Lessons for F1 in NASCAR’s horror crash
Carl Edwards’ crash in the closing stages of last weekend’s NASCAR race at Talladega has sparked debate among racing fans:
Was this just a freak accident in a championship that engineers crashes for the entertainment of its fans – or are there lessons here for Formula 1 too?
Racing for the lead with the chequered flag in sight, Edwards was tipped into a spin by rival Brad Keselowski, then launched in a terrifying flip by the onrushing car of Ryan Newman. The only thing keeping the 99 car from landing in the crowd was a row of safety fencing, and despite that seven fans were injured by a shower of debris.
F1 and NASCAR are as different as two motor sports can be. So it’s tempting to conclude that F1 could never see something similar to Edwards’ crash: the cars don’t race so close to each other, and there is much more run-off between the track and the spectators.
Perhaps. But the welcome sight this year of cars being able to race each other more closely raises the possibility of such a crash happening in F1 – consider Robert Kubica and Jarno Trulli’s collision at Shanghai.
And Bernie Ecclestone is increasingly keen on adding street races to the calendar. Again, this is no bad thing, as it may allow spectators to get closer to the action – but that brings an obvious added danger.
Among NASCAR commentators reaction to the crash has centred on the wisdom of allowing drivers to ‘block’ (i.e. defend) their position. This has occasionally been a cause of concern in F1 as well, with driver being allowed to get away with some manoeuvres that seem exceptionally dangerous – Michael Schumacher’s infamous swerve at Mika Hakkinen at Spa in 2000 being an especially infamous example.
When the FIA is so preoccupied with improving safety by cutting cornering speeds and neutering circuits, it defies belief when drivers are allowed to go unpunished for such actions.
But in NASCAR’s case I don’t think driving standards is the real culprit. This crash again questions the wisdom of ‘restrictor plate racing’. These devices are mandated by NASCAR at larger ovals like Talladega and Daytona to limit speeds but also guarantee the racing pack remains close.
The Talladega race has spawned a cult following among fans eager to witness ‘The Big One’ – a huge multi-car collision that inevitably occurs, often involving dozens of cars. But this time it was fans that paid the price – and had Edwards’ car gone a metre or two one way or another the carnage might have been unimaginable.
Since Ayrton Senna’s death 15 years ago today, F1 has seized every opportunity to examine and improve its safety preparations. It’s important that includes observing how other motor sports handle major accidents like this, and how well their safety procedures coped.
Had NASCAR taken note of lessons learned by rival championships a decade ago, it might not have lost one of its most famous drivers, Dale Earnhardt, in a last-lap crash at Daytona 2001.
Perhaps the Edwards crash couldn’t happen in F1. But safety isn’t about leaving things to chance.
JDS said on 1st May 2009, 14:16
I think that if Carl hit that fence direct, the Car would’ve rolled right over it. 3600 lbs x 170+ mph, that fence is not strong enough. Carl is right, Somebody will die eventually.
YeaMon said on 1st May 2009, 14:59
No one is at fault. If Keslowski when down any further he would have made a pass below the yellow line ruining his chances for a win. Carl also came down on Brad. Carls spotter even said “car low”. They both were fighting for the win and due to the rules this happened.
Nascar then says it will revert the rules. HELLO! The rules are the thing that caused this. You put the plates on the cars that make run inches apart, and you make the yellow line in which you cannot complete a pass underneath.
For these tracks the front row in the grandstand neeeds to be moved back in that tri-oval area, the cars need a smaller restrictorplate, and the fencing needs to be taller and at a more inclined angle. The cars need to have more than just roof flaps to keep them on the grond. Airways in the back bumper, back bumper flaps, a revised rear wing that works in reverse as well. These are all things that will work, while maitaining a good show.
SoLiD said on 1st May 2009, 15:06
They should learn from this, just like F1 has done very well over the past 15 years.
It’s already been 15 years since that horrible weekend, incredible.
But F1/FIA has done a brilliant job concerning safety.
As long as they don’t try the SPA chicane thingies again :)
USF1fanatic said on 1st May 2009, 17:42
Great comments gentlemen! Dare I say better than the article that sparked this conversation.
If F1 and the FIA are truly interested in making the sport safer as well as more exciting, they will ask people like you. The conversation here is exactly what every motor sport needs; productive, courteous, and provocative. That is what I like the most about this site.
TD said on 1st May 2009, 18:02
Did anyone notice how many different camera angles there were – and how quickly they were all televised? Three different fixed cameras and three different on board cameras were queued up very quickly. Why can’t F1 coverage get a decent camera system? They can put lights over a whole track but can’t get footage of all the racing?
