here is the video (she wasn’t hurt but the crash looked bad) …

Also, I’m no aerodynamicist, but I wonder if the 200 mph mark or thereabouts represents the beginning of a regime where the characteristics of the airflow change and become more unstable or something to that effect, so that the risk of getting airborne begins to increase exponentially. I’m really just kind of waving my hands here, and I’m sure someone could put me right, but I do recall Darrell Waltrip saying something to that effect on the broadcast last week–I think he called 200 mph and above “no man’s land”.

…which driver was at fault
…how the cars are configured
…fate, luck, or inevitability

It is simply about track layout, car speed, and the configuration of safety barriers separating spectators from objects entering their area at speed.

Nascar and Indycar tracks are based on layouts in which spectators surround the track…EVEN IN CORNERS. They can’t change these tracks without there being a real alteration in the nature of their sport.

A car, at speed, entering a spectator area could be the event which will bring about such a change.

Anyone designing these tracks today would put the spectators to the inside of the ovals and have the cars, pits and all related support staff outside the track….doesn’t work very well for viewing does it!

How does F1 stand?

Next time you watch a race, mentally project a car’s path at an unaltered speed in…any direction…that it is capable of moving. If the results might be a spectator related catastrophe, then this is a real possibility. One which should not be ignored.

2009 almost entered racing history the way 1955 did, and believe me, NASCAR is very aware of their “near miss”.

You can’t eliminate restrictor plates as the speeds would then rise to 220 mph+.

The only other alternative is to further strengthen the catch fences. Even then debris will still scatter through the fence openings like shrapnel, which is the cause of the recent injuries. But better shrapnel then the entire car.

I am not a big fan of NASCAR, but I believe that safety for both drivers and spectators in the series has evolved over time in the same fashion as it has for F1 and other racing series. Sadly, sometimes this is even not enough.

The NASCAR fans I am friends with (all of whom are intelligent and competent, for the most part) dislike restricter plate racing, for exactly the reason that it bunches cars together and increases the chance for big wrecks. Those of you who point out the nature of the venues are correct, as both Daytona and Talladega are among the most popular stops for NASCAR each season, just like Monaco for F1. My first preference would be to get rid of the plates and let the 200mph speeds happen, but I am far from an expert and would leave it to more professional sources to offer in on this.

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.

Respectfully i think fluke is absolutely the correct term. You can’t tell me when the last time a car grabbed big air and hit the catch fence, can you? Yes, restrictor plate racing forces close car racing and the inevitable “Big one”.

But when you consider the number of laps run over the years and the incidence of cars getting airborne I think “fluke” is the proper description.

That’s not to say the sport should be complacent on safety. Improve it where ever you can but without destroying the nature and uniqueness of the series.