Crash safety-F1 still sucks

[Tumbo]

nice to see how many ppl on here become medical experts when discussing what is an emotive issue. Clearly more needs to be done for driver safety however, it needs to be properly addressed and not merely a kneejerk reaction in relation to what has happened but rather a reasoned and rational approach so that the best care (and not merely what we feel could have happened but rather what SHOULD) is given to any driver in a situation on track which is of danger to their health.

To look a the situation in AOWR and other formulas is important but also note (as mentioned) that there have been more deaths and severe injuries in all of these series than in F1 in the last 15 yrs. Senna's death was a wake-up and the injury suffered by Massa should also serve to highlight the importance of safety in all aspects of racing. Notice that ppl keep bringing up Ralf's accident - given that he was NOT severely injured, suffer from any adverse outcomes the medical treatment given was adequate - and unless you were privy to all information/discussions between the tower and the medical teams, the exact qualifications of these teams, the information available in the situation then really maing assumptions on all of this does not help.

As for going on about the emergency trauma medicine and the treatment given to Diana well unless any of you are studying medicine or are a medical practitioner (be it a Dr, Nurse, paramedic or the like) then really opinions on these matters are far from properly informed ;)

[Dave B]

nice to see how many ppl on here become medical experts when discussing what is an emotive issue....

As for going on about the emergency trauma medicine and the treatment given to Diana well unless any of you are studying medicine or are a medical practitioner (be it a Dr, Nurse, paramedic or the like) then really opinions on these matters are far from properly informed ;)
Thank you, you've saved me precious minutes typing the same thing. Goodness knows how the Diana case can be extrapolated to provide a view on European accident response, even assuming a detailed knowledge of the case.

I'm sick of this US vs EU argument. If F1 can learn from any series I'm sure it will, whether that be CART, NASCAR or the Bolivian under-12 rollerskating display team.

[Garry Walker]

Sorry, I stopped reading here.
How old are you? 12? 13?


A canopy would replace one problem with another. Say the car rolls and catches fire, the quick-release mechanism on the protective canopy fails and the driver is trapped? Say the canopy flies off during the race and goes into the crowd?

Those scenarios are just as plausible as being hit by a piece of debris, and I think any knee-jerk reaction to a one in a million accident would be irresponsible.

Exactly. But some people are being so emotional at the moment because 2 freak accidents have happened in a short time period that any rational thinking has gone and has been replaced by emotional outbursts.

I think Autosport have showed exactly how crass they are, since the latest Massa update has this "google ad" underneath the story...

"Suffered a Brain Injury?
Specialist Head Injury Lawyers Waiting for Your Claim. Call today
National-Accident-Helpline.co.uk"

Autosport....scum with typewriters.

[ShiftingGears]

I think Autosport have showed exactly how crass they are, since the latest Massa update has this "google ad" underneath the story...

"Suffered a Brain Injury?
Specialist Head Injury Lawyers Waiting for Your Claim. Call today
National-Accident-Helpline.co.uk"

Autosport....scum with typewriters.

The ads are automated, based on key words in a story.

[BeansBeansBeans]

I think Autosport have showed exactly how crass they are, since the latest Massa update has this "google ad" underneath the story...

"Suffered a Brain Injury?
Specialist Head Injury Lawyers Waiting for Your Claim. Call today
National-Accident-Helpline.co.uk"

Autosport....scum with typewriters.

Those ads automatically pick up on words from the article and advertise accordingly. This can lead to unfortunate and tasteless ads, but it isn't really the fault of Autosport.

The ads are automated, based on key words in a story.

Which they can't switch off or are just too lazy?

[BeansBeansBeans]

Which they can't switch off or are just too lazy?

They probably need the ad revenue. And it surely doesn't need poiting out that this sort of thing would be the responsibilty of Haymarket Publications' bean-counters, rather than Autosport's editorial team.

[ShiftingGears]

Which they can't switch off or are just too lazy?

They have better things to do than monitor their own ads, considering that the ad you referred to is probably 1 of 50 that will appear with the story.

[ioan]

I'm sick of this US vs EU argument.

Agree.



If F1 can learn from any series I'm sure it will, whether that be CART, NASCAR or the Bolivian under-12 rollerskating display team.

Not sure about this, given that F1 really didn't learn (or if they learned they didn't apply it) anything from Indy 2003 up to now.

[christophulus]

http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/safety/did_you_know/7447.html


mobile response teams include four salvage cars (S-cars) and two rescue cars (R-cars) as well as two extrication teams? The S-cars are equipped with a rescue cutter and extinguishing agents and, if necessary in an emergency, are able to tow a damaged car. They are manned by two experienced helpers. The R-cars are manned by an emergency doctor, four paramedics and a driver. They can reach any point on the track within 30 seconds.So F1 tracks have two rescue cars, each containing five medically trained people, which can get to any part of the track within 30 seconds. Slightly better safety than some people have suggested.

[christophulus]

Furthermore, perhaps some people should read about the FIA Institute

http://www.fiainstitute.com/Pages/homepage.aspx

Lots of information there about improvements to safety, including some simulators and side-impact crash testing rigs developed within the last month. So to suggest the FIA hasn't improved safety since 2003 is laughable, frankly.

And yes, of course they should continue looking into further improvements. But I'm sure they would do that anyway without being pressured into it!

[ArrowsFA1]

Do any of us on here believe that the possibility of death and serious injury can ever be completely eliminated from motorsport?

No. But it can be drastically reduced.
ioan, how exactly would you prevent the kind of accident we saw befall Felipe Massa, or attempt to reduce the chances of that kind of accident happening again?

I'm not just talking about the impact itself which injured Felipe, but the whole sequence of events.

[ioan]

http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/safety/did_you_know/7447.html

So F1 tracks have two rescue cars, each containing five medically trained people, which can get to any part of the track within 30 seconds. Slightly better safety than some people have suggested.

I wonder how they can get within 30 seconds to any point of the track.

[BeansBeansBeans]

I believe that we have almost reached the pinnacle of safety in F1. In Jackie Stewart's day, the attitude of the authorites to safety was bordering on negligent and thankfully wholesale changes were made which have saved countless lives. However, I believe that safety in F1 is almost at it's pinnacle. There are no more obvious, sweeping changes which need to be made, just tweaks here and there. We will never totally eradicate the risk of death.

