Some think that hyperbole and sensationalism are essential elements in modern journalism. I don’t go for that. The job is to tell the story correctly, and not soup it up in order to get more people to read it.
You will be able to read all over the web about the incident at Daytona on Saturday, which resulted from a last lap 11-car crash in the NASCAR Nationwide Series race. This resulted in 20-year-old rookie Kyle Larson’s Chevrolet being launched into the air and flying into the debris fencing, above the impact-absorbing “soft” barriers. There is no doubt that one of the wheels, complete with its hub and some suspension parts, was torn off and went over the high debris fence and landed in the crowd. This caused the worst of the injuries. However the extent of the accident was much exaggerated. The impact with the debris fence was unusual in that it took place where there is an access gate in the fencing. This was weak enough to allow the car to penetrate the fence to a limited extent, but enough to mean that it hit the next fencing pillar square on, as a result the rotational forces involved caused the engine, gearbox and the other front wheel to be torn off and forced under the steel cables that run through the fence, as they were twisted upwards by the massive forces involved. These items did not end up in the grandstand, as has been reported, but rather right next to the fence in front of the first row of seats. The injuries that did occur were caused by large amounts of smaller parts that showered the crowd. An overall assessment of the accident will probably conclude that the fence did exactly what it was supposed to do and that the only real problems were the access gate and the flying wheel.
Reports of the number of injured were also exaggerated because the local hospital told reporters the total of people treated during the DAY, the majority of whom were suffering from sunstroke. As far as I can ascertain, 14 people were treated at the circuit medical centre and seven more serious injuries were taken to the Halifax Urgent Care Center in Port Orange. Two of these were in a critical condition, including one man with a life-threatening head injury.
Racing learns from each accident and there will no doubt be changes made in the future to ensure that weak spots in the protection, such as access gates, are dealt with accordingly. The question of flying wheels remains difficult because wheel tethers can only absorb so much of an impact without ripping out their mountings.
joeblogsf1 
Litigation guarantees one thing a preoccupation with liability. The ambulance chasers will be out in full force on top of the inevitable study/inquest that will come out of this so there should be some changes for the better. A lot of these tracks are fairly old and it’s quite amazing how basic chain-link (wire) fence above the concrete has done the job for so long, it’s not shrapnel proof though.
Thanks Joe for this update. I haven’t been looking for news about the crash, as I was not interested in jumping on the crash hype. But I would say its sad that this accident happened and a big shame people did get hurt in it, even if it seems most of them were not in danger of their lives.
As you write, lessons will be learned and improvements made. It does put a bit of a damper on an exiting race and the good vibes of the start of the NASCAR season.
A lot like Villeneuves accident in Australia where the wheel went through the access point in the fence and killed the marshall. Just terrible bad luck!
Wasn’t he a photographer? Which was why he was standing in by the access point.
http://www.trackforum.com/forums/showthread.php?173389-Daytona-Nationwide-RACE-Thread/page11 – post 328. That wheel looks a lot further back than the front row….
There were two wheels involved if you read the story
Speaking of sunstroke and exaggerated stories, the mainstream western press are mysteriously quiet about Bahrain at the moment. But you can bet come April we will get the usual rhetoric when Formula One visits.
This blog is excellent for telling it like it is, thanks!
Joe, interested to know if the steel cables in the fence broke?
Was on the front stretch in 2000 when the truck crashed in front of us. A lot of the injuries that day were caused when the fence cable broke. This had a whiplash effect when the tension was released. Can vaguely remember people in front of us with broken limbs but shocked by the heat of the fireball as it went by.
