| 0 |
Subject: Indianapolis 500 Question
Posted by: Sludge
- Sustainer [54131712] Tue, Jun 18, 2002, 13:21
The Indy 500 controversy just won't go away, and I have a simple question that I hope someone here has the answer to.
Why don't they race back to the start/finish line after a yellow comes out like they do in NASCAR? Seems to me this could have been completely avoided if they did so, and it's not like they couldn't have forseen this happening.
This is so much like the Jac-Cle replay fiasco it's scary. If I recall correctly, the track officials stated that the yellow was on inside the cars before it appeared on the track, which is something that only the drivers and the folks who initiate the caution would ever know, and even then how would they be able to judge who was in the lead at that moment if they are more concerned with determining if a caution was warranted and then concerned with the act of initiating the caution. One eye on the race leaders, one finger on the button? At least in NASCAR, with the race back to the line, everyone in the world can easily see who won, even if it has to be assisted by cameras from time-to-time. |
| 1 | KrazyKoalaBears
Donor
ID: 266182910
Tue, Jun 18, 2002, 14:03
|
First, everything in Indy/Cart racing is completely monitored by computers. Completely! So figuring out when the official hit the yellow light is an easy enough task. The difficult task is aligning that with Tracy's and Castroneves' track position at the time. There are track position reporting systems on all cars, so this shouldn't be TOO difficult, it just needs to be done. What you see on TV is moot because they're trying to show track position when the track yellow came on. What matters is track position when the yellow came on in the cars. As far as racing back to the yellow, it's good one way and bad another. It's good in that you get an obvious answer to who the leader is, but it's bad in that you have people racing when they should be under "caution". In other words, it's like driving 65 MPH down the interstate and keeping that speed as you pass a 2-car accident that's in the right lane. Nobody does that. At least nobody in their right mind. We all slow down and proceed with caution. So, in an attempt to keep that the way it should be, Indy/Cart freezes the position of the cars as they are at the time of the yellow. I'm a fan of this because of stuff like what happened at the Busch BRI race earlier this season. Jeff Green was leading Jimmy Spencer coming up on the last lap. A car (Mark Green?) spun out in 1 and 2 right in the middle of the track and then came down the track and got hit in the driver-side by another car. So because of the tight track at BRI, cars got bunched up. However, Jeff Green and Spencer happened to be on the white flag lap. IIRC, the yellow came out pretty much as they were coming into 1 and 2 and the wreck and bunched up cars. Well, because NASCAR races back to the yellow, Jeff Green and Spencer ended up racing through slowed cars, weaving in and out and around and even down on the apron, trying to get back to the yellow to win. Spencer actually spun out Tim Sauter, who ended up hitting the frontside pit wall, in his racing back to the yellow. So at a time when caution is supposed to be observed, these guys are racing full speed. And you see it all the time in NASCAR. When you think about it, how much of an oxymoron is the statement, "Racing to the caution?" The way I see it, if there's a reason for there to have caution on the track, then all racing needs to stop. Some people would point out that Tracy and Castroneves were past the "caution area" that caused the yellow flag, but you can't have rules made halfway. It's either a full-course caution observed by all cars with positions frozen, or you race back to the caution. Seeing the number of near-misses and actual accidents and spinouts as a result of NASCAR's setup, I prefer Indy/Cart's setup. Caution should mean caution, not caution after you cross the start/finish line. BTW, as to the controversy, I think Tracy won. Why? Because spotters are almost always a half-step ahead of the officials and the yellow. They'll tell their driver, "spin in 2, stay low," before the yellow is even out. So what I think happend is that Castroneves' spotter said something along those lines, particularly with Castroneves low on fuel, that caused Castroneves to slow down in anticipation of the yellow and Tracy raced until he actually saw the yellow. Even if we're talking about a split-second, that's enough in Indy/Cart racing, especially since Tracy was already making a move to pass Castroneves. Castroneves let up a split-second too soon as Tracy was making his move and it worked out for Tracy. This is just my opinion, but it's what I think happened. The only people that know for 100% certainty are those with the computer information. Do I think Castroneves' victory will stand? Yes. It would be a much bigger issue to overturn it than it would be to let it stand. And as long as the computer information doesn't make its way to the public, we'll never know for sure anyhow.