[christophulus]

I wonder how they can get within 30 seconds to any point of the track.

If there are two cars they could have one stationed in the pit lane and one half way around the track. Plus all tracks have access roads so the cars can head either way round so I reckon it's feasible.

[ioan]

ioan, how exactly would you prevent the kind of accident we saw befall Felipe Massa, or attempt to reduce the chances of that kind of accident happening again?

The use of a canopy or of a transparent shield would have greatly helped. It might have suffered some damage but it would have deflected the part that hit Massa.

There are those who say, it would have been useless, dangerous because it might trap the driver, it will need cleaning and it would not be F1 anymore and other such rubbish, and I mean it, it's rubbish.
Why it's rubbish?
1. Because it would have worked.
2. It isn't dangerous and I already pointed it out that the raised cockpit sides need to be removed in order for the driver to get out, and that the seat belts could malfunction too and trap the driver but this didn't make them more dangerous than helpful.
3. Use of material with high non-stick properties would take care of that.
4. Let's start with a question: what is the definition of the looks of a F1 car?!
F1 cars aren't the beauties they once were anyway! Just look at how people were complaining about the front and rear wings before the season, now hardly anyone complains anymore. Not to mention that F1 cars didn't have wing at all 50 ears ago.

Some say a canopy wouldn't have helped Henry Surtees because the wheels are big and heavy and other such 'well thought' gibberish.

Let me put this straight, we don't leave in Stone Age anymore, there are materials that are highly resistant, materials that can withstand shocks way about what a F1 wheel can cause.

I'm sure that the solutions are not very complicated and can be implemented in a sport where they come up with hugely complicate systems just to gain 1 tenth of a second per lap.

There's people accusing me of over-reacting emotionally and such because it's Massa who has been injured, let me tell you this isn't true in the slightest and I would have reacted in the same way if it was any driver on the grid.
It's because I respect life in every form of it and before thinking about this degenerated sport being 'diluted' (according to some) I first think about how to make the lives, of those participating, safer.

Sorry for making it this long but it was needed.

[ioan]

If there are two cars they could have one stationed in the pit lane and one half way around the track. Plus all tracks have access roads so the cars can head either way round so I reckon it's feasible.

A F1 car takes 1 min 45 seconds to go around Spa when it's dry and over 2 minutes when it's wet.

I reckon an ambulance would need 6 minutes or more, half of that is 3 minutes, a quarter of that is 1 minute 30 seconds.

They would need at least 12 ambulances to be able to do that.

[christophulus]

A F1 car takes 1 min 45 seconds to go around Spa when it's dry and over 2 minutes when it's wet.

I reckon an ambulance would need 6 minutes or more, half of that is 3 minutes, a quarter of that is 1 minute 30 seconds.

They would need at least 12 ambulances to be able to do that.

A reasonable assumption, I just posted the information I found. But for all people say about the FIA, I doubt they'd lie about their medical capabilities - the teams wouldn't race if they weren't satisfied with the safety provisions in place.

[ioan]

Furthermore, perhaps some people should read about the FIA Institute

http://www.fiainstitute.com/Pages/homepage.aspx

Lots of information there about improvements to safety, including some simulators and side-impact crash testing rigs developed within the last month. So to suggest the FIA hasn't improved safety since 2003 is laughable, frankly.

And yes, of course they should continue looking into further improvements. But I'm sure they would do that anyway without being pressured into it!

The reference to 2003 is about medical crew reaction time, not about developing new crash testing rigs, which are a fairly common mechanism.

[BeansBeansBeans]

Ioan, have you ever thought about offering your services to the FIA as some sort of official safety consultant?

[ioan]

The teams wouldn't race if they weren't satisfied with the safety provisions in place.

What if the team is yesterdays Renault team?!

[ioan]

Ioan, have you ever thought about offering your services to the FIA as some sort of official safety consultant?

No, I work somewhere else and I'm happy with my job, plus they have the required knowledge but there, no doubt. It's just the lack of political will to do something that goes against the perception of some over conservative people that is killing people out there.

[BeansBeansBeans]

No, I work somewhere else and I'm happy with my job.

Do you think your own happiness is more important than racing drivers' lives? People are dying, YOU know how to stop it. I urge you to put yourself forward.

[ShiftingGears]

Do you think your own happiness is more important than racing drivers' lives? People are dying, YOU know how to stop it. I urge you to put yourself forward.

I LOLLED

[ArrowsFA1]

The use of a canopy or of a transparent shield would have greatly helped. It might have suffered some damage but it would have deflected the part that hit Massa.

Sorry for making it this long but it was needed.
No apologies required. Thanks for taking the time :up:

A canopy may have protected Felipe, but it wouldn't have prevented the part coming loose from the Brawn, which is what caused the whole sequence of events.

As others have said, having enclosed cockpits would fundamentally change F1 and, as the danger exists in all forms of open cockpit racing, presumably canopies would have to be introduced in GP2, Indycar etc etc. That ultimately raises the question of whether any open cockpit, or even motorcycle, racing is acceptable.

I know this is hypothetical, but what if that part had struck the suspension or tyre instead? Something similar happened to Alesi and Berger at Monza years ago when the camera mounted on one Ferrari fell off and struck the following Ferrari, fortunately not the driver.

I also remember some time ago there was talk about putting covers over the tyres to prevent wheel to wheel contact being as dangerous as it could be, but for whatever reason that idea was not developed or introduced.

There are many things that could be done to prevent accidents, but ultimately the only way to stop these kind of things from happening entirely is to stop racing entirely. No-one wants to see accidents happen but risk, and the subsequent dangers, are a part of life.

[ioan]

There are many things that could be done to prevent accidents, but ultimately the only way to stop these kind of things from happening entirely is to stop racing entirely. No-one wants to see accidents happen but risk, and the subsequent dangers, are a part of life.

The point is that if we do not want to stop entirely stop racing than we should do all those many things than could be done to prevent accidents.

Saying that things could be done but better not is irresponsible IMO.

[Mark]

The thing to be thankful for is that Massa crashed in 2009. If he'd crashed even 10 years ago, he would quite likely have been killed, if only because of the helmet materials being used then.

[Valve Bounce]

If the "windshields" are higher, say above top of helmet + several inches, and made of "bullet proof" material, then the drivers would be a lot safer, wouldn't they? Of course, the driver would have to see through this windshield, but then drivers have to see through their visors, and this would keep rain and insects off their visors.

