Wheldon death report raises more questions

Share

IndyCar confirmed what everyone already knew when it released its report on Thursday on the crash that killed racer Dan Wheldon in the October series finale.

As many suspected, the combination of high speeds, banking, pack racing, and multiple racing lines all conspired to cause the crash that took the two-time Indianapolis 500 winner and 2005 IndyCar champion.

The detailed report covers all of the on-track events leading up to the accident and explains the circumstances that ultimately saw a 34-car gaggle speed headlong into disaster 11 laps into the Oct. 16 race.

In the end, the investigation by the series concluded that the accident could have happened at any track, although it suggested that the combination of the conditions at Las Vegas combined with the car used in IndyCar created a "perfect storm" that caused the fatal crash.

"The accident was significant due to the number of race cars damaged, but more importantly through the non-survivable survivable injuries to Dan Wheldon," IndyCar boss Randy Bernard said.

"While several factors coincided to produce a perfect storm, none of them can be singled out as the sole cause of the accident. For this reason, it is impossible to determine with certainly the result would be any different if one or more of the factors did not exist."

The two-month inquiry into the crash determined that Wheldon died from massive head injuries caused when his car got airborne and careened into the catch fence above the wall. The fatal blow came when his head suffered a direct hit from one of the metal poles holding the fence in place.

While the mechanics of the accident and the cause of Wheldon's death are now clear, one critical question remained unanswered by the investigation: Could the IndyCar Series have reasonably known that it was playing with fire in Las Vegas?

Although the technical aspects got a thorough examination, one thing that was striking in its absence was the concerns drivers raised prior to the race. Several drivers expressed apprehension about the close racing at the Las Vegas track – some even predicted it would be dangerous, but there is no evidence in the report that those concerns were heard or considered in the decision-making process leading up to the race.

"I said before this is not a suitable track," four-time IndyCar champion Dario Franchitti said after the fatal accident. "You can't get away from anybody – one small mistake and you have a massive wreck."

Regrettably, the report failed to investigate whether not listening to the drivers' concerns played any role in creating the conditions that produced the accident. Unfortunately for IndyCar, turning a deaf ear to drivers' concerns already created an embarrassing situation for the series in New Hampshire. Two months before Wheldon's death, IndyCar's race control chose to restart the action in New Hampshire in a drizzle despite the objections of the guys behind the wheel who said it was too wet. That decision ended in a five-car crash when the green flag flew and saw one driver, Will Power, flipping a double-fingered salute at race control for all to see on the television broadcast.

A second area that seemed to get a cursory look was the decision to allow 34 cars to race in Las Vegas, one more than start the Indy 500. Although IndyCar outlined the reasons for the track's ability to have that number racing – in fact, it determined the maximum number of IndyCar that could be accommodated at Las Vegas Motor Speedway was actually 37, a detailed examination of the advisability of having that many on track wasn't part of the report.

IndyCar also didn't look into how it missed the potential for the speeds to be much higher in the race than achieved in testing done almost a year before the 2011 event. In November 2010, the two drivers testing at Las Vegas ran at about 345 km/h, which was almost 20 km/h slower than the speeds achieved in practice prior to the race last October.

While not an exact science, it would not have been too difficult to see that the speeds would increase once the cars laid some rubber down on the track and it delivered more grip. Had the series taken a look, it would have seen a similar result when the old Championship Auto Racing Teams ran at the high-banked oval in Texas in 2001.

Strangely, the report also used the Texas Motor Speedway to help support the decision to go racing at the banked track in Las Vegas. That's just a bit odd considering Texas track also happened to be the scene of two near-fatal accidents where cars came together at high speed with devastating consequences.

In 2001, Davey Hamilton escaped a massive crash with his life but needed more than 20 surgeries to repair the devastation to his feet.

Two years later, Kenny Brack survived a spectacular accident after flying into the catch fence in one of the hardest hits ever in racing. While there were only two drivers involved, the end result was eerily familiar to the Wheldon crash where the car hitting a fence support pole caused most of the damage. After taking 18 months to recover from the multiple fractures and mashed feet, Brack finally got back into a race in the 2005 Indianapolis 500 and then retired.

The final area that lacked sufficient attention was the role the marketing of the $5-million prize played in the way IndyCar approached the Las Vegas weekend. Wheldon was in the field in Las Vegas as a way to attract attention to the series, racing for a $5-million payout that he would share with a lucky spectator. The series offered the cash to any non-regular driver who could win a one-off at Vegas. It was hoping a NASCAR star would take the bait. When that didn't happen, Wheldon was drafted to go for the prize in a revised contest.

The report rightfully concluded that the prize itself has no role in the way Wheldon drove on that fateful day. That said, there's little doubt that so much was riding on a successful race and the publicity it generated that there was intense pressure on everyone in IndyCar to ensure it went ahead. Whether that fact had any influence on IndyCar's decision making and the way it approached the weekend remains a mystery. Remember that several insiders pointed to the need to get the race completed in the face of a rapidly closing television window as an explanation for race control's disastrous decision in New Hampshire.

None of this means that anything could have been done differently or that anyone acted in anything but a responsible way. But, leaving questions unanswered only leads to more questions.

While no investigation, no matter how thorough can bring Wheldon back, a candid probe into all the factors, on and off the track, that could have contributed to his death in any way would be the best way to honour him. IndyCar owes him that much.

For more from Jeff Pappone, go to facebook.com/jeffpappone (No login required!)

Twitter: @jpappone