From a racer that I read a quote from earlier, apparently the way to turn a sprint car is to hit the throttle. I don't have any idea how this works but to be fair to Stewart that may explain the car's movement and revving of the engine.
This gives you an idea of what a bully and idiot Stewart is. The video doesn't show Stewart blocking Logano in pit row to basically force him into the fight. He always is going off about the young drivers and how they don't respect older drivers.... I believe it is totally in the realm of possibility Stewart was trying to spray or spook the kid to humiliate him like he tries to do with newer drivers, but ended up killing him. Stewart has rage issues.
The Following User Says Thank You to pylon For This Useful Post:
From a racer that I read a quote from earlier, apparently the way to turn a sprint car is to hit the throttle. I don't have any idea how this works but to be fair to Stewart that may explain the car's movement and revving of the engine.
A RWD street car with enough power is the same, if you were trying to drive it like they drive these race cars - if you're in a drift you stay heavily on the throttle to maintain the drift and keep it going around. pylon can confirm this, I'm sure.
1. The death (murder, man slaughter, whatever) of Kevin Ward.
2. The fact that some people consider this and all other car racing a sport.
Please...it's not a sport.
Bring on the hate. Condolences to the family.
F1 drivers are some of the best conditioned athletes on the face of the earth. They endure sustained G forces similar to Fighter pilots, but for far longer stretches of time. Most F1 drivers would shame the fitness levels of the vast majority of NHLers.
A RWD street car with enough power is the same, if you were trying to drive it like they drive these race cars - if you're in a drift you stay heavily on the throttle to maintain the drift and keep it going around. pylon can confirm this, I'm sure.
Drifting is certainly a component of Sprint car racing basically because of the dirt tracks, and yes they have to throttle through corners, but it doesn't make sense under caution that he seemingly accelerated.
As far as drifting in other types of racing or performance driving, you will likely lose every time if it is part of your strategy, as it does nothing but slow you down. You do everything in your power to avoid drifting on pavement. That is why I find drifting clubs, and drifting events so incredibly lame.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to pylon For This Useful Post:
Drifting is certainly a component of Sprint car racing basically because of the dirt tracks, and yes they have to throttle through corners, but it doesn't make sense under caution that he seemingly accelerated.
As far as drifting in other types of racing or performance driving, you will likely lose every time if it is part of your strategy, as it does nothing but slow you down. You do everything in your power to avoid drifting on pavement. That is why I find drifting clubs, and drifting events so incredibly lame.
on a downhill hairpin a rear wheel drive sliding can be faster, I think, not sure though.
2. The fact that some people consider this and all other car racing a sport.
Well I mean... it's in the dictionary (but so is "selfie," to be fair)
Quote:
sport
an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc.
Thus,
Quote:
motorsport
competitions, especially races, involving motor vehicles, as automobiles, motorboats, or motorcycles.
Anybody can go out onto a volleyball court and do okay, and we call that a sport... but the average person behind the wheel of an F1 car at speed, without having honed the skill and physical prowess before hand, will damn near break their neck (not even from hitting something, but from the forces applied to the body as pylon says)
Seems like auto racing quite nicely fits the definition of sport.
Drifting is certainly a component of Sprint car racing basically because of the dirt tracks, and yes they have to throttle through corners, but it doesn't make sense under caution that he seemingly accelerated.
As far as drifting in other types of racing or performance driving, you will likely lose every time if it is part of your strategy, as it does nothing but slow you down. You do everything in your power to avoid drifting on pavement. That is why I find drifting clubs, and drifting events so incredibly lame.
I also read that even during caution these cars maintain 40MPH because they only have 1 gear and require push starts if they go too slow.
Sorry, but this is wrong. I know you're a cop and everything, but if what you say might have happened did happen (again, no idea if it is true) then there would be a strong case for second degree murder. They would just have to prove he did attempt a dangerous move to spit rocks on him. Would not be unreasonable for someone who has as much experience that Stewart has to know that if anything did go wrong it could cause his death.
It isn't wrong. The laws are different in the U.S. but relatively close. To charge Stewart with 2nd degree murder the DA is going to have to have evidence that Stewart intentionally struck Ward Jr to kill him. Unless Tony Stewart himself was to tell the police that was his decision the DA wouldn't touch that with a ten foot pole. There is no evidence whatsoever that says that. Criminal Negligence is:
Every one is criminally negligent who
(a) in doing anything, or
(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,
shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.
In the U.S. this is Involuntary Manslaughter. In this case it would be causing death. That would be the right charge.
Doesn't prove that Stewart saw him. Just trying to approach this how Stewart's defense would... he's on a race track so he added throttle. Boom, that was easy.