Joe, I am at a loss to see what purpose this entry pertaining to the daytona crash has. I fear you are using a tragic accident as fuel for your fire in your ongoing critique of sloppy and inaccurate journalism. Not once do you mention in your entry concern for the spectators who were injured. Nor do you convey any emotion towards the innocent bystanders caught up in this accident. Your matter of fact rhetoric about details misreported is surely not appropriate in relation to the crash. I have long respected your blog for its honesty and independent opinions but I feel strongly that this time you should examine the line in the sand. Utilize your material more relevantly and your views against poor standards in journalism will become more widely held. Perhaps incorporate a touch of morality and ethics which actual journalists have to abide by in common law, else risk a blog riddled by hypocrisy.
Personally I would like to wish all those injured and their families the very best and a speedy recovery.
I am just giving facts. Not hyperbole.
“Your matter of fact rhetoric about details misreported is surely not appropriate in relation to the crash.”
Seriously? It seems you may have forgotten (or maybe have never experienced) real professional journalism, where journalists/reporters/the media actually would report the news in an effort to be accurate, without a political spin, and not for the purpose of grabbing ratings or Facebook “likes”. There was a time when news articles were not ALL op/ed. I miss those days, and the reason I read Joe’s work is because he tries his best to be fair. Living in NASCAR country, it’s kind of sad that I need to go to a non-U.S. source to try to actually get the story, instead of instructions on how to be outraged. I don’t need the media to tell me how to react. I prefer to be informed and to draw my own conclusions. I think Joe has done a good job of that – he’s being professional here by not trying to turn this into an opportunity to convince everyone to join his religion of choice and political party. That’s what journalism should be about.
Are you that muddy chap?
That was directed at James Myers but came out in the wrong place.
To each their own.
My opinion is pretty much the opposite. I appreciate that Joe has reported plain and simple information on an incident which concerns motorsport safety and therefore may influence F1 when full conclusions can be drawn. He has explained why his report may differ from other reports available and avoided wasting words on phrases like “Personally I would like to wish all those injured and their families the very best and a speedy recovery”.
I think we’re all agreed that injuries are bad and that we all hope that people who get injured will recover fully and swiftly. Does it really need to be said every time something happens?
(I don’t mean this as a personal attack, it’s just one of those things that gets on my nerves, like asking a handful of random people in the street to provide opinions on a news item)
Agreed. He also didn’t include a photo, which would have been simply gratuitous.
I have been following this blog for a while now and haven’t really had the chance to say anything insightful yet. I thought I knew a fair bit about motorsport and F1 in particular but the quality of the journalism and the level headed contributions on this site are so good not much more needs to be said.
Well done to Joe and the regulars on here.
For what it’s worth I have been following F1 since the Derek Warwick Toleman days and have always had a softspot for Team “Enstone” or Team “Witney”as it was when I scrounged a visit….in the early Benetton years. How about an article on the development of F1 facilities. From the Old Station Lane facility to the current Enstone factory
Joe you cant draw risk assessment parallels directly from NASCAR to F1. A big difference is that crashes are intentional and regular occurrences in NASCAR and part of the show. The lead driver in the field here pinched down on the faster cars from behind. Yes, that can happen with the one move in F1, but they don’t have a swarm of cars behind on every passing move waiting to get sucked into the melee and the passing driver is anticipating it and has something he can do without hitting other cars.
In F1 last year some nameless drivers acted like crashes are part of the show, mainly through lack of experience and the FIA and Marshalls begged to differ and acted accordingly to snuff it out. This sets a different risk perspective for F1.
But until the chinks in the armor (holes in fences) are fixed then the risks are exactly the same the next time they race but the potential exists for worse outcomes. It might seem that it was long odds they hit that hole, such a small hole, such a big fence. But the holes are placed proximate to places the cars will crash for accidents. IE just in the wrong place from a risk perspective. Just because it was not that bad this time does not mean more parts with higher energy cant make it through a similar hole next time. F1 needs to look at its own risks and keep the assessments updated, NASCAR needs to think about the consequences of the show they put on. They are, because of the way they drive, a disaster waiting to happen. Risk is severity of the outcome and probability of occurrence. When you wreck that many times in a race, guess what! The odds of a disaster becoming a reality are enhanced!
