars (which would include Wheldon) in 16 rows as the field was going into turn 1 on lap 11.

My point is that the number of ft./car using the entire length of the track is not a very useful measurement when the entire field is covered by 1584 feet and 4.2 seconds.

I have zero issue with you citing that number --you and I aren't part of the sanctioning body-- but I think Indycar using it in the report and comparing it to FIA, SCCA, and NASCAR field sizes or densities is a bit suspect.

Frankly, I don't know what IndyCar should have done differently prior to the race or if it would have made a difference. Since decreasing the total number of cars probably would have made little difference, about the only option left would have been some aerodynamic changes so they couldn't get so close. We don't know if the cure would have been worse than the illness, either.

I think IndyCar is doing many things well in the aftermath of the Las Vegas race. I do think they could have taken a more critical look at their own processes.

Thanks for taking time to read my posting. Thanks for being critical (honestly). As you said, "in the interest of academic discussion."

Steve D. in Bham