The Day After: Thoughts on the 94th Indy 500
If yesterday was the best day of my year - the Indianapolis 500 - the day after usually counts as one of my worst... for no other reason than the fact that it will be a whole year before we get to do this all over again.
Usually, I spend the Day After the 500 prowling Indianapolis, buying Long’s Donuts for breakfast, visiting the IMS Museum, going downtown to the NCAA Museum, and so forth.
But since I’m not in Indy this year, I’m robbed of that series of small pleasures that keep me from ruminating on the race just completed. That means that you get a ringside seat as I spew those usually-postponed post-race thoughts into this blog.
Look, it’s not my money that’s being spent so it’s easy for me to say that the current formula of ultra-reliable leased motors and rigid chassis and aero guidelines needs to be dumped for a more open rulebook. But let’s face it - racing needs to be exciting and cutting-edge, and what we saw yesterday fell somewhat short. Sure, the speed was exciting, but that sense that a leader who opened a big gap on the field could be caught later in the race was totally absent. In fact, if anything it felt like 2000 all over again, when Juan Pablo Montoya completely dominated the race from start to finish for the same team owner.
There just didn’t seem to be any element of uncertainty in the race beyond the human error on pit road that cost Roger Penske the shot he wanted at his 16th Indy 500 win. At least, not the kind of uncertainty of years past - when an Andretti could dominate a race only to blow up within a few laps of the finish. That’s not to say the race itself was boring per se, although ABC Sports did its level best to make it so - but there was just an element of reliability (or worse, predictability) there that removed some of the suspense that normally accompanies the event.
Now, having said all of that, how could anyone not be thrilled by the spectacular run Tony Kanaan made through the field? His late-race pit stop for a splash of fuel cut short one of the most amazing rallies in the race’s history as TK powered from dead last on the grid to a couple of car lengths out of the lead. It was the most stirring part of the 500 by a mile (unless you are Ashley Judd) and a bravura performance from a guy whom everyone wanted to see succeed.
If there is a low point that counters Kanaan’s charge to the front, it has to be the last-lap wreck involving Mike Conway and Ryan Hunter-Reay. I haven’t seen a wreck that bad for years. That Conway is undergoing surgery on his left leg today should not obscure the fact that he is alive in the first place to experience that agony. I am amazed at and grateful for the IndyCar safety rules that helped him survive that accident.
With that in mind, I want to take issue with those who say that Conway’s survival was a direct result of the Dallara chassis and, by extension, that the accident actually proves that the IndyCar series should stick with the current car spec beyond 2012. The fact of the matter is that the Dallara has been prone to taking flight over the entirety of its 8-year lifespan. Granted, any flat-bottomed race car would have flown under the same circumstances as Conway’s, but it seems like the current-spec Dallara is particularly eager to experience the life of a bird. One only needs to remember the airborne flights of Mario Andretti, Sam Hornish and others to know how frightening these cars can be when the downforce pinning them to the track is disrupted.
Would a new car cut down the likelihood of a flight into the catchfence? I’m not an aerodynamicist so I couldn’t say for sure. Obviously with the specific kind of wheel-to-wheel contact between Conway and Hunter-Reay, the car is going to get into the air. But I believe a car with different aerodynamic properties - even with the obligatory flat bottom - might not have helicoptered so drastically or gained so much altitude. Maybe that belief is wrong and there is no way to avoid such things, but I refuse to acknowledge that people smarter than I am are incapable of finding a solution to this issue.
What I do know for sure is that I hate seeing cars fly - they are not, after all, aircraft - and I hate more the sight of them careening into the catchfences and disintegrating themselves, the fence, and possibly a few spectators along the way. You can’t remove an element of risk from racing but you can address specific problems when solutions are there for the taking (i.e., HANS and SAFER).
In the case of the Dallara chassis, there are eight years’ worth of evidence that some new thinking needs to be done about how these high-speed race cars should be built to cut down the flight risk. The fact that Conway survived such an enormous accident - while a testament to the current safety rules - should not detract from the realization that the car itself contributed directly to the accident’s severity. For all of the vitriol directed towards the Delta Wing concept, it is very unlikely that a Delta Wing under similar circumstances would have behaved the same way as the Dallara.
Knee-jerk change is never a good idea - usually because such change causes more problems than it solves - but in fairness the brightest minds in the industry have had nearly a decade to come up with solutions to the current spec’s issues. It’s past time for these solutions to be implemented.
Because the lasting image from this year’s Indy 500 is not that of Dario Franchitti drinking the milk, or Ashley Judd running barefoot down pit road, or of Jack Arute’s leathery tan - it’s of Mike Conway spinning in mid-air like a top and 300,000 people holding their collective breath and praying.
0 recs |
4 comments
|
Comments
You’re barking up the wrong tree regarding these cars taking flight. The aerodynamic forces involved are colossal. Hurricanes and Tornados with winds of considerably less velocity will pick up 4000 pound automobiles and throw them 100 yards; make entire houses disappear in a matter of seconds.
The key ingredient in this case is angle of attack. In school, many of us were taught that wings fly because of some Italian dude named Bernoulli; this is hogwash. Hold your hand out a moving car’s window with your palm facing down (do it on a highway, so you have enough speed). Now, change the angle of attack of the leading edge of your hand, up and down, so that the wind alternately forces your hand down, or forces it up. There, you’re hand is flying.
