The Dean Posted August 12, 2014 Posted August 12, 2014 Whatever happened -TS has to wake up every morning.... Why can't he wake up in the afternoon? BTW, you last sentence there suggests you've already made your decision about what happened.
Mr. WEO Posted August 12, 2014 Posted August 12, 2014 Touching only on your question asked... Because these cars need to maintain a minimum speed and the drivers attempt to keep the tires hot, they do goose the throttle at different intervals around the track under caution. Especially in these cars, which do not have a transmission and need go get push started out of the pits. I just want to remind everyone that the #45 who almost hit Kevin Ward is a veteran sprint car driver and just a second earlier also had a near miss. Would you all feel the same way about this if it was him who hit the kid? Or better yet, take the auto racing perspective out of this all together. Would YOU be able to react if someone showed up in your blind spot 12 inches from your car while you were driving down a city street at 30-35 MPH? Car 45 avoids Ward becuase he is driving slowly and in a straight line. If he had accelerated as he was approaching/passing the pedestrian, I would find it just as strange. In your scenario, I may hit a pedestrian who appeared "suddenly" as you described. But if I was driving slowly around in a circle at an accident scene and a maniac purposefully came onto the road waving his hands and gesticulating at my approaching car for 10 seconds, I would consider that a totally different scenario. Honest question.... Do you watch any type of racing? Not much. But I don't see how it waould change what I see and hear onthe video. I don't know how anyone can honestly say that that is not Stewart's car revving up at that instance.
CountryCletus Posted August 12, 2014 Posted August 12, 2014 Car 45 avoids Ward becuase he is driving slowly and in a straight line. If he had accelerated as he was approaching/passing the pedestrian, I would find it just as strange. In your scenario, I may hit a pedestrian who appeared "suddenly" as you described. But if I was driving slowly around in a circle at an accident scene and a maniac purposefully came onto the road waving his hands and gesticulating at my approaching car for 10 seconds, I would consider that a totally different scenario. Not much. But I don't see how it waould change what I see and hear onthe video. I don't know how anyone can honestly say that that is not Stewart's car revving up at that instance. You asked why a driver would accelerate while under caution.... Watch a race, every driver does that every caution... From the vantage point of the video, the audio is far too loud for me to be sure it's TS... I think a very likely possibility is that as TS approached, cars were also passing in front of the guy recording, and goosed their engine...
TH3 Posted August 12, 2014 Posted August 12, 2014 Why can't he wake up in the afternoon? BTW, you last sentence there suggests you've already made your decision about what happened. Make your own assumptions about my post....what do you think happened?
CountryCletus Posted August 12, 2014 Posted August 12, 2014 Gotta go in with WEO.It seems the posters on the "innocent" of "innocent until proven guilty" are going out of their way to explain away the obvious actions caught on film. 3 time Nascar great known for rough driving pinches young upstart into wall. Young upstart - recklessly and yes could have prevented the whole thing - storms onto track TS - known for attitude and a whole history of mixing things up with other drivers on and off the track comes around where he KNOWS the car he just pinched is. TS definitely taking a higher line on the track than other passing vehicles - sees driver and blips the throttle to - well - be Tony Stewart. Sorry - you are not going to hit the throttle to avoid the kid. The kid was on the right of TS car and blipping the throttle is going to do nothing but swing the end of the car right. The above seems VERY plausible - if not the MOST plausible to that explains everything that happened adequately. I would say that those in the camp of saying TS was not a participant in the fault have a harder time explaining what happened in accordance with what is on film. Can TS be be criminally prosecuted? - doubtful. Will there be a civil trial - probably. I also think there is an element of simple un-comprehensiveness (if that is a word) to the whole thing. It is very hard to even think that something like a typical dirt track dust up ends up as it did - and even more hard to think that TS might have completed the second half of the mistakes with a simple blip of the throttle "message"....... Whatever happened -TS has to wake up every morning.... Again, this appears to be a comment from someone who reads some articles and watches a video and draws their own conclusions... Which is perfectly fine, I wish more people would think for themselves!! The problem I have is where you claim that the only thing goosing the throttle will do is send the back of the car right.... Sure, a typical rear wheel drive vehicle may react like that, but not these cars... Please finish the research and look at both sides if you are going to claim something as fact
NoSaint Posted August 12, 2014 Posted August 12, 2014 You asked why a driver would accelerate while under caution.... Watch a race, every driver does that every caution... From the vantage point of the video, the audio is far too loud for me to be sure it's TS... I think a very likely possibility is that as TS approached, cars were also passing in front of the guy recording, and goosed their engine... But even then - are you trying to say Stewart didnt hit the gas? Then why even talk about the further down the line stuff at that point (cars do it each caution, it's also a steering maneuver etc....)
