|
|
Post by MadMarty13B on Jan 21, 2009 14:41:33 GMT 12
I agree with Ugmo on this topic!! and i don't agree with him often lmao ;D but this is all part of racing. one thing that has been mentioned and ignored in these threads is how Collingwood was hurt, i would put money on it that he was not hurt other than knocked out by the Hampton hit, it would have been the head on hit with the wall which was a freak accident and does not happen often at all!! that did the damage to him. I also think it is wrong of us as fans to decide what drivers should and should not be aloud to do on the track, as stated all drivers know what to expect on the track. Superstocks are superstocks and that's why we love them. regardless to what speeds we slow them too or even if the straight line rule was brought in drivers would still get hurt in freak accidents.......then what?  ? i bet Collingwood is not sitting there rounding up the rule makers and requesting change so why should we!! ;D then u dont read the threads properly i mentioned elsewhere his injuries especially the collar bone would have come from his head on impact as his head would have been slumped |
|
|
|
Post by craige on Jan 21, 2009 14:44:56 GMT 12
I agree with Ugmo on this topic!! and i don't agree with him often lmao ;D but this is all part of racing. one thing that has been mentioned and ignored in these threads is how Collingwood was hurt, i would put money on it that he was not hurt other than knocked out by the Hampton hit, it would have been the head on hit with the wall which was a freak accident and does not happen often at all!! that did the damage to him. I also think it is wrong of us as fans to decide what drivers should and should not be aloud to do on the track, as stated all drivers know what to expect on the track. Superstocks are superstocks and that's why we love them. regardless to what speeds we slow them too or even if the straight line rule was brought in drivers would still get hurt in freak accidents.......then what? ? i bet Collingwood is not sitting there rounding up the rule makers and requesting change so why should we!! ;D then u dont read the threads properly i mentioned elsewhere his injuries especially the collar bone would have come from his head on impact as his head would have been slumped shezzzz marty you are a jack of all trades .a signwirter a professional tank destroyer and now a doctor  |
|
|
|
Post by MadMarty13B on Jan 21, 2009 14:45:57 GMT 12
I used to out smart the shrinks when i was a teen ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by TonyT on Jan 21, 2009 14:50:25 GMT 12
One thing I dont see discussed here, is the fact that incidents like these come down to decisions made by drivers. We dont (generally) see serious injuries in super stocks from "racing incidents", random contact. The worst injuries seem to come when someone makes a conscious choice to hit another car hard. Its all very well to talk about slowing cars down, safety equipment etc etc, but how can you mitigate against the calculated decision of a driver?
Its possible in any form of motorsport for a driver to deliberately drive into another competitor, but in 99.9% of racing formulae around the world its against the rules, and contrary to the expectations of the grade. So it very rarely happens (Prost and Senna notwithstanding). But what makes super stocks so entertaining, so enjoyable, and so unique is the option that a driver has to deliberately make contact with another. Take that away and we dont have super stocks. Perhaps the real answer here is a stronger and more powerful unwritten code of conduct between the drivers which encourages contact but not in a do-or-die fashion?
I have only seen the Collingwood incident on video, but I was at Nelson for the GP when Cody Teece lined up Sangster and T-boned him into the turn 2 wall. I could see what he was doing several seconds out from the incident - Cody was in full control and had made a clear and certain decision as to what he was going to do. In fact at the time I wondered (not being a regular visitor to Nelson) whether there was some history between the two, as what Cody was lining up to do was clearly going to compromise his race as much as it would Sangsters. It cant have been a racing decision, it was a deliberate contact decision. Now I dont doubt that in hindsight Cody regrets the outcome, but up until then it was deliberate and intentional to hit the other car in exactly the way the way he did.
Perhaps drivers like Cody Teece and Steve Hampton can help shed some light on why they made the decisions they did, and what if anything they would do differently (if they could). If they are bold enough to share those thoughts with the other drivers (not necessarily with us fans, who as supastocknut points out dont know all the ins and outs) then maybe all drivers will gain a better understanding of when they need to back off, just ever so slightly, so as to keep the spectacle and the integrity of the grade, but help mitigate the risk of injury. As Graeme Cairns (Woodford Glen chief referee) said at the drivers briefing for the NZ title, "you are in complete control of your race car - no one else, not me, only you".