Mark Z said on 1st May 2009, 18:10
You can’t blame this on the restrictor plates. The plates create the pack racing and “the big one” wrecks that Talladega and Daytona are now famous for. But this was not the big one, this was an incident that only involved three cars who had broken away from the pack, and as such, could have taken place at any of the 1.5 or 2 mile ovals that Nascar also runs.
It’s also not the first time that a car has hit the fence at 200 mph at Talladega–that would be Bobby Allison’s wreck in 1987, which was the impetus for the restrictor plates in the first place. On that day, a large section of the fence was ripped out entirely. Now of course, you can never go wrong by making the fence higher, but based on the way the it held up from Edwards’ impact, I’d say the fence has improved a lot.
In the end, Daytona and Talladega are like Monaco–the inherent nature of the circuit means that the safety standards expected of other tracks can never be met, but their historical significance is too great to be dropped from the calendar.
Gman said on 4th May 2009, 2:30
Good comparison at the end.
Jess said on 1st May 2009, 18:32
The fence did its job great. COT did its job great and Edwards is fine. This is not even the worst crash in the last few years. During a Qual run the 00 car crashed hood first in to the wall and fliped several times and he the driver walked away. Now that was a lot worse.
sean said on 1st May 2009, 21:12
I think F1 could learn a lot from NASCAR they introduced the HANS system that is now used throughout the world.Remember these cars are doing 300plus on the super circuit’s and when the wreck and they always wreak everyone walk’s away.It’s a dangerous sport to race in and to watch but what do you do have noone at the track’s you can only watch it on TV.Also this is the biggest sport in the state’s in there last TV right’s negotiations the figure than got was more than NFL,MLB & NBL combined and this sport is ruled with a iron fist there isn’t the b*llsh#t we see comming out of the FIA.So F1 could learn a hell of a lot because I can gaurantee you they will be around a lot longer than F1.
HounslowBusGarage said on 2nd May 2009, 12:10
F1 has HANS.
HANS in NASCAR became mandatory in 2005; F1 mmandated HANS in 2001.
Dale Earnhardt didn’t walk away.
Really? I thought the spectators at the track were real people.
USF1fanatic said on 2nd May 2009, 16:54
Ok, I had a hell of a time trying to decipher this. Download google tool bar so that you can spell check and use some punctuation. As far as NASCAR being around alot longer than F1, they are a few decades short. There is no doubt that NASCAR is more popular in the US than F1. But world wide F1 is by far the most popular motor sport.
Gman said on 4th May 2009, 2:36
Great responses guys.
Sean, I believe you are correct in that F1 can learn a great deal from NASCAR in many respects. However, I think you are a bit off target in some areas. Indeed, almost all crashes in NASCAR result in little or no injuries, but some incidents do happen- Earnhardt hopefully being the last. As for popularity, NASCAR dose rule the American motorsport scene, but I believe it dose lag behind Major League Baseball, the NBA, and especially the NFL in terms of overall popularity.
As for the governing rules and regs, NASCAR dose get many things correct- myself and several other readers brought this up in the aftermath of the Australian GP fiasco. But they also have some shortcomings, and the issue of restrictor plates is one that comes up every year.
Rikadyn said on 1st May 2009, 21:28
First reminded me of Geoff Bodine’s crash at Daytona in the truck series. Also reminded me of a crash at Michigan in CART that I believe had fatalities in the crowd after the car hit the fence, but can’t remember any more details.
Ultimately there isn’t much Nascar could do on these tracks. Remove the restrictor plate, and the cars are doing 230, increase the restrictor plate, same thing will happen just be slower racing.
Gman said on 4th May 2009, 2:37
Indeed, I mentioned the Michigan crash earlier, before I realized you wrote about it here.
carlos said on 1st May 2009, 23:02
Scott Speed came in 5th. I want him to do well. Every now and then i watch Naaascaaar for the fun of it. It doesn’t really matter who wins but who survives the crashes.
Number 38 said on 2nd May 2009, 1:52
On any other day this blog would be spitting on NASCAR, today everyone’s a NASCAR expert! Hmmmm?
K said on 2nd May 2009, 2:47
I spit on NASCAR PHWA!
The Limit said on 2nd May 2009, 5:21
Accidents like the one experienced by Carl Edwards always raise awareness in safety, and from what I saw of the crash, there were alot of positives.
Much as I did when I saw Robert Kubica’s crash in Canada two years ago, I feared the impact had atleast critically injured Edwards. Thankfully, I was wrong.
The closest accident I can remember in recent years to this in F1 was that of Jacques Villeneuve in 2001, a crash ironically simular to the one that killed his father nine years earlier.
