TBK-Light.com

Well, I wasted all the time watching damn NBC commercials. I checked and it seems like Polish ES will show the entire season live Party like it's 1999

_________________
07.04.1968 - Flower of Scotland when will we see your like again?
01.05.1994 - We'll never forget...

Does anyone know where the race is posted? Peacock doesnt have the race on there (or im completly missing it) but they had no damn problem having the first indycar vid that was up with the title including the name of the driver that won. Kinda pissed about that one. Why is every form of coverage they have always utter shit?

Let's not oversell it, people used to have tyre marks on their helmets every once in a while, or get a wheel traverse the space that is now the shield without contacting them. The shield is very useful against all sorts of otherwise lethal situations, but this isn't one of them.

older shows like Seinfeld and Friends when showed on reruns have to be sped up a bit because there's more commercial breaks compared to the 90's

_________________
Motorsports trend for 2024: everything is a bad taste joke now

I agree but I think it's more personal for the drivers. I'm imagining RHR experiencing that crash yesterday, then seeing replays/screenshots of it all made an impression because I'm guessing just going through this stuff with the aeroscreen feels way less sketchy than all those years of racing and crashing in fully open cockpits.

It's the way of things when a new safety feature comes around, people bend over backwards to explain how it saves a life in every single accident that occurs and how every safe race that happened before it came in was recklessly dangerous

People are even misconstruing how effective it is. In rollover accidents I've seen clueless people saying "Thank god for the halo/aeroscreen for saving that driver's head from hitting the ground" as if the rolloverbar is now redundant

They're also blind to the fact that any time you add anything new to these cars, it has unplanned side effects for situations where it could make things worse (personally i'm not a fan of the idea we're supposed to leave drivers in upturned racecars until marshals can get there and right them slowly onto their wheels, but I'm hoping they're coming up with a workaround for that)

The aeroscreen is also causing drivers to massively overheat on hot days which could have it's own reprecussions if one of them were to pass out at high speed....

But of course, those are just the minor negatives against the huge amoung of positives it brings. It's a brilliant safety feature and part of the continuing quest to improve safety which every race series needs to keep focusing on.

I just reject the notion these drivers are now invincible with the thing on the cars and every accident is only survived because of it
At some point someone will get hurt or die with one of these things on the car and people will be astonished and probably more devestated because they just cannot comprehend it not being perfect.

_________________
RIP Birmingham Wheels: here's some of the crash videos I recorded when it was there:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIaKIE ... 5t9d5PvoHA

Twitter:

http://www.twitter.com/paulhadsley

drivers that think they are invincible are usually the ones involved with the most riskiest moves & crashes - which edge closer and closer to injury or death as respect among drivers decreases.

also track insurance companies need to reconsider their stance on max speed policies and having sanctioning bodies slow the cars down to stay under X trap speed (usually by cranking up the downforce & cutting power), IMO I don't think it's long before a driver gets hurt bad in a NASCAR race at Michigan (or any other freshly paved mile & a half / 2 mile track) because how high the mid-corner speeds are jacked up from the little motor / big blade package that they are using

Indeed. By their logic, Martin Brundle (as well as many others) shouldn't even be alive because they didn't have halo.


I'm not saying halo hasn't saved anyone since its introduction, but certainly not as many as people claim. The only way to find out would be to re-enact all those accidents without halo and see what happens. And that's not possible.

Yeah but back then they weren't too fussed into finding out if a driver had concussion or not. It wouldn't surprise me that some of these did actually cause concussions and were shrugged off.

No doubt that wheel would have hit RHR and likely given him a concussion.

I gotta admit I've seen that Brundle crash from 1994 probably a hundred times and never noticed until you posted that gif that he was hit on the head. Disturbing...

He talks about it often. I wonder where the helmet is.

_________________
Follow me on Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/135625678@N06/

Irvine was given a 3 race ban for that move. Can you imagine him getting more than a sternly worded letter if it happened today?

_________________

I prefer to kind of look at it in reverse. In the last 22 years, there have been six fatalities in Indycar. It's impossible to 100% say, of course, but the aeroscreen might have helped prevent a fatality for any accident where the death was caused in part or wholly by a solid object hitting the driver's head (Wilson, Wheldon, Moore).

More to the point, it probably would have helped prevent non-fatal injuries due to head strikes, like that suffered by Hinchcliffe in the 2014 Indy Grand Prix. It might give extra protection in a crash like Johnny Rutherford in 1980 @ Phoenix, a case where the car flipped hard enough to snap the rollbar (the helmet saved Rutherford's life in this case). And it gives extra protection to crashes where no one was injured in the end, but might have been. EG:Dario Franchitti @ Michigan 2007 where his car flips and comes down on top of Scott Dixon's car, and AJ Foyt IV's helmet was reportedly also hit by a tire. Or Aleshin burying his car under Montoya at Toronto in 2014.

Yeah, "saved lives" for every crash where the aeroscreen deflects debris / cars / etc. is hyperbole, but that's what happens with any bit of safety technology. Hyperbole happened with the HANS and SAFER barrier too. It's hard to prove whether these "saved lives" at an individual crash level, to be honest. But at *minimum* these technologies prevented some serious injuries, probably even saving a life or two along the way. I look at the aeroscreen in the same way, so I kind of forgive the exaggerations.

Not Wheldon sadly, the entire top half of the car was ground off in that crash and cheese grated against the barrier

Not Moore either, the rotation of the car meant his head would still have impacted the concrete

Don't forget it's largely there to deflect Debris and tyres, there's only so much force it can handle, accidents like Wheldon's, Moore's and Bianchi's were just not survivable in open wheel cars, Halo or not.

_________________
RIP Birmingham Wheels: here's some of the crash videos I recorded when it was there:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIaKIE ... 5t9d5PvoHA

Twitter:

http://www.twitter.com/paulhadsley

He was actually banned for 1 race but FIA expanded the ban to 3 races after they rejected his appeal. That was a true "fuck off" move from FIA

_________________
07.04.1968 - Flower of Scotland when will we see your like again?
01.05.1994 - We'll never forget...

Perhaps. I don't think we can do anything other than armchair speculate, hence the words "might have". Even with a crash like Weldon's, I don't like making definitive claims one way or another. It can't hurt to have the extra protection, in my opinion, especially given the cause of death (fence pole struck head). Of course, no technology is foolproof and maybe the end result would be the same. That crash was awfully violent.

The thing with a crash like Moore's it is was well before any of the other safety technologies, too. Instead of the car rotating cockpit first into a concrete wall, for instance, there's a better chance today that an accident like that would go into a SAFER barrier. The HANS device would've reduced the chance of a basal skull fracture (which would have been possible for Moore's crash even without the head injuries). The aeroscreen does give more surface area to absorb any impact and protect head strikes. Would that have not been enough? Perhaps, but I'd like to think with everything *in combination* the chances would be better.

In the present, we've seen one incident where, in my opinion, "cockpit protection saved a life" is almost certainly not hyperbole (F1, Grosjean in Bahrain).

The FIA did that a lot in that era

If you appealed, you better be damn sure because they would automatically 3x your punishment if you failed

_________________
RIP Birmingham Wheels: here's some of the crash videos I recorded when it was there:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIaKIE ... 5t9d5PvoHA

Twitter:

http://www.twitter.com/paulhadsley

that was Mosley logic

still better than Todt logic that put the blame on a driver that isn't alive to defend himself

_________________
Motorsports trend for 2024: everything is a bad taste joke now

I'm not sure there would have been any checks for that, and Brundle himself had more knocks to the head than an average driver. If his career had started 10-15 years later he would have ended up forced to retire like Franchitti.