[BeansBeansBeans]

The thing to be thankful for is that Massa crashed in 2009. If he'd crashed even 10 years ago, he would quite likely have been killed, if only because of the helmet materials being used then.

Yup, thank God for the 'Ole Fart'.

[ioan]

The thing to be thankful for is that Massa crashed in 2009. If he'd crashed even 10 years ago, he would quite likely have been killed, if only because of the helmet materials being used then.

True. Luckily back than someone saw it useful to take those steps instead of saying the safety is already as good as it can be and freak accidents like Senna's can't be avoided.

[ArrowsFA1]

...instead of saying the safety is already as good as it can be and freak accidents like Senna's can't be avoided.
I don't think anyone is saying that.

The definition of an "accident" is something unexpected or unforeseen, and so while improvements to safety can, should and are always being looked at, things will happen that cannot be foreseen.

[BDunnell]

They probably need the ad revenue. And it surely doesn't need poiting out that this sort of thing would be the responsibilty of Haymarket Publications' bean-counters, rather than Autosport's editorial team.

It maybe does need pointing out to those who will use any opportunity to make a particular point.

[BDunnell]

I wonder how they can get within 30 seconds to any point of the track.

Yes, this is a reasonable point. I don't think such timing could ever be guaranteed.

[ioan]

I wouldn't say its rubbish, in fact its a good idea but where do you draw the line?

The line should be drawn where studies and tests will show that it's safe to draw it.


Will MotoGP riders have to be encased in safety cells or have larger windscreens too?

I feel they should, but I have much less knowledge about it, at least they have a windshield that is high enough to keep their head behind it, there is no such in F1 anymore.


Motorsport has, and always will be dangerous and these guys are fully aware of the risks.

This is a POV that would have been acceptable 50 years ago maybe. Not today.

With the level of advancement in any science, especially in engineering and material sciences, we can offer 99.999999% protection nowadays and this will improve behind this.



An incident like this has happened twice in a week but until now it has been extremely rare, and maybe 20-30years before it happens again.

This is not an argument when it comes to someone losing his/her life as a consequence of lenient views on safety.

Imagine that the guys at the NASA would have said that the space shuttle disaster was just a one of in a series of over a hundred launches and that no improvements are needed because the probability for the same problem to repeat itself are very low. I can't imagine that.



Plus F1 is open cockpit racing and is stated in the rules.

This really is not a problem, I even wonder why people bring it up.
They can make a canopy or shield that has a small opening at the top. Or even easier, they can change the rules!



Maybe the medical teams at these events should treat every incident like it is serious rather than standing back and judging from a TV screen.

100 agree. Once the car is hitting the wall, they should stop the race and have the ambulance and the doctors on their way.

[ioan]

I don't think anyone is saying that.

Sure they are. Just read the whole thread and you'll see that exactly that was posted by more than one person.

[BDunnell]

The point is that if we do not want to stop entirely stop racing than we should do all those many things than could be done to prevent accidents.

Saying that things could be done but better not is irresponsible IMO.

But those 'things' that could be done would have an undue effect on the character of the sport. As Arrows points out, the point of discussion then changes to whether any sort of open-wheel, open-cockpit racing is acceptable on safety grounds. That is not a debate that I think even needs to happen.

[BDunnell]

True. Luckily back than someone saw it useful to take those steps instead of saying the safety is already as good as it can be and freak accidents like Senna's can't be avoided.

Surely, though, by your line of 'thinking' they were short-sighted back then for not instigating a debate on whether cockpits should be enclosed? After all, the risk of a wheel coming off a car and causing serious injury or worse was far greater in 1994, as shown by the startline accident at Imola involving JJ Lehto.

[Dave B]

A F1 car takes 1 min 45 seconds to go around Spa when it's dry and over 2 minutes when it's wet.

I reckon an ambulance would need 6 minutes or more, half of that is 3 minutes, a quarter of that is 1 minute 30 seconds.

They would need at least 12 ambulances to be able to do that.
Assuming of course that Spa has no other access roads. Which it does. I'm not saying that guarantees a 30-second response, but it's not as black and white as you'd like to make out.

[markabilly]

Gee a few more knee jerk responses from the same people in response to postings pointing out concerned and thoughtful points about the FIA and possible safety improvements. For those who have not, You should read the entire thread

Three weeks ago, I would have considered the idea of a canopy unwarranted, completely. But after two almost identical back to back accidents, well, my thoughts have changed. And it comes with mixed emotions because I think the highest form of an F1 car to be the Lotus type 49. Do not want to be wrecking in that big tank of gasoline with a completely inadequate roll bar.

But I am no engineer and those type of improvements are beyond my limited abilities.

Ioan suggests it and the immediate knee jerk response is to call his idea, a "knee jerk response".

My experience for the matters i spoke, began as involuntary slavery about forty years ago. Not with people deciding to go off and do something they loved and get paid millions to do it, but people getting all chopped up and dying, without being given a choice, being paid no money but being forced to do something they hated. That expereince told me that if they had to chopper Massa to vienna while stabilizing him, they should do do it. Overall probabilities make it the better bet. That experience told me ambulances and docs have no business trying to do what they did with Diana. And in the presence of properly trained paramedics in the field, the presence of doctors is nice, but not absolutely necessary as they can do everything that the doc could do in the field.


The experience has continued since, in various forms. But there is no need for my services for the FIA. All they got to do is go talk to those who ran the CART rescue teams. Hire some of them with some of the millions they spend on entertainment. Simple really. Very.

Opps there I go again...talking about an american racing series....like where it comes from should have anything to do with it.

[BDunnell]

I feel they should, but I have much less knowledge about it, at least they have a windshield that is high enough to keep their head behind it, there is no such in F1 anymore.

Encasing a motorcycle racer in a protective casing would mean that the thing they are riding is no longer truly a motorcycle, thus rendering the entire sport meaningless.

I say again, would you ban forest stages in rallying, or the night part of Le Mans, if doing so were to save one life?

[Dave B]

By extension, would you also ban tackling in rugby?

[ShiftingGears]

There's been many circuits whose technical challenge has been ruined in the name of safety, and I think the quest of safety just gets to the point where people should accept the risks or leave the sport, which isn't at all unreasonable.

[ioan]

But those 'things' that could be done would have an undue effect on the character of the sport.

