The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

IndyCar circuit choice requires scrutiny

Roar Rookie
18th October, 2011
1

Motor­sport can be an extremely cruel business. This notion couldn’t be more appar­ent fol­low­ing the untimely pass­ing of Indy­Car cham­pion, Dan Wheldon.

A rip­per indi­vid­ual by all accounts, the Eng­lish­man was a cruel vic­tim of being in the wrong place at the wrong time dur­ing the Indy­Car series finale at Las Vegas.

Whel­don, not rac­ing full-time this sea­son, had accepted a lucra­tive invi­ta­tion to com­pete at the event, where he stood to claim $5 mil­lion if he won the race start­ing from the back of the field.

The tragedy brings back into focus the imper­a­tive mat­ter of dri­ver safety.

Obvi­ously, enclos­ing dri­vers’ cock­pits would be too much of a com­pro­mise, it would align Indy­Car and For­mula One too closely with the likes of V8 Super­cars, BTCC and DTM, which would rip the DNA from open-wheel rac­ing, so the next thing which needs to be looked at, is the very cir­cuits on which dri­vers’ put their lives on the line.

In the week lead­ing up to the Indy­Car series finale, many com­peti­tors voiced their con­cerns regard­ing the state of the Las Vegas cir­cuit, and ulti­mately, their wor­ries have been realised in the cru­ellest pos­si­ble way.

It is a ter­ri­ble shame that is has taken the death of one of motorsport’s most suc­cess­ful dri­vers for a sport such as Indy­Car to con­sider ask­ing seri­ous ques­tions of it’s cal­en­dar, when there has always been the great unknown of some­thing tran­spir­ing as it did last weekend.

For­mula One has Her­mann Tilke, and although it could be argued that his pro­to­type of cir­cuit design is a tad on the dull side, it is prob­a­bly time that Indy­Car con­sid­ers tak­ing a leaf from their com­peti­tors’ book.

Advertisement

Oval cir­cuits dom­i­nat­ing cal­en­dars sim­ply isn’t a viable option in open wheel rac­ing these days, espe­cially when those who are due to form part of the action on-track are already bring­ing the circuit’s cred­i­bil­ity into question.

close