IndyCar fans need to take a big step back on Aeroscreen criticism

IndyCar fans have struggled to come to grips with the fact that the Aeroscreen cockpit protection is set to be introduced ahead of the 2020 season.

In May, IndyCar announced a partnership with Red Bull Advanced Technologies and introduced the Aeroscreen for enhanced cockpit protection following the introduction of the Advanced Frontal Protection (AFP) device, a 0.75-inch-wide titanium device that is bolted to the car just in front of the open cockpit to knock away debris coming toward a driver’s head

The AFP was announced as a temporary fix to what had been and continues to be an ongoing developmental process to find something that will enhance cockpit protection to the max, similar to the Halo device that Formula 1 had been developing for quite some time prior to its implementation ahead of the 2018 season.

The Aeroscreen is very much like Formula 1’s Halo device, but with a screen that covers the front and sides of the cockpit area. Here is a picture of it.

Introducing the next phase of driver safety: https://t.co/j7rXQLJ7u5 #INDYCAR // #ThisIsMay pic.twitter.com/RZezbPzDaZ
— NTT INDYCAR SERIES (@IndyCar) May 24, 2019

Complaining about the Aeroscreen is one thing — despite calls for added driver cockpit protection, especially since the fluke accident that killed Justin Wilson at Pocono Raceway in August of 2015, every single fan is never going to be completely satisfied, just like in NASCAR.

More from IndyCar

Every week, comments of “I’m done watching NASCAR” or “[Insert literally anything] is ruining the sport” come from fans who said the same thing the previous week and yet there they are again.

It’s comical.

But I digress.

There were, however, some legitimate concerns about the Aeroscreen, even among drivers. One key concern was that the visibility had the potential to be terrible on ovals with cars travelling at speeds in excess of 230 miles per hour, something that Formula 1 does not have to deal with throughout a schedule that consists exclusively of road and street courses. Distorted eyesight at those speeds simply is not safe regardless of how much protection there is.

But complaining about the Aeroscreen after the reports that came out about Scott Dixon earlier this week is whole new thing, and that is far beyond where the line needs to be drawn.

Dixon completed a driving simulation of five different tracks, including Indianapolis Motor Speedway, Texas Motor Speedway, Iowa Speedway, Barber Motorsports Park and the streets of Long Beach, California, with the Aeroscreen, and he had nothing but praise for it — including the visibility.

Here is what Dixon had to say after this driving simulation of these five different tracks with the Aeroscreen, according to IndyCar.

"“It was very similar to (the AFP). So, everything was pretty smooth. I think every step of the process has been done very well. It’s not throwing things (at the wall) and seeing what sticks; most of it has been proven previously and getting to this portion on the simulator covers a lot of the bases we’ll see when we get to the real world maybe in 30 or 60 days with the first generation (of the Aeroscreen).“I think the technology game moves very quickly in our sport, and I think INDYCAR has always been at the forefront of moving safety additions along. I’m very happy to try and help try to push this forward and be one of the drivers that can help define areas that may be tricky. Honestly, it’s been very well done from the get-go and the full process has been well covered in many different areas. So, it’s been pretty easy.”"

He added that visibility, despite initial concerns, was not an issue, even on the high-speed ovals, according to Motorsport.

"“Everything went smoothly,. Additions on this were cooling pieces and a screen anti-fog system, so they were checking the line of sight wasn’t impeded by any of these. To be honest, it felt very like the current car, visually, where you look out at the AFP [Advance Frontal Protection device]. We went through Indy, Texas, Iowa, Barber and Long Beach, and no issues.“Honestly I think it’s going to be almost exactly the same as what we have. Unless you look up, and look where you [normally] don’t, you’re not going to notice it. The AFP is [already] pretty high and this is exactly where your line of sight currently is – the new system is exactly the same thickness. Getting in the car is the only difference that we’ll notice, and once you’re belted in, visually it will be almost exactly the same.“The biggest concern – which was a bit of a myth and I’m not really sure how it got started – was the Halo and how it would not be useful on an IndyCar because of line of sight on ovals such as high-banked stuff like Texas. Definitely with this design doesn’t impede that.“The next thing was the visual distortion, but with what we’ve run in the past with the aeroscreen (the PPG-developed device as tested by Dixon at Phoenix and Josef Newgarden at Indy), making sure we got the angles and the way they apply [the screen] to the frame, there have been no issues.“Then you come up with different references of things like fogging, but I believe it is going to have an anti-fog system which will help, and once we get it running they’ll start looking at tear-off devices. Distortion and visual is the biggest thing for any driver, making sure that it’s not going to impede your vision or there being a possibility of you not seeing something as quick as you normally would, or not seeing the flagstand. But those are all ticked off – no issues there.”"

So the biggest concerns have all been solved with seven races remaining in the 17-race 2019 season and thus seven races remaining prior to the introduction of the Aeroscreen ahead of the 2020 season.

Everything should be okay among fans then, right?

Wrong.

Dixon is pleased, but fans are not. In fact, despite there being no issues among all the initial key areas of concern, the complaints have only grown worse, and up until the 2020 season, that will likely continue.

Why?

Because the issue with the fans was clearly never “driver safety”. The issue is the fact that nothing is wrong with this device, and as a result, it is going to be implemented, something they never wanted to begin with.

It’s almost like politics.

“[Insert candidate] is trash and can’t get anything done!”

*[Same candidate] is elected.*

*[Same elected official] has tons of success.*

“[Same elected official] needs to go!”

In this case, the political aspect is that aesthetics are being valued more than drivers’ lives, and such a concept was simply being masked by concern for issues that fans seemed to oppose but truly wanted to exist for the sole purpose of preventing the Aeroscreen from being implemented.