Yes, there will be an effect.
But the sport is less important than the life of it's participants.
Also the sport has changed so much and so many times, that one more change done to improve the chances for the drivers to live after a mishapening will only be one along many many others in its history.

There were GP cars with a canopy in the past and they were not hideous and image change is less than what we saw this winter.

IMO the positives outweigh the negative by 1.000.000 to 1.

[BDunnell]

Gee a few more knee jerk responses from the same people in response to postings pointing out concerned and thoughtful points about the FIA and possible safety improvements. For those who have not, You should read the entire thread

Three weeks ago, I would have considered the idea of a canopy unwarranted, completely. But after two almost identical back to back accidents, well, my thoughts have changed. And it comes with mixed emotions because I think the highest form of an F1 car to be the Lotus type 49. Do not want to be wrecking in that big tank of gasoline with a completely inadequate roll bar.

But I am no engineer and those type of improvements are beyond my limited abilities.

Ioan suggests it and the immediate knee jerk response is to call his idea, a "knee jerk response".

I think his responses are knee-jerk in nature, as shown by the fact that he thinks that racing motorcyclists should be cocooned in some sort of safety cell, which is clearly nonsensical. The fact is that people, like it or not, will die. Would you advocate banning all aerobatic flying on the grounds that someone might be killed performing aerobatics, an inherently more dangerous activity than flying straight and level?

[BDunnell]

Yes, there will be an effect.
But the sport is less important than the life of it's participants.
Also the sport has changed so much and so many times, that one more change done to improve the chances for the drivers to live after a mishapening will only be one along many many others in its history.

There were GP cars with a canopy in the past and they were not hideous and image change is less than what we saw this winter.

IMO the positives outweigh the negative by 1.000.000 to 1.

Now that you are allowing me to 'address' you again, maybe you could answer the questions posed to you about rallying, Le Mans and now rugby.

[ioan]

Encasing a motorcycle racer in a protective casing would mean that the thing they are riding is no longer truly a motorcycle, thus rendering the entire sport meaningless.

I say again, would you ban forest stages in rallying, or the night part of Le Mans, if doing so were to save one life?

Now now, why exagerate.

1. Any moving device on two wheels and with an engine is a motorcycle.

2. If you make the car's safety system strong enough than they could run in any forest they wish to do it.

3. They do have light at night at LeMans, so I don't see why you ask only about night racing?

4. I'm not about banning motorsports, I'm about making them safer, and not opposing safety for esthetic and performance reasons.

[ioan]

Now that you are allowing me to 'address' you again, maybe you could answer the questions posed to you about rallying, Le Mans and now rugby.

Rugby is not a motorsport and i'm someone who had to go to hospital with head injury because of push pedal bike accident and I do ride that same bike weekly since than. I'm not a safety freak, I only ask for what is possible and IMO acceptable to save a life that is 99% of the time in danger in motorsports.

[BDunnell]

Now now, why exagerate.

1. Any moving device on two wheels and with an engine is a motorcycle.

2. If you make the car's safety system strong enough than they could run in any forest they wish to do it.

3. They do have light at night at LeMans, so I don't see why you ask only about night racing?

4. I'm not about banning motorsports, I'm about making them safer, and not opposing safety for esthetic and performance reasons.

But surely, by extension of your argument, anything is acceptable if it saves one life? Therefore, on the grounds that hitting a tree on a rally stage may well cause a fatal injury, as has happened on numerous occasions, rally stages should not be run through forests. I don't see where the exaggeration is in this - it's a natural extension of your viewpoint.

[ioan]

By extension, would you also ban tackling in rugby?

No, because it's something that the players expect and are fully prepared to receiving and can even be avoided by them, can't say the same about what happened to Surtees and Massa.

[ShiftingGears]

Yes, there will be an effect.
But the sport is less important than the life of it's participants.


If they feel the risk is too great then they should quit without the sport getting sanitised. I'd hate to see the Manx TT circuit littered with chicanes, or night driving and run-off areas added to rallying stages. If I feel there is a sport where I am uncomfortable with the amount of risks the participants put themselves in, I will not watch it.

[BDunnell]

Rugby is not a motorsport and i'm someone who had to go to hospital with head injury because of push pedal bike accident and I do ride that same bike weekly since than. I'm not a safety freak, I only ask for what is possible and IMO acceptable to save a life that is 99% of the time in danger in motorsports.

It doesn't matter if rugby is a motorsport or not. Surely the same argument applies - that it is an especially dangerous part of rugby, and one that could result in fatal injuries; therefore, it should be banned, because doing so might potentially save one life.

[ioan]

But surely, by extension of your argument, anything is acceptable if it saves one life? Therefore, on the grounds that hitting a tree on a rally stage may well cause a fatal injury, as has happened on numerous occasions, rally stages should not be run through forests. I don't see where the exaggeration is in this - it's a natural extension of your viewpoint.

You're having extreme views about something normal, maybe I'll have to stop answering to you again?

Look, I didn't propose to have the cars look like an armored tank. I just proposes a fukcing canopy that would have saved both these drivers life.

[BDunnell]

If they feel the risk is too great then they should quit without the sport getting sanitised. I'd hate to see the Manx TT circuit littered with chicanes, or night driving and run-off areas added to rallying stages. If I feel there is a sport where I am uncomfortable with the amount of risks the participants put themselves in, I will not watch it.

Same here. This is why I detest boxing. However, I would never seek to ban it.

[ShiftingGears]

No, because it's something that the players expect and are fully prepared to receiving and can even be avoided by them, can't say the same about what happened to Surtees and Massa.

Surtees and Massa knew there was the chance of something going horribly wrong on the circuit and there was the possibility of dying. They could've avoided it by getting involved in a safer sport.

[ioan]

If they feel the risk is too great then they should quit without the sport getting sanitised.


FGS since when will a sport be sanitized because the use a canopy over a F1 car cockpit?!

I'm talking to the walls again. :rolleyes:

[ArrowsFA1]

But the sport is less important than the life of it's participants.
But equally those participants make the choice to compete knowing that there are some risks involved in racing. That's not to say that they do not want to see those risks reduced as far as possible.

Just for info, here's a summary of safety improvements in F1 between 1963-2001 - http://www.atlasf1.com/news/safety.html

[ioan]

Surtees and Massa knew there was the chance of something going horribly wrong on the circuit and there was the possibility of dying. They could've avoided it by getting involved in a safer sport.