The actions of the FIA and Marshalls in F1 last season suggest to me they get it, they observed something changing with less experienced drivers and drew a line in the sand. NASCAR sees it as part of the show, while that part of the show goes on, the risk is there, week after week, looking for a hole to send a tumbling engine block, wheel or other heavy part through. SO F1 needs to keep the assessment coming and manage its own risks and improve its technologies. The inevitable disaster in NASCAR will sort that out. Hopefully F1 is not harmed in the process
A technical analysis of an accident has got nothing to do with risk analysis. Hence the rest of your comment is not really relevant.
If the technical analysis is treated purely in isolation you maybe correct, but they never are, as you clearly stated “there will no doubt be changes made in the future to ensure that weak spots in the protection, such as access gates, are dealt with accordingly.” IE someone will look at the technical analysis and asses if the risk of this occurring again is too high and then fix the issue. So by your own summary, it is highly relevant.
My comment is that history tells us a big accident in motor racing gets everyone tarred with the same brush. It can drive manufacturers out of motorsport and change the way how unrelated series are operated in a knee jerk reaction.
While crashes are a routine part of the NASCAR “show” and are not positively discouraged as F1 did last season, NASCAR will have the highest potential to cause a disaster and the blow back can hurt F1. Believing it cant and wont happen is foolish. The NASCAR “show” is getting in the way of safety. They are looking at bigger and better fences, passive controls, when root cause is the number and frequency of the accidents which requires positive action to fix. They are running a high speed demolition derby and it needs to be seen as such, NOT Motor racing! The risks need to be managed that way.
I would hate to see my sport (F1) and your source of living go away or being needlessly impacted because the risk was never assessed until it is to late and many were killed by NASCAR’s “show”! They got close this weekend, that lesson needs to be learnt and rectified. I would ask you to call a spade a spade and recognize the difference between NASCAR and F1 and the risks present in both. Because if you cant see them and educate the motorsports world, then public opinion will ride rough shod over F1 the day NASCAR finally screws up! It is not IF NASCAR will kill a bunch of people, it is simply WHEN at this point. Imagine if that had been lit gasoline that went through the fence like a flame thrower! A better fence wont stop that, the way you run the “show” might just cut the risk down to an acceptable level where the potential is low.
I think you seriously underestimate the amount of work that is done on safety in all forms of motorsport and the sharing of information that exists between different sanctioning bodies.
Well seems like JUST one of these many contacts would have told NASCAR by now the multi car wrecks are a disaster waiting to happen! Guess the contacts are not as profound as you think or they don’t like to upset the other side by indicating the emperor has no clothes!
The difference between NASCAR & F1 is, one is open wheel racing and the other isn’t. A big difference when the cars touch at 200mph.
I think that’s generally a good point actually Adam, however disagree with your initial statement, I think its crucial that we learn from other accidents across motorsport. F1 has made leaps and bounds in safety, but there is still more to be done. It is always better to learn from someone else’s accident than wait to repeat it!
To James I would say that the purpose of this entry was to balance out the sensationalist reporting of others and to give Joe’s readers the facts. Accidents like this can lead to a backlash by the misinformed who get lead to believe large numbers of spectators are mown down on a regular basis by uncaring drivers and organizers. This leads to calls for action followed by restrictions on the sport we all love.
The more people who know what really happened rather than what has been (badly) reported, the better for refuting those arguments.
I have been reading this blog for quite some time. Differing opinions are fine. Two individuals may see something totally different. But, the personal attacks I’ve seen posted by readers of this blog are amazing. Another site I visit uses the phrase “decorum and civility” when posting comments to a story. I think that phrase should be considered on this blog as well.