Conway’s car took off because the nose of his car was lifted into the air (angle of attack), in 200+ MPH “winds.” The car weighs less than 1600 pounds. If a 200 mile per hour tornado can pick up a railroad car, there ain’t no way in hell you are going to keep that Indy car down on the ground.
Perhaps the DW would not have gotten its nose forced up in that particular circumstance, at least not at the point of impact, but that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t have gotten airborne at some point—-it’s really impossible to know. However, I have seen Le Mans prototypes go airborne in spectacular fashion, and I’ve seen them go over the top of another car, so having the wheels covered doesn’t eliminate the problem.
Conway’s car appeared to get forced up by riding on RHR’s wheel—-at least that’s the way it looked to me. Cars with fenders would probably have just lost control at that point; after that point, though, either car could still get airborne. You saw the tin top get into the fence at Talladega last year? You’ve seen 3500 pound tin tops get lifted right off the ground simply from getting sideways? More than twice the weight, at lower speeds, and they’re still getting airborne.
One could argue that Indy cars are actually less likely to get airborne than other cars, not more. When is the last time you saw an Indy car get airborne all by itself, simply from getting sideways? TK’s car flirted with it when he crashed during practice the other day, but it stayed down.
Good luck keeping cars from getting airborne at those speeds. I don’t believe its possible. A Cessna 172 starts flying at ~74 mph; anything flies at 200.
Dead horse beaten.
The Doodle Wing is not an open wheel race car. Do you want open wheel racing in the United States or not? Bernard says he wants to “re-ignite” interest in open wheel racing in the U.S. Meanwhile, Penske and Ganassi are trying to drive the last nail in its coffin. What about “The Road to Indy?” Talk about knifing the baby.
Here’s hoping they get told to go pound sand.
I don’t pretend to believe that you can wholly prevent racecars – especially IndyCars – from taking flight; but I do believe that you can cut down on the risk of it happening and also cut down on the lift factors that KEEP the car in the air after it gets airborne. How to do that, I don’t know – like I say, I’m not an expert on aerodynamics. But there has to be some way for the lift to be deflected or spoiled once the car’s in the air.
I remember well the Mercedes Le Mans prototypes a few years back when they would flip and fly several stories into the air, virtually unmotivated. That problem got fixed in a hurry. But I also remember Mario Andretti and Sam Hornish all the way back in 2003 flipping in their Dallaras from very incidental contact with small debris. You can’t tell me that the best way to deal with that kind of thing is to say, “It’s racing, it happens sometimes.” IT CAN BE DESIGNED OUT.
My point in bringing up the Delta Wing was not to say it SHOULD be the next IndyCar or that the solution is to bring the wheels inside a fairing. The DW is not a flat-bottomed car. It has channels in the undertray to spoil lift and direct airflow. That is how Bowlby intended to keep the car planted to the track sans wings.
The reason why I want a new IndyCar is that in almost a decade of engineering and technological advance, SOMEONE must have come up with some solution to – or at the very least, an amelioration of – this kind of problem. Perhaps the car still gets airborne but it doesn’t helicopter or GAIN ALTITUDE to fly into a catchfence. If nobody has considered the problem then there has been a serious waste of intelligence and common sense.
You know, they called soft wall technology a “dead horse” too. Dale Earnhardt called people who wanted it investigated as a safety aid “candy-asses.” That attitude sure changed a hell of a lot when he ended up dying because he didn’t hit one at Daytona. What I’m asking for is a change of paradigm here BEFORE someone else ends up dying.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
Pop Off Valve - A greasy hot tenderloin of IndyCar goodness!
Hello, nail.
Right on the head, Tony. You said nearly everything I was going to. It’s all about ameliorating risk. Auto racing is risky, but excessive risk is too much. If there’s an area of the sport where risk can be lessened, then it should be. This is why I think the next IndyCar (whichever one is selected) should have measures installed to try to limit the amount of wheel-over-wheel contact. If we got a car going into the grandstands, there’s a chance the sport could be shut down for good, ergo we should try to eliminate that risk as much as possible. Open wheel cars are open wheeled because race car designers back in the ‘10s and ’20s found that putting fenders on the cars introduced too much weight (there was no carbon fiber back then, so fenders were relatively heavy) and the fenders actually caused lift a lot of the time (air bunches up under the fender and pushes upward; this is why most prototypes and GT cars have louvers on the fenders, to get that air out), not because of some design aesthetic. Mercedes tried both layouts with their 1950’s W196 F1 car, and eventually scrapped the fenders for a variety of reasons (including the ones I just listed) except for at Monza where they wanted the extra straight line speed. Hanging on to open wheels just for the sake of an aesthetic decision isn’t necessarily a good thing. Anyway, in my opinion, whether the next IndyCar has full fenders or just wheel guards in front of and behind the wheels that will limit the amount of contact between wheels, I’m OK with it. I’m just interested in the long term safety of my sport.
What you described up there, Oben, IS Bernoulli’s Principle. When you turn your hand upward like that, the pressure under your hand increases, and the pressure on top of your hand decreases. The higher pressure under your hand pushes your hand upward. That is the definition of Bernoulli’s Principle.
Frightening is an understatement
These cars are frightening…
Did RHR’s car run out of gas before Mike Conway hit him?
Running out of gas stops the race car abruptly-AND ….bammo to the wall!
BTW, this is one of the reasons they call the Indy-500 a “spectacle”.
Open wheel racing has a standard-
it is called Formula-one!
Very incisive and caustic to see drivers pouting over “place position” after this horrific accident!
(Another reason it is called a spectacle.)

by 