The video kinda look like he hit him on purpose but if he says it wasn't his intent then they can't prove it was based on the video which is far too inconclusive, else they'd have charged him already. It's not murder because another driver said "I know Tony could see him" which is hearsay and inadmissible... and even if they somehow proved that Tony did see him it doesn't prove that he added throttle, deliberately swerved toward the kid, and intentionally hit him. It's not a street where he swerved and hit a pedestrian, so a key argument for the defense would surely be that he should be excused from what appears to have been an erratic driving action because it's a damn powerful car on a dirt race track.
Not saying it was or wasn't murder cause none of us know, but if Tony says he couldn't see him or he lost control or whatever, unless there's another video providing damning evidence that proves the contrary (or proof of some prior conspiracy or something) he should be in the clear from criminal charges but not from an inevitable civil suit, of course.
Just trying to look at this from both sides.
Except the race was under caution so why would he suddenly goose the accelerator? Pretty sure a driver with the experience of Stewart is aware of how to drive under a caution flag, not sure that what you suggested his defense argue would be very smart.
Except the race was under caution so why would he suddenly goose the accelerator? Pretty sure a driver with the experience of Stewart is aware of how to drive under a caution flag, not sure that what you suggested his defense argue would be very smart.
I see the video as the guy in front of stuart dives hard down the track to avoid the driver. Until this car is out of the way Stewart cant see the driver on the track. You do not expect to have a driver on the track. During the caution you would know tgat high up the track there was a crashed car so driving in the middle lane shouldnt cause any issues or require additional attention and he is probably talking pit strategy on the radio.
So the car in front swerves down he sees the driver on the track and needs to avoid him. So he hits the gas to move the front end down the track to avoid him but clips him with the back end.
The Sheriifs department has said tat at this time no charges are planned.
Also Stewart isnt likey angry at this time. All of his rage incidents are from when he gets wrecked. In this case he wrecked the other guy so why would he be in this raging state. People are inventing a narritive to criminalize someone without evidence.
I think post #61 is probably correct and can save a million posts on here. It's probably ridiculously difficult to prove any kind of intent. Sure, the guy is widely known as a dick and its perfectly plausible that he intended to spray him or scare him, and by accident he hit him, but nobody will ever know.
The Following User Says Thank You to Flames in 07 For This Useful Post:
I see the video as the guy in front of stuart dives hard down the track to avoid the driver. Until this car is out of the way Stewart cant see the driver on the track. You do not expect to have a driver on the track. During the caution you would know tgat high up the track there was a crashed car so driving in the middle lane shouldnt cause any issues or require additional attention and he is probably talking pit strategy on the radio.
So the car in front swerves down he sees the driver on the track and needs to avoid him. So he hits the gas to move the front end down the track to avoid him but clips him with the back end.
The Sheriifs department has said tat at this time no charges are planned.
Also Stewart isnt likey angry at this time. All of his rage incidents are from when he gets wrecked. In this case he wrecked the other guy so why would he be in this raging state. People are inventing a narritive to criminalize someone without evidence.
Well first of all the investigation is ongoing but you are correct in that we don't know all the evidence. The police have asked for more witnesses and video to be brought to them so all they are saying is that currently there is no charges pending. Really that is what the DA is saying to the police because in the States it will be his call on if he is taking that to trial or not. They will gather as many witnesses and as much video as they can get, they have already interviewed Stewart twice, take statements from other drivers, and take all of that to the DA who will then decide if there is a case to be had or not.
I think post #61 is probably correct and can save a million posts on here. It's probably ridiculously difficult to prove any kind of intent. Sure, the guy is widely known as a dick and its perfectly plausible that he intended to spray him or scare him, and by accident he hit him, but nobody will ever know.
Except unless you are charging him with murder you don't have to prove intent at all.
I also want to be clear that I am just pointing out what I believe if he is charged, what that charge would most likely be. I am not saying he is guilty of anything, we don't have access o the evidence needed to come to such a conclusion. Just playing the what if game here.
Aside from the death of the young man, I was appalled that Stewart was initially going to race in today's Nascar race. I know injury and death may happen in racing but to think of racing hours after being involved in an accident of this nature is something I couldn't do.
Stewart's initial decision to race isn't actually unusual thinking. Sometimes the natural reaction to a tragedy is simply to try and keep going with normal routines, at least initially. Also, this is ultimately Stewart's job. It is a little different in this case because regardless of the circumstances, getting into a race car a day after killing someone in a race car would not be a good thing for overall driver safety since one can't be certain his mind would be completely focused on the race. The right call was made in the end, but the initial one isn't hard to understand.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Resolute 14 For This Useful Post:
