Mark Belcik wrote:
>
> Obviously I've heard about the accident now, and know that he hit the
> inside wall, but would someone be so kind to explain exactly what the
> series of events were that led up to the accident? I was unable to watch
> the race this weekend and hadn't heard anything about it till now. (I
> don't get much of a chance to watch tv)
Restart from a yellow flag (Richie Hearns very similar crash). Probably
cold tires. After the green, I think it was within the first or second
lap from the restart, the rear got loose coming off of turn 2. He
immediately nailed the throttle, but was too late to catch it. Just lost
it I guess. He arced across the track to the infield grass, where he
could not loose much speed. As he slid sideways across a small paved
access road with a slight berm, the car went airborn causing the bad hit
into the infield wall.
Richie lost it in almost the same way just before in the same spot, but
the car remained low and level across the grass. When his car hit
almost exactly sideways, had to be still going 120 MPH, I though he was
hurt. It was a big hit in itself. He got out and did an interview 20
minutes later. I was happily amazed that he walked from that.
The commentators speculated that the tubulance from the cars in front
can cause problems with a new "go slower" aero set up they have
mandated. Said they are running almost half the downforce from a couple
of years ago. Seems to me that all of the efforts that are being made to
slow cars down, are causing problems in some ways. Reducing downforce,
or tire contact patch (F1) is not a safe way to reduce speeds IMO. A
better way would be to give them something to increase drag
significantly, not reduce downforce. Maybe something that generates
more downforce. I would rather see them add 8 huge ugly wings than to
reduce the size of one I guess. Let's see the engine builders overcome
that one. That's my perspective anyway.
|