CountryCletus Posted August 12, 2014 Posted August 12, 2014 (edited) But even then - are you trying to say Stewart didnt hit the gas? Then why even talk about the further down the line stuff at that point (cars do it each caution, it's also a steering maneuver etc....) Because like everyone else, I wasn't there... I have read and watched basically the same stuff that everyone else has. I'm not saying he did or didn't accelerate, but I'm suggesting that what people heard, may not be what they thought it was.... And if he did accelerate, I'm offering an explanation as to why he might have... For all I know Tony could have tracked the kid down and tried to pull his "punk card", no one knows... I hope none of my statements came off as me trying to push facts off.... It just gets old seeing comments of people claiming that "this" or "that" are the only possible reasons for doing "a, b, c..." When they don't have all the information.... Edited August 12, 2014 by CountryCletus
TH3 Posted August 12, 2014 Posted August 12, 2014 Again, this appears to be a comment from someone who reads some articles and watches a video and draws their own conclusions... Which is perfectly fine, I wish more people would think for themselves!! The problem I have is where you claim that the only thing goosing the throttle will do is send the back of the car right.... Sure, a typical rear wheel drive vehicle may react like that, but not these cars... Please finish the research and look at both sides if you are going to claim something as fact Sorry Bro....those cars are set up for the rear to break right under throttle to initiate a left hand turn.....
CountryCletus Posted August 12, 2014 Posted August 12, 2014 Sorry Bro....those cars are set up for the rear to break right under throttle to initiate a left hand turn..... I urge you to read the article Jack posted.... No vehicle is set up to break right under throttle to initiate a left turn... Think about what you just said....
Mr. WEO Posted August 12, 2014 Posted August 12, 2014 (edited) Because like everyone else, I wasn't there... I have read and watched basically the same stuff that everyone else has. I'm not saying he did or didn't accelerate, but I'm suggesting that what people heard, may not be what they thought it was.... And if he did accelerate, I'm offering an explanation as to why he might have... For all I know Tony could have tracked the kid down and tried to pull his "punk card", no one knows... I hope none of my statements came off as me trying to push facts off.... It just gets old seeing comments of people claiming that "this" or "that" are the only possible reasons for doing "a, b, c..." When they don't have all the information.... What gets old is others mischaracterizing the posts of some. Who are all of these posters who claim that their explanation of events is the only one possible? The only ones who come close are those that adamantly refuse to allow that what some of us are posting is conceivable. And again, I don't know how you can credibly claim that engine rev is not Stewart's after watching the video. It seems you would have to really go out of your way to make that conclusion. Also, I don't think you need to be an expert driver of these cars to conclude what you see and hear in that segment. Perhaps that is our fundamental difference. We can agree that there are expert opinions as to how these cars handle, repsond, etc., but I don't see how you need an expert to tell you what you just saw and heard. Ironically, you lament that people aren't thinking for themselves, yet you want us to defer to someone else on this audio/visual sequence. Makes little sense... Edited August 12, 2014 by Mr. WEO
CountryCletus Posted August 12, 2014 Posted August 12, 2014 Conceivability and likeliness are two different things.... It's conceivable that Tony wanted to run over the kid- but unlikely... I'm not saying Tony didn't rev the engine, I'm just suggesting that the rev you hear isn't Tony's car... Sure, those cars are loud, but from where that video was shot, the rev was pretty loud to be Tony's... Not improssible... To truly understand why a driver did one thing or another, I think you must first have a fundamental understanding of how the car works... If You don't understand how the car works, you cannot draw a logical conclusion as to what happened or why a driver did something. Basically, what you saw and felt appeared one way, may actually be quite he opposite from reality... I'm not trying to go all matrix on anyone, but the steering, handling, accelerator go hand in hand- so while it may look like Tony was trying to intimidate or brush back or do whatever to that kid, it's every bit as likely, probably more likely, that one of two things happened: 1.) he never saw the kid due to the black fire suit and poor peripheral visibility Or 2.) he was handling his car in an effort to miss him. Does that make more sense?
NoSaint Posted August 12, 2014 Posted August 12, 2014 What gets old is others mischaracterizing the posts of some. Who are all of these posters who claim that their explanation of events is the only one possible? The only ones who come close are those that adamantly refuse to allow that what some of us are posting is conceivable. And again, I don't know how you can credibly claim that engine rev is not Stewart's after watching the video. It seems you would have to really go out of your way to make that conclusion. Also, I don't think you need to be an expert driver of these cars to conclude what you see and hear in that segment. Perhaps that is our fundamental difference. We can agree that there are expert opinions as to how these cars handle, repsond, etc., but I don't see how you need an expert to tell you what you just saw and heard. Ironically, you lament that people aren't thinking for themselves, yet you want us to defer to someone else on this audio/visual sequence. Makes little sense... its interesting, as my opinion has been generally swaying from maybe an initial morning after 55-45 that it happened as a result of TS flexing his muscle and an accident happening, to probably more like 80-20 that it was a totally innocent mishap..... but i agree with you that the arguments made by many in the thread have been frustrating in their attempts to be totally open to any and all possibilities that could make it innocent and pointing at people that are leaving it open ended to TS possibly being wrong too as stubbornly stuck in crazy land and closed minded.