|
|
|
|
Post by pallmall on Jan 21, 2009 15:08:55 GMT 12
The reason for the gaining advantage using the wall rule as I understand it is: To stop a driver using the wall as a means to increase their speed (without spinning up as they would at that speed if on the pole line) as it than creates the real possibility of: 1/ As they are now travelling much faster than normal, if another car is stationary in the wall in the next corner, the car using the wall to gain a speed advantage has little or no show of stopping or turning back to the pole line to miss the stationary car. 2/ The chance of, because of their ability to generate more speed, climbing the wall and launching into the safety fence is greatly increased. Dave Evans and Porky Ellison perfected the art of "riding the wall" and following some very severe hits as a result of the above, the rule was introduced. As far as I am aware, it was never intended to stop cars from being "taken to the wall", I feel that you have misinterprited the intention of the rule by saying that putting a competitor into the wall is gaining an advantage. Yes, another SNZ rule that is not black and white. The way I and a lot of others see the rule is as valid as yours, and no doubt others will see it a different way again. |
|
|
|
Post by Bulletfan on Jan 21, 2009 15:27:41 GMT 12
haha come on guys this is racing they know what the deal is....if you compare with rugby there more people knocked out in a season of super 14.....and the most dangerous sport in new Zealand is fishing...... one minute we moan there not enuff hitting. now we moan that the hits are to big..
|
|
|
|
Post by supastocknut on Jan 21, 2009 15:49:12 GMT 12
I agree with Ugmo on this topic!! and i don't agree with him often lmao ;D but this is all part of racing. one thing that has been mentioned and ignored in these threads is how Collingwood was hurt, i would put money on it that he was not hurt other than knocked out by the Hampton hit, it would have been the head on hit with the wall which was a freak accident and does not happen often at all!! that did the damage to him. I also think it is wrong of us as fans to decide what drivers should and should not be aloud to do on the track, as stated all drivers know what to expect on the track. Superstocks are superstocks and that's why we love them. regardless to what speeds we slow them too or even if the straight line rule was brought in drivers would still get hurt in freak accidents.......then what? ? i bet Collingwood is not sitting there rounding up the rule makers and requesting change so why should we!! ;D then u dont read the threads properly i mentioned elsewhere his injuries especially the collar bone would have come from his head on impact as his head would have been slumped Yes Marty MD i do read posts correctly, obviously i agree with your diagnosis on this injury...lmao...sheesh ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 21, 2009 15:52:04 GMT 12
True that Gordon, but seems to be the number 1 example at mo ;D I don't believe it is an example , from what I gather it was a move that went wrong . That sort of thing will always happen . |
|
|
|
Post by MadMarty13B on Jan 21, 2009 16:12:37 GMT 12
Wer have to take his word that it was a move that went wrong looked like a committed hit where i was close to it but thats racing trouble is it dosent happen so often these days and people moan and when it does they moan louder, the injuries worse ones came later that is why i mwentioned officials round the outside like auckland have at teams and palmy have st johns positioned outside at most meetings they are there to spot koed drivers something that rotoua or many other tracks should implement.
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggrat on Jan 21, 2009 17:11:04 GMT 12
Wer have to take his word that it was a move that went wrong looked like a committed hit where i was close to it but thats racing trouble is it dosent happen so often these days and people moan and when it does they moan louder, the injuries worse ones came later that is why i mwentioned officials round the outside like auckland have at teams and palmy have st johns positioned outside at most meetings they are there to spot koed drivers something that r otoua or many other tracks should implement. I don't see the reason for more people on the outside of the track to decide if a race needs to be stopped. There was plenty of people on the inside at Rotorua to do the job. They were onto it pretty quickly when it happened. It always seems like a long time when you are watching. It's not going to stop drivers getting koed so they really serve very little purpose to have more looking from the outside. Remember thumbs up/down, if you don't get one or the other you stop the race. Peter |
|
|
|
Post by SWP on Jan 21, 2009 17:55:02 GMT 12
Spot on Peter. When I realised that Hampton was in trouble my first reaction was to get the SNZ officials attention, he was already yelling into the mouthpiece that Steve was in trouble.
The infield staff do a fantastic job and credit should be given where it is due. However, having a St Johns officer on the infield either located in the centre or in the ute is not a bad idea either.