|
| 2 | Sludge
Sustainer
ID: 54131712
Tue, Jun 18, 2002, 14:22
|
Granted, but the majority of the time the wreck happens behind the leaders, and this is not an issue. Of course, the majority of the time in IRL, the caution does not come out at such an inoportune time. So, why not have two different types of cautions? One which indicates that the wreck or debris is not between the leaders and the line, in which case it is safe to race back to the line, and another which indicates that all cars must slow down immediately? It's not overly complicated, and it would have taken care of both cases we're discussing here. Sure, there is still the possibility of having an Indy 500-type situation arise again, but only if two cars are racing for the lead AND the wreck happens between them and the line. In other words, the possibility would still be there, but the chance of it happening would be greatly reduced.
And, despite your confidences in the ability of the computers and tracking equipment, we are likely not to the point yet where a computer can tell which car is inches ahead of the other on a race track at an exact moment of time.
Just a thought. It won't happen, but it's fun to discuss anyway.
|
| 3 | KrazyKoalaBears
Donor
ID: 266182910
Tue, Jun 18, 2002, 15:12
|
Because it adds another step in the determination of caution. When caution needs to be exercised on the track, then it needs to be exercised by all cars. Not just particular cars at particular places at particular times. It's either caution, or not. Adding all those variables just adds to the time to determine a caution and could cause a bigger wreck than what has already happened. And if even 1 driver over the course of many years gets injured because of that extended amount of time, then it's not worth it. These guys are traveling over 200+ MPH. That's not something to play around with. If they were traveling 50 MPH, then maybe, but not at the speeds they're traveling. IMO, if there is a need for caution, then it needs to be for the entire course. It's too dangerous of a sport to not do it that way. As far as the computers go, I'm sorry to say that you are wrong. They ARE that sophisticated and they can tell within inches (even fractions of an inch) where the cars are. GPS has come along way and it can tell. Besides, NASCAR can tell you down to at least a thousandth of a second how far behind a car is from the leader. A thousandth of a second at 200 MPH is 3.52 inches.
|
| 4 | Sludge
Sustainer
ID: 54131712
Tue, Jun 18, 2002, 15:31
|
Sorry, KKB, but there are errors in these measurements, just as there are in any measuring instrument. They just don't tell you about them because, for the most part, the errors aren't that important. As for GPS, I sure hope the hell they aren't using that to track the cars. I've worked with GPS before, and it's not that good. A quick search yielded this.
I would hope that each car has a transmitter and that there are several receivers around the track from which the position can be triangulated. Considering the speed of the signal and the relatively small size of the track, however, this is not done as easily as you're making it sound.
|
| 5 | Sludge
Sustainer
ID: 54131712
Tue, Jun 18, 2002, 15:38
|
Well, I guess it does use GPS. According to this, they can track a car to within 20 mm of it's actual position. Frankly, I just don't see how that's possible using GPS for which even the best receivers have an error rate of up to 1 meter.
|
| 6 | Sludge
Sustainer
ID: 54131712
Tue, Jun 18, 2002, 15:54
|
Anyway, back on topic. The cars are travelling fast, sure, but what about a road course where they aren't going so fast? What about a 2 1/2 mile super speedway? What about restrictor plate racing? On a half mile track, I concede your point (even though they aren't going 200+ mph, they get around in a hurry).
On a 2 1/2 mile track, where it takes 45 seconds to get around at 200 mph (36 seconds on a 2 mile track), the "extra step" will not make a difference.
If the wreck is between the leaders and the line, then the drivers and their spotters are going to know better than anyone what kind of caution is going to come out, and they will slow down. As for the rest of the pack behind the leaders, they will slow down regardless of the type of caution. There's no point in racing back to the line (unless it's the finish) for them, and they know it.