I think the main concern for many seasoned NASCAR observers is not the strength of the fence or the forces involved in the accident, rather it is the nature of the racing. The tandem drafting (thankfully gone from Cup) is loaded with (extra) risk. Hopefully this will be addressed immediately in Nationwide, it is extremely easy to stop – just make a small curve in the fender. Driving standards are also shocking – this was the third time in less than three years that accidents involving Keselowski have resulted in off-track injuries. Could you imagine any other series not disciplining the drivers in such a scenario? I’m not saying that Saturday’s accident was entirely his fault either, just wondering aloud why the ‘have-at-em-boys’ philosophy continues to let certain drivers get away with questionable behaviour time and again.
The thing that surprised me most was the realisation that not all bits of catch fence are created equal (it’s not as good, but don’t worry – it’s a crossover point). I guess this was bound to be the case but I was still surprised. It would be a bit awkward to explain away if somone died as a result of something as prosaic as a pedestrian crossing gate.
I was also surprised that there didn’t seem to be an ‘exclusion zone’ in the first few rows of seating, something you see a lot at other ovals and I wonder on what risk assessment basis that decision is taken from one oval to another.
I’m not surprised that the netting didn’t do a better job. Presumably it was ripped clean off. The netting (which was criticised for being on the outside of the fence at Las Vegas) doesn’t exist to minimise injury to drivers, but rather to catch smaller items of debris before they hit the crowd.
I hope everyone’s fine, a bit of a wakeup call, as was the GP3 crash at Monaco, that catch fences can’t do everything.
Great report. Things have been very confusing.
/Be interesting to see the arguments about rallying given the recent tragic events in Scotland.When I started going to motorsport events fencing was rare,made for better photographs, I have been stood at the side of a stage watching Group B Machines scream past in the wet.
In the UK at least workplace Health & Safety is governed on the principle of what is reasonable. Motor sport is dangerous, Period. Using risk management terminaology does anyone think that risk associated with spectating is ALARP (As Low As Reasonably Practical)
Whilst one or to fatalities are tragic, when you look at how many spectators watch safely in all forms of motorsport how much more can be realistically done whilst keeping the costs manageable for the circuits and the measures maintained for years.
I’ll answer a point made by Chris D above:-
l so surprised that there didn’t seem to be an ‘exclusion zone’ in the first few rows of seating, something you see a lot at other ovals and I wonder on what risk assessment basis that decision is taken from one oval to another.”
The reason no one sits in the first 10-12 rows is because it is not easy to see the racing through the fence. Hence people sit up higher to see over it. Daytona is usually different because it is a sell out, although not packed for the Nationwide on the Saturday. The tickets usually sell from the back forwards and it is always difficult to buy tickets higher in the stands.
Thanks – makes sense 🙂
I think it was entirely predictable.
Spectating on the outside of the tri-oval seems to me as risky as sitting close on the outside of a group b rally corner.
There is almost always a multiple car last lap crash at that spot due to the super speedway race style – and if you have enough crashes there – even if 9 out of 10 are safe – one of them will be a freak one that gets through (Or over) the fence,
If enough Nascar’s get airborne at once – I wonder what the total forces are that they can put on that fence? It must be massive.
Does NASCAR use wheel tethers?
I believe they do.
I have always thought that the name ‘wheel tethers’ is a misnomer – the cables are attached to the upright so they are actually suspension tethers really. You obviously can’t fix a cable to a spinning wheel so, as we saw with the tragic loss of Henry Surtees at Brands Hatch when a wheel came off another car that had just crashed, if the wheel rim itself shears off from the hub or if the upright fails and the hub pulls free, the tethers can’t address that but at least there shouldn’t be an errant wheel complete with upright and wishbones still attached. Great site Jo.
They do indeed, however, in this case, the upright, and an A arm came along for the ride. The pics clearly showed the wheel tether doing it’s job, connecting the wheel to the upright. It was said during interviews that the total mass of the wheel, including tyre,wheel, hub,brake rotor (steel), caliper, upright, and a-arm weighs close to 350lbs.