In these cases, safety devices introduced added to the strength of the cars saved the drivers, yet still posed serious threat to those around them. Sadly, in the Villeneuve incident, a track marshal was killed by a stray tyre from the BAR.
If not for the deaths of Senna and Ratzenberger, Imola 1994 would have made the headlines for the start crash that sent tyres and other debris into the stands, injuring several spectators.
To F1′s great credit, these old incidents have not been repeated in recent years yet will always remain a possibility. The ultra modern, ultra wide Tilke circuits like in China, Bahrain, and Turkey have huge run off areas well away from the spectators. The circuits are no where near as confined as the older venues used to be like Brands Hatch, Paul Ricard, and Imola.
This lessens the risk, to both driver and fan alike, yet does not cancel out the problem completely.
In the years since Dale Earnhardt’s death, American racing in general has taken notice. The number of drivers killed or injured would certainly have been far higher had not the HANS devices and SAFER barriers been introduced, and that is worth noting.
The traditional high banked circuits of Talladega and Daytona are lauded for the risk the represent. As Chris Rea once sung ‘she ain’t easy so you take good care, or she’ll leave you eating dust’, in referance ofcourse to Daytona.
The fans love these places just as much as F1 fans adore Spa or Monza, and they are the best venues to see stock cars performing as they were designed to perform.
Its also worth noting that circumstance plays a massive role in an accident. Just look at the Eurospeedway in Germany, one of Europe’s fastest ovals, designed specifically with safety in mind. Yet that certainly did not save Michele Albereto’s life, nor prevent Alex Zanardi from losing his legs.
With motor racing safety, you can only lessen the risks to those involved, and take heed of what opinions the drivers have. Fifteen years ago, we all knew that Tamburello was a dangerous corner, we had all witnessed many bad accidents there.
Carl Edwards was right. NASCAR, IRL, F1, they are all run with the same mindset. We ‘escaped’ that one, no harm done, thats racing. It all depends on the circumstances involved.
If not for a loose Goodyear and suspension rod, is it not too unreasonable to believe that Tamburello would still exist in its original form?
Would so many other tracks have been so heavily modified? Ofcourse not, as it eats up valuable time and money.
And lets face it, F1 is without doubt safer than it has ever been. The real legacy of drivers such as Senna and Earndhardt for example is the better safety standards since their deaths.
Zazeems said on 2nd May 2009, 11:21
I agree with scunnyman, safety can be taken too far. I’m not saying I want to see horror crashes or, god forbid injuries or deaths, but motorsport needs an element of danger. Excess runoff area sets spectators back from the track, and I don’t know about you, but I like being close to the action, even being aware that I myself would be slightly at risk. Formula One cars are most probably the safest in the world; surely we can have some high speed corners Mr Tilke (another 130R or Tamburello, with runoff I hasten to add). Sometimes safety can detract from the spectacle of racing.
It’s just my view :D
Sush Meerkat said on 2nd May 2009, 16:49
[quote]Had NASCAR taken note of lessons learned by rival championships a decade ago, it might not have lost one of its most famous drivers, Dale Earnhardt, in a last-lap crash at Daytona 2001.[/quote]
not sure if this has already been said or you know already, but its own fault he died that day, he died of a basal fracture (which is were whiplash is so hard it cracks the neck), and Dale was a huge opponent of the HANS
He thought it would choke him, and because he was NASCAR’s biggest star he pulled a lot of weight in stoping HANS being compulsary.
anyway, carry on.
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 3rd May 2009, 1:21
It was (and is) always in NASCAR’s hands to make whatever safety items compulsory they choose to. ere’s an explanation from (former CART/Indy Car medical director) Dr Stephen Olvey’s book “Rapid Response”:
Formula 1 made HANS mandatory in 2001.
Gman said on 4th May 2009, 2:41
I remember he got a great deal of flak for still using the open-face helmet. It would have been positive for NASCAR to follow the F1 lead in introducing HANS, btu sometimes it takes a bad accident to force home the point.
GeorgeK said on 2nd May 2009, 17:50
One of the attractions of NASCAR is the proximity of the fans to the track. There can’t be “runoff” areas on an oval. With the roof flaps, safer barriers, and new car design which gives drivers added safety, NASCAR has come a long way in safety.
You will also notice a large separation between the catch fence and the spectators, which helped reduce potential injuries.
Unfortunately no racing series can mandate rules to protect against fluke accidents.
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 3rd May 2009, 1:10
That’s the heart of the matter though – was this really a fluke accident? With restrictor plate racing this kind of accident is arguably much more likely.