For certain races in 2007, Champ Car will use standing starts as in F1.
From a safety point of view, it's a huge step backward. I would have expected Champ Car to have seen the drawback of that system by watching F1 where there are many incidents and where there have been fatalities because of it.
Certain races? What will be the determining factor as to whether they use it or not? I would say you either use them for every race, or none at all.
Standing starts are so much more exciting from the audience perspective. I can't recall a standing start fatality in F1 in the last 20 years.
Thank god, from an entertainment point of view its a huge step forwards. As for safety, well the drivers know the risks, certainly no more dangerous at the 1st corner than a rolling start.
I wonder what Bernie will have to say about this. The Three Amigos can probably expect a summons soon.
Standing starts, turbos, international races, international drivers, road courses, street circuits. Champ car looks more and more like F1. An unbelievably friggin good thing!!!!
They tried it in the Atlantic Series, actually had less first turn issues. A major difference from F1, Champ Cars have no traction control.
I dunno.. seems Bernie is getting some tips from CCWS with the new tire deal similar to the "Red" 'stones Champcar is using.
If only they had real drivers behind the wheel instead of the current roster of has-beens and never-weres...
Standing start fatalities were ALL caused before proper procedures were put in place, ie. have somebody check that all the cars are lined up and ready to go. The accidents were caused when somebody was still arriving to the grid and realised that the flag had already been dropped ... thus they hit the accelerator from their rolling speed and then caught up to the standing start guys going heaps faster ... and bang!!! I've actually watched this occur in a club race meeting in Australia about 15 years ago and many cars were complete fncked, and this was the exact cause. I was disgusted with the lack of very basic race control. Thus there is very little more risk with a standing start with ALL cars actually stopped and lined up properly. Remember it is speed differentials that causes most problems. Thus the only issue is a stalling car ... but heck even on a rolling start somebody might have gear or engine problems ... thus this is why racing drivers have to be better than average at the driving part. Rolling starts simply snck, from a driver (yep done a few) and spectator point of view. Might as well start at intervals ... Good move by Champ Car and will help their drivers arrive in F1 ready ... if they can find drivers who are actually racers and not just looking for an interesting career. Pete
Andreas, Champ Car will never be anything more than just a secondary series with secondary drivers. And I am being kind.
Second to F1.. and LeMans.. Not too bad to be second to. Guess that would be third, eh. 2007 will bring a great amount of change to open wheel racing in North America. More than we have seen in the last decade.
Such as ? You want to classify Champ Car drivers that way, then you will have to classify EVERY series of motorsports that way, even F1, because 1/2 to 3/4 of the drivers in every series on earth fit that criteria (has-been or never-was). I think standing starts are great - as long as there is about 1/8 of a mile in-between each row of cars....
The greatest logistical and safety risk with standing starts that has not been considered is the one called "Paul Tracy".
Just my $.02, but standing starts are less dangerous on any track than rolling starts, especially on a road course though. The cars simply have less speed when they are lined up in grid form (0 mph versus say 70mph). The only time rolling starts make sense to me is when the drivetrain necessitates it.
At the start of a GP, you have (at the moment) 22 cars carrying a large quantity of fuel, spread over a huge distance from the front to the last row (surely more than 1/4 mile). Under standing start, everyone accelerates as quick as possible and try to get position, overtake, align himself for the first corner, etc... If there is an incident (car stalling, drivetrain failure, contact between 2 cars, etc...), the back of the field arrives to the scene still in full acceleration with hardly any warning. Within 1/4 mile, some reach 120 mph and could plow into stationary vehicles. I can't see that being LESS dangerous than a field of moving cars, where nobody is stationary. The potential speed difference between cars is less. The idea of being more spectacular should be weight against the potential risks. If standing starts are so spectacular, and so good for spectators, why NASCAR doesn't adopt them, then?
Never a truer word spoken (er, typed). The guy is a very loose cannon and somebody who I would not want to share any race track with. Pete
Secondary yes. But only to F1. Skill- and technology wise they're heads and shoulders above the oval series like IRL and NASCAR. I don't know where CART drivers stand in a worldwide comparison with say A1, but they're not that far off. OTOH champ Bourdais got his ass kicked big time in his complete failure with the Toro Rosso. As I said, secondary yes, but only to F1. PS: Excluding WRC from this discussion. But those are not men, those are Gods.