If the wreck is not between the leaders and the line, in just about every scenario I can think of, the officials have plenty of time to take the extra second to determine what type of caution to throw up. Worst case scenario would probably be leaders on last turn, wreck is right past the line, in which case the type of caution won't make a bit of difference because they won't be able to throw it up fast enough anyway.
|
| 7 | KrazyKoalaBears
Donor
ID: 266182910
Wed, Jun 19, 2002, 10:12
|
Sludge, your first link was last modified almost 2 years ago. I assure you the technology has gotten better since then. Look up an article on the capabilites of cell phones from 2 years ago and one could say that many things possible with cell phones now are "not that good" according to the article. Frankly, I trust the "How Stuff Works" web site a lot more since they've been right on about anything I've ever looked up with them. Anyhow, as to your other comments... If the wreck is between the leaders and the line, then the drivers and their spotters are going to know better than anyone what kind of caution is going to come out, and they will slow down.. Sorry, but this is wrong. If you're racing back to the line, then you're racing back to the line. If this isn't the case, then why do you see guys every week actually driving through a cloud of smoke that they can't see through? Wouldn't it just be safer to slow to a crawl or stop? Sure it would. But they know that they'll lose 10 positions doing that since everyone else is racing back to the line. I can think back to Tony Stewart's crash at DAR earlier this year and seeing everyone drive by him as fast as they could to get to the start/finish line ahead of the guy behind them. Jeff Gordon's spinout at BRI was the same thing. As for the rest of the pack behind the leaders, they will slow down regardless of the type of caution. There's no point in racing back to the line (unless it's the finish) for them, and they know it.. Again, sorry but this is wrong. The more positions you make up at any point in time means fewer people to pass later. If this isn't the case, then why isn't anyone happy being in 2nd place halfway through the race? Why are they racing for the lead? Why are the people behind them passing anyone if they're so content with where they are? Ask any race car driver and at any point in the race, they would always rather be at least 1 position further up than they currently are. And if the guy next to you is going to race back to the line, so are you. You're not going to give up free positions and neither is he. And because of that mentality, both of you are only going to slow down as much as needed and no less. You see it every single week. And besides, at what position does the difference become between the "leaders" and the "rest of the pack"? The drivers just see it all as one big pack with one leader that they need to catch. Gaining positions is a priority to accomplish that. The point is that caution should mean caution. It should matter who is where at what time. Like I said before, even putting one person in danger because of even an extra split second to make a rule determination about what kind of caution to display is one too many. I see no point in putting anyone in any further danger. The Green/Spencer example is a perfect example of this and I'm sure there are plenty of examples like this with the leaders both ahead of and behind the crash. Another example would be Greg Biffle slamming into Jeff Purvis at the DOV Busch race. His spotter told him to stay high and he drove through smoke that he couldn't see through and ended up slamming right into the driver side of Jeff Purvis' car causing severe injuries to Purvis' head and back and other areas. Purvis was injured so bad that he has to talk about a "comeback" while he wears a halo to protect 2 broken vertebrae in his neck. A guy with a season-long sponsorship has to talk about a "comeback" because of a wreck that would have been avoided under Indy/Cart rules. So was it worth it for Biffle to be racing back to the line? I don't see why there should be any stipulations that if you're in front of the crash, then you race back to the line, but if you're not, then you don't. Along the lines of your last suggestion, what if the crash is between the start/finish and turn 1 and the leaders are in front of the crash? Because they are "in front" of the crash (we'll say turn 2), they'll race all the way around the track to the start/finish line. Great! But, is it really safe for them to be racing back to the line, then have to slam on the brakes to avoid the first crash in turn 1? When do the scenarios like this stop? You would have to have a list a mile long of different scenarios and what kind of caution to throw or who can race back to the line. It becomes ridiculous. Just race or don't race. Nice and easy. Because of recent events where racing back to the line has caused more crashes and severe injuries in NASCAR, I prefer that they don't race and just observer caution. There's too much to lose and not enough gain from racing back to the line. Just ask Jeff Purvis.
|
| 8 | Wahoo
ID: 280302214
Wed, Jun 19, 2002, 11:28
|
An easier solution would be to revert to the last completed lap before the caution came out. This prevents racing to the yellow and solves most of the problems with track position at a certain moment in time. Sure it may not seem fair if you've just completed a pass just before the yellow comes out but as long as the rule is consistent...
The only problem would be determining if the yellow comes out as the leader is crossing the line.
|
| 9 | Sludge
Sustainer
ID: 26073119
Wed, Jun 19, 2002, 13:51
|
Okay, think the link is too old? That's fine. Go to your favorite search engine and search for "dgps and meter and accurate".