You're completely out of your debt with such a comment, but I'm glad that I can read what various motorsport 'fans' are writing around here.
It will make it easier to know in the future who's worth answering and who not. I think I'll set up my ignore list next week end after I re-read this thread.

[markabilly]

I think his responses are knee-jerk in nature, as shown by the fact that he thinks that racing motorcyclists should be cocooned in some sort of safety cell, which is clearly nonsensical.

They are already in the form of special helmets, leather with reinforcment and paddding, gloves and boots and not my old cowboy boots, blue jeans and t shirt. And they have ebben attempts to develope an air bag type system that would be of equal value on the street.



The fact is that people, like it or not, will die.


people who say such things have no real close continued personal experience of holding someone of that age while they die from an injury or they do and have distanced themselves to become very calloused

[ShiftingGears]

FGS since when will a sport be sanitized because the use a canopy over a F1 car cockpit?!

I'm talking to the walls again. :rolleyes:

I just don't see the need. F1 cars should in my opinion never have a canopy and always be open wheeled.

[BDunnell]

FGS since when will a sport be sanitized because the use a canopy over a F1 car cockpit?!

In my opinion, safety measures put in place to prevent something happening that barely ever occurs and is impossible to completely prevent, like the effect of a car losing a part and that part hitting another driver, are a form of sanitisation. It's like stopping pilots performing aerobatics (in aircraft that can do so, of course) - aerobatics can be, and mostly are, performed perfectly safely, but they do add an element of extra risk to flying and can be fatal if performed incorrectly. Yet I would never seek to ban them, because it is a matter of personal choice and of those participating in the activity taking on board the risks.

[ShiftingGears]

You're completely out of your debt with such a comment, but I'm glad that I can read what various motorsport 'fans' are writing around here.
It will make it easier to know in the future who's worth answering and who not. I think I'll set up my ignore list next week end after I re-read this thread.

How mature of you.

[ioan]

But equally those participants make the choice to compete knowing that there are some risks involved in racing. That's not to say that they do not want to see those risks reduced as far as possible.

And you bet that all those who died or were permanently handicapped and their families would have loved to have the cars safer, and that's exactly what should be done now too. Identify the solution and implement it.

I can remember that moment when DC almost decapitated Wurz,like if it was yesterday, and still little has been done against it. They raised the sides of teh cockpit a bit more which was enough only if the other car would come from a certain direction and under a certain angle, above it the result would be a broken neck and a certain death or paralysis.

[ioan]

In my opinion, safety measures put in place to prevent something happening that barely ever occurs and is impossible to completely prevent, like the effect of a car losing a part and that part hitting another driver, are a form of sanitisation. It's like stopping pilots performing aerobatics (in aircraft that can do so, of course) - aerobatics can be, and mostly are, performed perfectly safely, but they do add an element of extra risk to flying and can be fatal if performed incorrectly. Yet I would never seek to ban them, because it is a matter of personal choice and of those participating in the activity taking on board the risks.

Let's see, 3 times a part has detached from a car in 2 races.
Results? One dead, one with a brain surgery and as of yet unknown future.

Looks bad to me.

[BDunnell]

They are already in the form of special helmets, leather with reinforcment and paddding, gloves and boots and not my old cowboy boots, blue jeans and t shirt. And they have ebben attempts to develope an air bag type system that would be of equal value on the street.

All perfectly acceptable measures which are to be applauded.



people who say such things have no real close continued personal experience of holding someone of that age while they die from an injury or they do and have distanced themselves to become very calloused

What on earth is controversial about saying that, sadly, people do die? People die in air crashes. They die as a result of terrorism. They die as a result of car accidents. None of these things will ever be prevented completely, and some measures aimed at doing exactly that, such as draconian anti-terrorist legislation, are deeply counter-productive.

[BeansBeansBeans]

To borrow from Raoul Vaneigem; who wants a world in which the guarantee that we shall not die in an accident entails the risk of dying of boredom?

[ioan]

Questions to those who think that safety in the world is high enough:

Why do you think that a plane has almost all it's systems not doubled but tripled or even quadrupled?
Don't you think that telling you that flying is dangerous would be enough and than you decide if take the risks or not?
Maybe they shouldn't try to improve planes anymore, what use would that be anyway?!

Would you still take your family, wife children on a plane if you knew that the engineers didn't develop it's safety aspects but rather went for weight reduction, fuel consumption improvement and others similar to F1?

[BDunnell]

Let's see, 3 times a part has detached from a car in 2 races.
Results? One dead, one with a brain surgery and as of yet unknown future.

Looks bad to me.

Well, the Surtees accident wasn't in an F1 race. There may be a specific problem relating to the tethering of the wheels on F2 cars, but this has little or no relevance to F1. The Brawn spring incident was a freak occurrence - had there been a spate of similar failures, I would agree that there was a problem, but there hasn't been. And the Alonso one appears to have resulted from negligence within the team, so again cannot be compared to either of the other two cases. Saying that there is a link between them is like saying there is an overall problem with air safety if three aircraft crash in three different countries for three different reasons within a week.

[BDunnell]

Questions to those who think that safety in the world is high enough:

Why do you think that a plane has almost all it's systems not doubled but tripled or even quadrupled?
Don't you think that telling you that flying is dangerous would be enough and than you decide if take the risks or not?
Maybe they shouldn't try to improve planes anymore, what use would that be anyway?!

Would you still take your family, wife children on a plane if you knew that the engineers didn't develop it's safety aspects but rather went for weight reduction, fuel consumption improvement and others similar to F1?

I do go on an aircraft knowing full well that, although those responsible for its safety have most likely done all they can, something might still happen. It's a reason why, in spite of my job, I don't like flying.

[ioan]

To borrow from Raoul Vaneigem; who wants a world in which the guarantee that we shall not die in an accident entails the risk of dying of boredom?

And who would die of boredom just because he can't risk his life? Some idiot with only one bored neuron.

[ShiftingGears]

Travel is necessary in most facets of life, motorsport is not.

[ioan]

I do go on an aircraft knowing full well that, although those responsible for its safety have most likely done all they can, something might still happen. It's a reason why, in spite of my job, I don't like flying.

That was not the question.