CountryCletus Posted August 12, 2014 Posted August 12, 2014 PS- I'm not being pissy... I just want to accurately and effectively communicate my thoughts...
NoSaint Posted August 12, 2014 Posted August 12, 2014 Conceivability and likeliness are two different things.... It's conceivable that Tony wanted to run over the kid- but unlikely... ........ I'm not trying to go all matrix on anyone, but the steering, handling, accelerator go hand in hand- so while it may look like Tony was trying to intimidate or brush back or do whatever to that kid, it's every bit as likely, probably more likely, that one of two things happened: 1.) he never saw the kid due to the black fire suit and poor peripheral visibility Or 2.) he was handling his car in an effort to miss him. Does that make more sense? frankly, im not even sure its conceivable that he intended to do it. that would take some pretty bold jumps that we have no reason to even begin to make. I would say the top 3 in no particular order would be 1) didnt see the guy 2) tried to make an evasive manuever 3) was being a jerk and didnt realize how close he was or quite how the car would react. not having the experience in the cars and sight lines, handling, track conditions, and relying on commentary from those at the scene and drivers.... its hard to say the odds on each of the 3, but i think its fair to say the 3 are possible PS- I'm not being pissy... I just want to accurately and effectively communicate my thoughts... your fine cletus -- oddly, i just felt a bit bad for WEO on this one as i dont think hes trying to ruffle feathers or convey certainty either. just that he thinks its a real possibility.
CountryCletus Posted August 12, 2014 Posted August 12, 2014 frankly, im not even sure its conceivable that he intended to do it. that would take some pretty bold jumps that we have no reason to even begin to make. I would say the top 3 in no particular order would be 1) didnt see the guy 2) tried to make an evasive manuever 3) was being a jerk and didnt realize how close he was or quite how the car would react. not having the experience in the cars and sight lines, handling, track conditions, and relying on commentary from those at the scene and drivers.... its hard to say the odds on each of the 3, but i think its fair to say the 3 are possible I concur- those are really the 3 best options for how this happened.... I just wish the kid stayed in his car and if he wanted a shot at Tony, do it after the race
The Dean Posted August 12, 2014 Posted August 12, 2014 Make your own assumptions about my post....what do you think happened? Well I think a terrible accident occurred. A misguided driver, either angry or delirious, stumbled around on a racetrack and the likely outcome occurred---he was hit. There are many things I could guess from watching that video (which I have watched too make times and hope to never see again). The most likely being: He was lucky for awhile that he didn't get hit sooner. His stumbling and some luck saved him for awhile. By the time TS realized what the heck was happening he reacted and, unfortunately, hit Ward on the track. Less likely (but certainly possible I suppose): Ward suffered a blow to his head in the crash and didn't realize what he was doing. Ward was drunk, or under the influence of something. Ward committed suicide by race care driver. Stewart purposefully hit him, or hit him in the attempt to scare him (brush him back). I find all of those speculations pretty tasteless (with the exception of Ward suffering a blow to his head). I'd be appalled if anyone accused Ward of committing suicide with no evidence other than his senseless bouncing around on a racetrack. And I certainly find wild speculation about Stewart's motives equally tasteless/appalling in light of of the very incomplete information we see on the video.
Magox Posted August 12, 2014 Posted August 12, 2014 My thoughts are that the kid should have never put himself in a position to be hit, he clearly was putting himself out there right to the edge. Having said that, my feelings are that Tony Stewart saw the kid, thought to himself "Look at this punk coming out trying to show me up", and I don't believe Stewart swerved into him or for that matter even purposely thought that he'd hit him as squarely as he did, but that he also didn't have any intentions of attempting to avoid him and thought that he'd go right up on him and brush him back. I think it was sort of a game of chicken, and neither side conceded ground.