|
|
|
|
Post by MadMarty13B on Jan 21, 2009 21:45:15 GMT 12
Thats where you are wrong the inside people couldn't tell from their though if someone was outside which was where he was could have assatained straight away his condition
|
|
|
|
Post by FrankTheTank on Jan 22, 2009 12:06:29 GMT 12
My opinion is that its getting out of hand. I feel if you choose to teams race, then yes, getting straightlined into the wall, or other massive hits is expected. But, in an individual Superstock race, why should you have to fear about your own safety, or that of your $$$ racecar. I looked at Steve Hamptons hit on Royden. It sort of pissed me off. He had only one intention, not only stop Royden from winning the event, but to totally destroy him and his car in the process. Roydens $90K car is now totalled. Will he race a Superstock again, and how many others may not, purely because of these types of incidents. I compare the hit of Hamptons to the equivilent of a clothesline type tackle in a rugby game. Just ridiculous. I remember back in the day when Stockcars were much weaker, and we saw more blocking than outright hard hitting. That was a true sign of skill, and for me, much more entertaining. If Hampton wanted to ruin Roydens race, I'd like to see him pass, or get to the inside of him, and block him, or slow him down, maybe spin him (streetstock style), basically anything other than to fire his rocketship into Roydens car at full noise into an unforgiving concrete wall. Happens too much for me, and its starting to get annoying. I also felt the same the previous night when the lone Gisborne stockcar was continuosly attacked. He came up here to add to the numbers and enjoy a weekend of racing. Instead, he was targetted, smashed up, and spent his weekend on costly repairs. Wonder if he'll come race here alone again? No wonder so many people wont travel to other tracks these days? Comparing a legal Superstock hit to an illegal rugby tackle? Gee, that is a good comparison. Sounds like you need to follow classes that don't hit. Good on Hampton for attempting the hit. Any driver is fair game in any race, it is a contact sport, if the hit is legal then what is your problem? |
|
|
|
Post by Colin E on Jan 22, 2009 12:23:42 GMT 12
From what I remember and looking at Video and photos, they both appeared to hit the wall virtually side on and almost simultaneously. I would think that Steve was intending to give Roydon a bit of a hurry up but maybe the track played it's part as well. On Friday night that corner needed some serious work to tidy it up during the meeting, And on Saturday night while it didn't appear to be too bad it did have and influence on most if not all cars that managed to have a wheel in the rut that was forming.
Maybe someone who was driving that night could comment on the condition of that corner.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Observer on Jan 22, 2009 12:36:28 GMT 12
Roydon is a hard charging driver, who has suffered his share of attacks in the past in 3rd heats. Lets not underestimate his skill in trying to avoid attacks.
I am only going on the footage posted so far, but my guess is Hampton had a stab at taking him out.
Roydon kept the boot up it as hard as possible as all good stockcar drivers do - Hampton felt it, and also had the boot up it to try and get him since he was getting away.
As they hit the wall he slid of the back, as he hadn't quite picked him up as he may have liked. THe both smashed the wall side on, as they had both just about got further around the corner.
As Shane Penn showed at teams champs, those side on hits when you try and take someone out in a tri rail sure can rattle the brain.
Just goes to show that after all his years of teams racing Tony Mac must have a hard mellon - he has to be a hard man.
|
|
|
|
Post by BarryB on Jan 22, 2009 12:47:52 GMT 12
I've spoken to both Steve and Roydon about the incident, and it's certainly a pleasure to report both are in good spirits. Steve basically, in his own words, "cocked up". Too much pace at the end of the straight, fully committed to spinning Roydon and possibly holding him, got the angle wrong then out into the marbles out wide, plus he says it actually felt like they both sped up by about 20 mph once the hit the loose stuff. Anybody that knows Steve and his racing style knows that he is not the sort of person, except in teams racing, to run another competitor off the end of the straight with the sole intention of trashing his machinery.
|
|
|
|
Post by Regan O'Brien on Jan 22, 2009 12:53:42 GMT 12
yep the speed you can pick up when hitting the marbles is alot you just take off  |
|
|
|
Post by MadMarty13B on Jan 22, 2009 14:07:08 GMT 12
yep the speed you can pick up when hitting the marbles is alot you just take off yer regan i seen those marbles fall out yer head a few times |
|
|
|
Post by Autopete55 on Jan 22, 2009 18:56:02 GMT 12
yep the speed you can pick up when hitting the marbles is alot you just take off yer regan i seen those marbles fall out yer head a few times At least regan has some marbles to loose and fall out Marty!! You lost yours years ago at the Glen!!! Leave the kid alone and get your long awaited True built rocket out there and see what you can do. Still reckon you would be better off to go Stockcar racing and THEN we would see how good you really are!!! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by snoggrat on Jan 22, 2009 20:30:19 GMT 12
Thats where you are wrong the inside people couldn't tell from their though if someone was outside which was where he was could have assatained straight away his condition Thumbs up down Marty thats how all tracks do it and it works. Peter |
|
? i bet Collingwood is not sitting there rounding up the rule makers and requesting change so why should we!! ;D