The question was in the case when they would have had your approach and said at one point in the aeronautics history that safety is good enough lets stop and now only concentrate on make the planes faster and lighter.

So would you go on a plane that has only one of it's critical systems and if one of them fails you and your family will die?!

[ShiftingGears]

And who would die of boredom just because he can't risk his life? Some idiot with only one bored neuron.

I see absolutely no reason why that makes them an idiot.

[Valve Bounce]

Assuming of course that Spa has no other access roads. Which it does. I'm not saying that guarantees a 30-second response, but it's not as black and white as you'd like to make out.

There is no way that a medical team can be mobilised in less than 30 seconds unless you have the medical team sitting in an ambulance during the entire time of all practices, quals and the race. After that, the ambulance must proceed in the same direction as the cars on track are running, assuming no cars will be permitted to proceed past the point that the ambulance is dispatched. After that the ambulance still has to get to the point of the accident, and I don't see an ambulance loaded with a team of 5 medical staff (doctors and paramedics) can get around say 1/3rd of the track in less than a minute.

Particularly in the case where Massa was injured, there was no reason to even believe that Massa was more than slightly hurt until the marshals got to him and saw that he had been hit by an object.

There is no way that a medical team could be dispatched every time a driver runs off the road and hits a tyre barrier.

So let's think about this carefully. Improvements to safety basically rely on a pro active approach like improving cars' safety features, and not reactive where races are immediately red flagged once a car runs into a tyre barrier or armco.

[BeansBeansBeans]

And who would die of boredom just because he can't risk his life? Some idiot with only one bored neuron.

People in the west live safer, longer lives than ever before. They're also unhappier than ever before.

[ShiftingGears]

Some of this conversation reminds me of Brave New World, especially talking about risk vs safety. Great read.

[ioan]

People in the west live safer, longer lives than ever before. They're also unhappier than ever before.

I've been born in the east, live in the west and I'm not bored at all, all this without trying to get myself killed.
In fact there are so many things I like to do that I wish a day would be 48 hours long.

[ioan]

Some of this conversation reminds me of Brave New World, especially talking about risk vs safety. Great read.

I did read it. Some of that society is utopia but ask some from let's say Africa if they would love to live in a more secure world, where they have food, water, and won't die of all kind of curable deaths.

Just think about how there would be little of all we have now if certain people in the past, and now, wouldn't be pushing the limits of science to give us better medical treatment, safer cars, trains, planes, boats etc!

[Bagwan]

This isn't at all a simple issue , and I have to admit that I am of two minds here .
Firstly , I am very worried for Felipe . I hope he recovers soon .
He took a hit that was not anyone's fault .
A tiny jerk of the wheel one way or the other , and he could have either died instantly or missed the moment of impact entirely .

That he was hit by this object at such speed , and sustained such a limitted injury , is a testament to the safety equipment already in use . Certainly , they will learn from the data acquired here , and improve the strength in that area of the helmet , limitting further the damage that could occur in a similar event .
That's all simple and logical .
Accident occurs -inquest suggests changes as a result .
But , it's not that simple .

A few years ago , I watched a documentary on the improvements that have been made to road safety over the history of the car .
One designer (responsible for inventing the air-bag , I believe) said that he felt he was likely responsible for more deaths as a result of his work in safety than if he had not designed the items he made at all .
He had noted that throughout his career , which had been long , and fruitful , the cars were going much faster , and were being crashed by people driving much farther beyond thier capabilities .

ABS was one that he noted to be very bad , in terms of giving the less experienced and/or poor driver a sense of more control , inciting them to over-drive the car , getting them in worse trouble than if they had feared locking the brakes .

His pet peeve , and the central reason for far too many accidents is "tail-gating" , following the car ahead too closely to be able to react .
His suggestion , not completely serious , of course , but "sharp" , to make a point , was to mount a six inch stilletto blade in the very centre of the steering wheel . This was the only way to remind people that the tail-gating action was dangerous .


I guess my point in all of that is to say that , though I am currently very worried about a driver in hospital presently , it is , in part , that danger which draws me to hold these racers in reverence .
The drivers we have lost through the years are a testament to the bravery of all those who have raced or still do .

It has come to a point here , where the only part of the body that is exposed in any way , is the face .
In the past few years , we have seen the cockpit sides raised , and , though it was done to protect the head , we have also seen the effect of reduced vision , causing accidents . Those accidents when wheels touch , can flip cars , and make it more necessary to have raised cockpit sides .
So , it's not all that simple .

Obscure the vision in any way , and I believe you will cause more trouble than you mitigate .


In a way , Felipe has done us a favour here , and thankfully didn't have to die to get the message through .
Racing is dangerous .
And , he is one of a group of gladiators who risk life , itself , to be the fastest .
Whether a part large or small of the reason one watches racing , the bravery of the driver is a part of why we watch .
And , it's a part of why they race , themselves , showing they can walk closer to the edge . The finest race craft sits on the edge of disaster .

[ShiftingGears]

I did read it. Some of that society is utopia but ask some from let's say Africa if they would love to live in a more secure world, where they have food, water, and won't die of all kind of curable deaths.

Just think about how there would be little of all we have now if certain people in the past, and now, wouldn't be pushing the limits of science to give us better medical treatment, safer cars, trains, planes, boats etc!

I'm sure they'd want to be able to sustain themselves. However on your second point, I don't necessarily think that those technologies would make people any happier.

The point of that book is that there is some acceptible medium in between those two extremes, at least, that's what I got out of it. I think it's comparable to safety in F1.

[Dave B]

I think I'll set up my ignore list next week end after I re-read this thread.
http://tallskinnykiwi.typepad.com/tallskinnykiwi/shrek-donkey-pick-me_1.jpg

:D

[ioan]

http://tallskinnykiwi.typepad.com/tallskinnykiwi/shrek-donkey-pick-me_1.jpg

:D

Nah, you are too funny! :p

[Valve Bounce]

http://tallskinnykiwi.typepad.com/tallskinnykiwi/shrek-donkey-pick-me_1.jpg

:D

May I join you, please :p : Just call me Ogre!!

[ioan]

I'm sure they'd want to be able to sustain themselves. However on your second point, I don't necessarily think that those technologies would make people any happier.

Believe me they would.
It's not easy fore parents to lose their children for so many various reasons and they would be more than happy if it didn't happen.

