Huge ups to IndyCar for its handling of the release of the investigation into Dan Wheldon's death. The only blemish was the too-short 14-hour notice of the news conference.
But once the conference started Thursday, everything was a case study on how to conduct these things. IndyCar president of competition Brian Barnhart did an outstanding job of stepping through the findings in a prepared statement and in answering questions. Barnhart's statement was in enough detail to convey the results but not excessive so as to be in bad taste.The video feed never faltered and the sound was optimal as well.
IndyCar also went all in for transparency by releasing the detailed report findings in a 49-page PDF format. (View here.)
Huge shout outs to VP of PR Amy Konrath, CEO Randy Bernard, Barnhart and the entire investigative posse.
What exactly did they nail? That Wheldon died from impact to the catch fence? I knew that the afternoon of the accident some two months ago. The experience of some of the drivers and the the number of drivers in the race were not "major factors". Were they medium factors? If so, who is responsible for increased number of participants in the Las Vegas race many of whom had limited to no experience on a high speed oval and what is being done to rectify this?
Posted by: Brett Brown | December 15, 2011 at 12:47 PM
They nailed the execution of the report findings. The report is about as thorough as you're going to find for a racing accident. Compare this effort to the investigation of Paul Dana's death, if there was one, because to my knowledge the findings were never publicly released. The fact that there's no smoking gun kind of big revelation makes the work to investigate and compile the report and the way it was presented no less impressive. You have to do this when someone dies because you don't know anything for sure until you look at the evidence and data. Also, small data points turned up today can lead to big innovations in safety down the road. What they nailed was the conduct of the investigation and the presentation of the findings.
Posted by: pressdog | December 15, 2011 at 01:00 PM
Good recap Pressdog, I agree.
Posted by: KT | December 15, 2011 at 07:52 PM
The report is incorrect in two respects. One, regarding "field density," on page 5, footnote 12. The AAA's 400-foot-per-car rule at Indianapolis created the 33-car field. Two, the concept of 'relatively unrestricted movement within the racing pack not previously experienced," on page 20. Similar multi-lane racing has been experienced and touted at Michigan and Fontana. CART broke up potential packs with the Handford device. Regardless, here's hoping they learn something from it.
Posted by: Tim | December 15, 2011 at 11:23 PM