Even better yet, here's the spec sheet on the hardware that NASCAR was using as of December of last year. NovAtel OEM4
Without the corrections that NASCAR tries to implement (models of the track), minimal error ranges are in the 0.35 to 0.5 meter range. If you read the fine print, however, the receiver is still susceptible to (can you guess?) the very same problems which are mentioned in the 2 year old link you so easily dismissed. I quote:
"Typical values. Performance specifications are subject to GPS system characteristics, U.S. DOD operational degradation, ionospheric and tropospheric conditions, satellite geometry, baseline length and multipath effects. Assumes SA Off."
Regardless, this is a bit off the original topic. Your examples are all fine, and I would have no problem with the Indy style cautions. It's not exciting, but it's safe. I'm not arguing that. What I'm proposing isn't as safe as that, but safer than the way NASCAR presently does things. On the other hand, it would seem to me that the racers and their owners themselves would rather have a clear winner than have safety. If it's more important to be safe than to have a clear winner, then why are Green and Tracy fighting the decision to award the win to Castroneves so hard? I haven't heard from them yet that "It's in the best interest of our sport that the cautions are handled the way they presently are in the interest of driver safety. Because of this, we are dropping our appeal."
This is probably moot, but the Biffle-Purvis incident was the exception, not the rule. I've watched many a NASCAR race, and the vast majority of the trailing pack slows down considerably when approaching a wreck. That wreck, as you describe it, was the fault of Biffle's spotter for giving him a bad line and Biffle himself for gunning it through that line. Most of the time, the racer goes slow through the entire wreck until he is clear of the smoke.
For what it's worth, Wahoo, the idea isn't so bad. There are lots of things in racing that don't seem fair. Wrecks that are no fault of your own hanging you out to dry because you pitted early or late. Wrappers and debris from the fans littering the track clogging up air intakes and causing cautions. The list is seemingly endless.
|
| 10 | KrazyKoalaBears
Donor
ID: 266182910
Wed, Jun 19, 2002, 15:12
|
Sludge, fair enough on the GPS, but as you pointed it, we got a bit off-topic. The point I'm making is that when you compare the number of protests about the finish of an Indy/Cart race because of positioning at the time of the caution flag to the number of additional unnecessary accidents in NASCAR as a result of cars not slowing or stopping and racing back to the caution, you will find that the NASCAR situation outnumbers the Indy/Cart situation. So when you look at the safety of the driver, which is worse? A protest every blue moon because of positioning at the time of a caution flag, or cars racing back to the caution flag, further endangering themselves, the cars that brought out the caution, and other drivers. Sure your suggestion is safer than what is in place now, but why stop there? Why not just go ahead and be as safe as possible? The Biffle/Purvis example is not an exception. I watch a lot of NASCAR races too and I always see guys racing through the smoke praying that their spotter got the line right. Sure they "slow down," but slowing down in NASCAR is going 120-130 instead of 180-190. Hitting something at those slowed down speeds can still do a lot of damage and shouldn't be ignored or casually written off. I also like Wahoo's idea. I agree that it just needs to be something that is consistent and the caution flag scenarios that you proposed would not be consistent. It needs to be the same from track to track.
|
| 11 | KrazyKoalaBears
Donor
ID: 266182910
Wed, Jul 03, 2002, 13:20
|
Castroneves keeps his win According to the article, "under Rule 11.2 of the 2002 Indy Racing League rules, the decision whether a car passed another car during a yellow caution period or any matter which involves the exercise of judgment by the officials during an event 'may not be protested or appealed and the decision of the officials is final and binding.'" So basically, the protest wasn't even heard.
|
| 12 | Sludge
Sustainer
ID: 54131712
Wed, Jul 03, 2002, 13:36
|
Saw that KKB. Actually the version that I read a bit earlier had George stating that the radio call is what is officially used to determine exactly when a caution is in effect, but the story no longer has that blurb. Assuming that's the case, why not put into place a system which synchronizes the trackside lights, the in-car lights, and the radio call? Push a single button, they all go on at the same time. Seems easy enough. Of course, I'm also assuming that this is not how they're currently doing it.
I also noticed something that disturbs me a bit.
"They do not have the benefit of instant replay and telemetry data," he [George] said. "There were five caution periods (during the race). Each involved a decision where every car in the field should be placed in the commencement of the caution period."
How many people do they have to make these decisions? One for each car? Despite the shortcomings I pointed out in the GPS data collected, it is still a very valuable tool, and I can't imagine them not keeping a time-stamped log of track positions. I just don't feel comfortable picking winners using it.
|
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|