Same goes for developed countries re parents who lose their kids in all kinds of activities that were not made safe enough, to prevent often very easily avoidable accidents.



The point of that book is that there is some acceptible medium in between those two extremes, at least, that's what I got out of it. I think it's comparable to safety in F1.

Yes, that's one of the messages of the book, maybe the most important. But we can't compare safety of everyday life with safety needed in a highly dangerous environment.

[ShiftingGears]

Yes, that's one of the messages of the book, maybe the most important. But we can't compare safety of everyday life with safety needed in a highly dangerous environment.

I think there is some comparison to be made, but we will agree to disagree.

[BDunnell]

And who would die of boredom just because he can't risk his life? Some idiot with only one bored neuron.

You must concede, surely, that many people get a buzz from exhilarating activities that involve an element of risk - white-water rafting, flying vintage aircraft, etc?

[BeansBeansBeans]

Society's attitude to death, and risk in general, seems to be getting more and more unhealthy and out-of-balance.

It's like with child abduction. If you let kids play out and have fun, a tiny, tiny percentage of those children will be abucted by a stranger, which is an awful thing and an absolute nightmare for the parents. However, if you lock all kids indoors at all time, no kids will get abducted by strangers, but all of them will have a miserable childhood.

You need balance and perspective.

[BDunnell]

That was not the question.

The question was in the case when they would have had your approach and said at one point in the aeronautics history that safety is good enough lets stop and now only concentrate on make the planes faster and lighter.

So would you go on a plane that has only one of it's critical systems and if one of them fails you and your family will die?!

But clearly those engaged in racing car design have not been sitting around doing nothing about safety. Just because there have been three totally unconnected, high-profile accidents in a week does not mean to say that suddenly the forms of motorsport in question have become unspeakably deadly.

[markabilly]

This isn't at all a simple issue , and I have to admit that I am of two minds here .

And , it's a part of why they race , themselves , showing they can walk closer to the edge . The finest race craft sits on the edge of disaster .
Yeah I am of two minds as well. I started and did it at a very young age, in part due to the thrill and without any real regard for safety. Most of my crashes earlier on were in the dirt track racing, but on the motorbike there was only one track close and every year it held three motorcyle races on pavement. Lucky I never went down where i slid on the pavement, but that survival while others were not so lucky was a part of the thrill. No question.

Indeed, the hans device had to be ordered worn, over the objections of many drivers, including RB, who complained about it--a guy who nearly died the same weekend as ratzenberger and senna.

Hell, when I started racing bikes, I would not have worn a helmet, but thos dam idiots made me!!

but i got older and had some experiences as well, that changed my POV.

When you are young, you know you will live forever, and there is a thrill when others do not. When you get to be an old fart, you worry about living through another hour and feel sad for those who do not.

And I like the idea of some sort of windshield or canopy, esp if it goes with an inprovemnt in vision. . I do not know how drivers can see where they are going now (notice the bumps where the suspension attached to the Red Bull in front) to say nothing of side vision with the tiny mirrors

[Valve Bounce]

I guess my point in all of that is to say that , though I am currently very worried about a driver in hospital presently , it is , in part , that danger which draws me to hold these racers in reverence .
The drivers we have lost through the years are a testament to the bravery of all those who have raced or still do .

In a way , Felipe has done us a favour here , and thankfully didn't have to die to get the message through .
Racing is dangerous .
And , he is one of a group of gladiators who risk life , itself , to be the fastest .
Whether a part large or small of the reason one watches racing , the bravery of the driver is a part of why we watch .
And , it's a part of why they race , themselves , showing they can walk closer to the edge . The finest race craft sits on the edge of disaster .

When you say "reason one watches racing", I must say that absolutely does not apply to me. I know, I must be a wimp of some sort, but the absolute danger part does not appeal to me. In fact, if God guaranteed that no driver would ever die again in F1, I would be delighted.

Basically I watch F1 because the drivers show extreme skill in very, very fast cars. The way they corner intrigues me, and the deafening noise from their exhausts excite me.

I do have one confession to make here that I have never divulged in this forum: each time an F1 racer died, particularly Clark, but also Jochen Rindt, and Ronnie Petersen, I stopped reading about F1 (no TV coverage where I was posted) for months. And Gilles too. When Senna dies, I stopped watching F1 for months. I was so upset that I just couldn't. I'm getting much older now, and don't get so upset anymore.

The only thing about danger that I really enjoy is ski-ing. Go down a black run too fast and you get the feeling of impending doom, but I know nothing will happen to me. That's stupid isn't it, but that's me.

[ShiftingGears]

Society's attitude to death, and risk in general, seems to be getting more and more unhealthy and out-of-balance.

I completely agree.

[BDunnell]

Society's attitude to death, and risk in general, seems to be getting more and more unhealthy and out-of-balance.

I agree. What's more, I'm sure that at least one of the people on here espousing the view that F1 is unacceptably dangerous has moaned about the 'nanny state', or similar, before.

[ArrowsFA1]

Society's attitude to death, and risk in general, seems to be getting more and more unhealthy and out-of-balance.

It's like with child abduction. If you let kids play out and have fun, a tiny, tiny percentage of those children will be abucted by a stranger, which is an awful thing and an absolute nightmare for the parents. However, if you lock all kids indoors at all time, no kids will get abducted by strangers, but all of them will have a miserable childhood.

You need balance and perspective.
:up:

[markabilly]

Society's attitude to death, and risk in general, seems to be getting more and more unhealthy and out-of-balance.

It's like with child abduction. If you let kids play out and have fun, a tiny, tiny percentage of those children will be abucted by a stranger, which is an awful thing and an absolute nightmare for the parents. However, if you lock all kids indoors at all time, no kids will get abducted by strangers, but all of them will have a miserable childhood.

You need balance and perspective.
It has always been like that for the last three thousand years. It does not excuse burying your head in the sand, as you have clearly advocated doing through out these posts.

And your statement does not justify ignoring the danger of racing or child abduction and attempting to prevent it from happenning. No one has advocated banning racing as you would imply in your post, and your "leave it alone , it ain't broke" attitude, just demonstrates the problem all too well.

:down:

[Bagwan]

"The only thing about danger that I really enjoy is ski-ing. Go down a black run too fast and you get the feeling of impending doom, but I know nothing will happen to me. That's stupid isn't it, but that's me."

