What's interesting to me is that the speeds weren't THAT high. I think he hit the brakes at about 135 or so, and they failed. He reapplied a second time, and had less success. Still, he left the track at under 100. His G meter shows his frst brake application achieving 1.2 Gs, so there was some retardation.

Yet, he ended up further from the track than anyone has.

Why?


I'm guessing it has much to do with the unpredictable way that sand/gravel affects a cars travel. I think it's affect is different based on it's dryness or wetness, but moreover, the shape of the car, and the angle the car strikes the gravel has a lot to do with what happens next.

Also, the weight of the car is at that point, inertia. More inertia, more trouble.

It's another example of how pavement would be better. (Assuming the "launch angle" was mitigated, of course) The car would have settled, and speed would have been scrubbed off in the spinning. Of course, there are cases like these where there is no braking, so attenuation must be in place. But, for the majority of incidents, pavement would be most effective, and would allow cars to sustain less damage and return to racing. And events would operate better, with less down time