4merper4mer Posted August 12, 2014 Posted August 12, 2014 its interesting, as my opinion has been generally swaying from maybe an initial morning after 55-45 that it happened as a result of TS flexing his muscle and an accident happening, to probably more like 80-20 that it was a totally innocent mishap..... but i agree with you that the arguments made by many in the thread have been frustrating in their attempts to be totally open to any and all possibilities that could make it innocent and pointing at people that are leaving it open ended to TS possibly being wrong too as stubbornly stuck in crazy land and closed minded. It is funny how things can be interpreted. I am not a racing fan I could give a crap one way or another about Tony Stewart and feel terrible for the 20 year old and his family. I had no desire or expectation that I would post in this thread but I did because I my reading of it was 180 degrees out of phase with what you stated above. It seemed to me and still does, that junior detectives have gone out of their was to figure out how to impugn Stewart. Those defending him, some not all of them, have taken time to describe in detail how these cars work and they have cited sources. Those refuting these claims have made comparisons to regular cars on regular roads which is completely irrelevant. After several posts that were either meant to be incendiary or were poorly written, they start saying stuff like "I'm only saying it is plausible". If so, do a better job of writing. Saying "that guy is a jerk" or "I don't like that guy" is one thing, but implying he would do something incredibly irresponsible that would result in the death of another person is something else altogether. AJ is correct when he laments the name calling in this thread but IMO he is wrong about the victims of this name calling. Stewart and the deceased have both been called more unjustified names in here than any one of the posters. If Stewart tried to scare the kid with a last minute rev, it was HIGHLY irresponsible. Although he has certainly had incidents in the past....I'm not a racing fan and I even knew about some of them.....I don't recall any where he even toyed with running his CAR at a PERSON but people are either claiming he did or backing off saying it was "plausible" that he did. Why is it plausible? Has he done anything remotely similar; ever? Keep in mind one of these geniuses talking about which particular charges might/should be brought against Stewart is the same genius who thought Jerry Sandusky was getting railroaded and that the kids were in it for the money. Pardon me if I take his opinions with a mine of salt.
Best Player Available Posted August 12, 2014 Posted August 12, 2014 What gets old is others mischaracterizing the posts of some. Who are all of these posters who claim that their explanation of events is the only one possible? The only ones who come close are those that adamantly refuse to allow that what some of us are posting is conceivable. And again, I don't know how you can credibly claim that engine rev is not Stewart's after watching the video. It seems you would have to really go out of your way to make that conclusion. Also, I don't think you need to be an expert driver of these cars to conclude what you see and hear in that segment. Perhaps that is our fundamental difference. We can agree that there are expert opinions as to how these cars handle, repsond, etc., but I don't see how you need an expert to tell you what you just saw and heard. Ironically, you lament that people aren't thinking for themselves, yet you want us to defer to someone else on this audio/visual sequence. Makes little sense... You want to know why you sometimes sound well uneducated in motor racing. First because you appear to know nothing.here's just one reason since you mention this in almost all of tour posts There is a huge difference in "revving" and " accelerating" which was Stewart doing when he came on the moron on A racetrack? Would what he did be construed as an evasive maneuver by professionals or even casual fans in dirt track racing in mud?
Mr. WEO Posted August 12, 2014 Posted August 12, 2014 Conceivability and likeliness are two different things.... It's conceivable that Tony wanted to run over the kid- but unlikely... I'm not saying Tony didn't rev the engine, I'm just suggesting that the rev you hear isn't Tony's car... Sure, those cars are loud, but from where that video was shot, the rev was pretty loud to be Tony's... Not improssible... To truly understand why a driver did one thing or another, I think you must first have a fundamental understanding of how the car works... If You don't understand how the car works, you cannot draw a logical conclusion as to what happened or why a driver did something. Basically, what you saw and felt appeared one way, may actually be quite he opposite from reality... I'm not trying to go all matrix on anyone, but the steering, handling, accelerator go hand in hand- so while it may look like Tony was trying to intimidate or brush back or do whatever to that kid, it's every bit as likely, probably more likely, that one of two things happened: 1.) he never saw the kid due to the black fire suit and poor peripheral visibility Or 2.) he was handling his car in an effort to miss him. Does that make more sense? Again, I don't know anyone who has claimed Stewart was trying to run the kid over. This comment is one of many straw men that you and others keep propping up and knocking down. You aren't making a case here. Also, if I was to bet on it I'm pretty sure that Stewart did not claim he didn't see the kid. That would render any evasive action defense impossible. You want to know why you sometimes sound well uneducated in motor racing. First because you appear to know nothing. here's just one reason since you mention this in almost all of tour posts There is a huge difference in "revving" and " accelerating" which was Stewart doing when he came on the moron on A racetrack? Would what he did be construed as an evasive maneuver by professionals or even casual fans in dirt track racing in mud? If you prefer, the sound of an engine "revving" up (I think we can all identify that sound without a couple of races under our belts) in the video coincides with the image of Stewarts car accelerating at the time of impact. As for your question I bolded, that is obviously what the DA hasn't decided yet and why there is still an investigation ongoing 3 days later. If things were as simple and straighforward as you and others want us to believe, they would have wrapped this up and closed the case by now.
Recommended Posts