I’m not one to judge peoples’ intentions and feeling, and for that reason, driver safety is one thing I steer away from writing about in general. I’ve published over 7,000 articles across several websites since 2015, including over 3,800 here on Beyond the Flag, and unless I’m mistaken, only two have ever had anything to do with an analysis of driver safety.

One came after fans unjustifiably cried for the removal of all oval tracks from the IndyCar schedule after Ryan Hunter-Reay’s crash in qualifying for the race at Pocono Raceway in August of 2017, and another came after the head protection debate was reignited following Robert Wickens’s crash at the same track last August.

But the outrage over this kind of potentially life-saving device makes the sorrow and sadness experienced when tragic yet preventable accidents occur seem, for lack of a better word, insincere.

I know for a fact that this is not the case at all and would never insinuate this about anybody, but that’s exactly what fans are portraying about themselves, and unfortunately there’s really no other way to change that aspect of a situation such as this one.

You either come across as caring about driver safety or you don’t.

There’s no middle ground.

So save the “back in my day” garbage for when you want to remove the SAFER barrier, the HANS device and everything else that has made IndyCar as safe as it has become over the years — all the things that have nothing to do with aesthetics.

If you’re truly willing to go that far, you should have stopped watching decades ago, because how you can still enjoy IndyCar at this point, I’ll never know, nor would I want to.

I’ve seen comments ranging from the NASCAR-style “I’m never watching IndyCar again” to “This device wouldn’t have even saved Justin Wilson” to “This won’t save anybody”.

First of all, if you are going to stop watching IndyCar over something that has nothing to do with the competition or the cars themselves, I’m not sure why you ever watched anyway. The cars have changed drastically over the years as it is. Many changes have actually affected the competition itself, be it for better or for worse, and many changes have affected the appearance of the cars.

Changes are nothing new, so I’m not sure why a non-competition-related change would be the “last straw” for anybody, even if it does make the cars slightly look less pleasing to look at.

Secondly, if you actually think the Aeroscreen would not have prevented the death of Wilson, I have no words other than if you really feel the need to lie about a subject to push your agenda, your agenda is not worth pushing.

I won’t post that video here out of respect for him and his family, but if you’re reading this article, you most assuredly have access to YouTube, so take two seconds and see for yourself how ridiculous such a claim is.

Not only would it have saved Wilson, it would have prevented James Hinchcliffe’s concussion at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway road course in May of 2014, and it would have prevented him from being hit in the hand with a chunk of debris during Wickens’s crash at Pocono Raceway last August, a chunk of debris that easily could have done far more damage than it did had it hit his helmet.

Thirdly, the “this won’t save anybody” argument works every time to support the idea of preventing changes — until it doesn’t. By then, it’s too late, and we’re left with the same calls for enhanced driver safety that we started with after the last tragedy. We are, once again, left with the desire to react.

But after time passes, there is then no willingness from fans to be proactive to prevent future tragedies. There is no willingness from them to accept the highly developed solutions that are laid right in front of their eyes, even after they called for them and even though such solutions do absolutely nothing to ruin the on-track product itself.

Why?

Because “this won’t save anybody”.

It’s time to stop being reactive and start being proactive, and the Aeroscreen is a clear indication that this is exactly what IndyCar is doing. Fans need to be willing to accept that.

Finally, at the end of the day, the drivers are the drivers and the fans are the fans.

If the drivers don’t feel safe enough, they won’t drive. I fully agree that they have grown to accept the risks involved with racing, and if they are willing to accept them, more power to them. But does that mean they aren’t allowed to feel safer?

Is that seriously even a question??

Conversely, if they don’t like a certain solution, they’ll make their voices heard. Dixon made his heard, and he loves it. I’m sure we’ll hear from more drivers about the matter in the future, so no matter how that goes, I’m pretty sure that this debate will continue to rage on.

Additionally, if the fans don’t want to watch, they won’t watch. No one is forcing anybody to watch. But that’s their loss, through and through. More than likely, the same thing that happened in Formula 1 with the Halo will happen in IndyCar; fans will moan and groan about the Aeroscreen for about two or three races and then get used to it.

In Formula 1’s case, even the Halo’s most vocal critics were forced to eat their words and praise the device after it saved the life of Charles Leclerc, whose dear friend Jules Bianchi was killed in July of 2015 after several months of dealing with severe injuries from a crash in October of 2014 that involved major contact to his helmet.

Next. Top 10 IndyCar drivers of all-time. dark

I want IndyCars to look nice too. We all do. No IndyCar fan wants to see IndyCars become stock cars. But while the Aeroscreen can be tough to look at, it is in no way, shape or form turning the cars into this, and given its overall enhancement to driver safety, the criticism toward it is completely unwarranted and unjustified and will continue to be unless a seriously major issue arises with it.

Like Scott Dixon said, this isn’t just a solution that is being thrown together for the sake of IndyCar being able to say “Look, we did something”. That notion simply has to go.

This a highly developed and highly tested solution that is being implemented only after several years of the series experimenting and trying to find something that will work to the benefit of the drivers from every aspect of safety.

Like I said after the aforementioned crash involving Ryan Hunter-Reay, let the professionals who are paid to worry about safety and improve it worry about safety and improve it.

Are they perfect?

No.

If they were, the all-time IndyCar death total would be zero.

But they’re a heck of a lot better at making safety-based decision than any writer, journalist or social media keyboard warrior, especially when these writers, journalists and social media keyboard warriors are forming their safety-based opinions on aesthetics and false statements about driver safety to mask the priority that they place on aesthetics, something completely trivial when compared to driver safety.

If they weren’t, IndyCar probably wouldn’t exist anymore.