It's a rush , Valve , isn't it ?
So , you do know why they do it , then , don't you ?

I have been the opposite since Massa had his trouble , striving to find news of his condition .
I'll admit to have been shocked and saddened by the news when Earnhart died , as he was a racer , not in a series I watched , but still a racer , and I respect all who risk it all to race .

It's a love/hate relationship we have with motorsports .
Speed kills .

[BDunnell]

It has always been like that for the last three thousand years. It does not excuse burying your head in the sand, as you have clearly advocated doing through out these posts.

And your statement does not justify ignoring the danger of racing or child abduction and attempting to prevent it from happenning. No one has advocated banning racing as you would imply in your post, and your "leave it alone , it ain't broke" attitude, just demonstrates the problem all too well.

:down:

What is 'the problem', exactly?

BBB is absolutely right in his comments. Too many people have become quivering wrecks, almost, over the question of certain types of risk, notably terrorism and paedophilia, and often driven by the first thing they read in the popular press - rather like people thinking that because Rubens Barrichello says there must be a connection between these various accidents, with no particular grounds for saying so other than based on his spiritual beliefs, that must also be true.

[BeansBeansBeans]

It is all about balance. The measures used to mitigate against certain outcomes must be in proportion to the threat. Keeping children locked away due to the miniscule chance that they'll be abducted is on over-reaction. Banning open-cockpit motorsport due to the miniscule chance that drivers may receive a fatal hit in the face from a foreign object is also an over-reaction.

[markabilly]

It is all about balance. The measures used to mitigate against certain outcomes must be in proportion to the threat. Keeping children locked away due to the miniscule chance that they'll be abducted is on over-reaction. Banning open-cockpit motorsport due to the miniscule chance that drivers may receive a fatal hit in the face from a foreign object is also an over-reaction.
and there was the time that i thought the same thing about a helmet, but if not required to wear one, I never would have made it to the age of 18.


Go ask the racers in 2001--- many still then after all the deaths would have refused the hans device if the choice was their and theirs alone

There is no balance in your approach.

[ioan]

You must concede, surely, that many people get a buzz from exhilarating activities that involve an element of risk - white-water rafting, flying vintage aircraft, etc?

Sure they do, but they do it as a hobby, they aren't contracted to do it and are not paid to do it.

As soon as it's a job, like being a F1 driver, the teams (and the FIA as a regulator) are held responsible to offer the safest working environment.

[ioan]

But clearly those engaged in racing car design have not been sitting around doing nothing about safety.

Luckily!
But you see, I'm not saying that the FIA or Max aren't doing things for safety, not at all.

Those that I'm fed up with it's the ones like you, beans, theugsquirrel and others who wrote that the safety levels are OK and there is no need to change f1 for improving the safety.

[BeansBeansBeans]

and there was the time that i thought the same thing about a helmet, but if not required to wear one, I never would have made it to the age of 18.


Go ask the racers in 2001--- many still then after all the deaths would have refused the hans device if the choice was their and theirs alone

There is no balance in your approach.

The fact that you equate the risk of racing without a helmet with the risk of racing without a canopy shows that you have lost all sense of perspective.

[BDunnell]

and there was the time that i thought the same thing about a helmet, but if not required to wear one, I never would have made it to the age of 18.


Go ask the racers in 2001--- many still then after all the deaths would have refused the hans device if the choice was their and theirs alone

There is no balance in your approach.

So, basically, you believe that we as a society are not frightened enough and should generally be more scared of the threats that face us?

[BDunnell]

Sure they do, but they do it as a hobby, they aren't contracted to do it and are not paid to do it.

There are plenty of pilots who are contracted or paid to fly vintage aircraft, so that argument is entirely invalid.

[BDunnell]

Luckily!
But you see, I'm not saying that the FIA or Max aren't doing things for safety, not at all.

Those that I'm fed up with it's the ones like you, beans, theugsquirrel and others who wrote that the safety levels are OK and there is no need to change f1 for improving the safety.

Where have I said that? Nowhere. Stop twisting the words of others. I am frankly insulted by the fact that you seem to suggest that those of us who have little time for your viewpoint somehow revel in death and destruction.

[BeansBeansBeans]

Those that I'm fed up with it's the ones like you, beans, theugsquirrel and others who wrote that the safety levels are OK and there is no need to change f1 for improving the safety.

I've not said that at all. I am pleased that the FIA continue to evaluate and improve the safety measures within the sport.

[ioan]

When you say "reason one watches racing", I must say that absolutely does not apply to me. I know, I must be a wimp of some sort, but the absolute danger part does not appeal to me. In fact, if God guaranteed that no driver would ever die again in F1, I would be delighted.

No, you are not a wimp, and you are not alone. I share these same views.



The only thing about danger that I really enjoy is ski-ing. Go down a black run too fast and you get the feeling of impending doom, but I know nothing will happen to me. That's stupid isn't it, but that's me.

I do enjoy skiing too but I take care not to go over the limit in difficult conditions, I practice it as a sport that gives me the possibility to be out in the nature during the winter.

I won't say I never was close to broking a bone (luckily it didn't happen until now), I admit I did, but i do it less every winter.
I also bought the best equipment there is and wear a helmet no matter what others might say as a result of suffering concussion twice before I was 30.

[ioan]

Where have I said that? Nowhere. Stop twisting the words of others. I am frankly insulted by the fact that you seem to suggest that those of us who have little time for your viewpoint somehow revel in death and destruction.

We are back to me ignoring you, I think it will be better.

[ioan]

BBB is absolutely right in his comments.

Absolutely, huh?!

Why the need to believe that you or BB are absolutely right?
Do you hold ultimate truth by chance?

Breaking news: none of us, in fact no human being does!

[ioan]

So, basically, you believe that we as a society are not frightened enough and should generally be more scared of the threats that face us?

Maybe at least to the point of not thinking you can judge for others safety being enough when you sit in your armchair!

[BeansBeansBeans]

Absolutely, huh?!

Why the need to believe that you or BB are absolutely right?
Do you hold ultimate truth by chance?

Breaking news: none of us, in fact no human being does!

You didn't ignore him for long then.

[BeansBeansBeans]

Maybe at least to the point of not thinking you can judge for others safety being enough when you sit in your armchair!

Racing drivers make their own judgements. All 19 drivers started yesterday's race with full knowledge of what happened to Massa.

[BDunnell]

No, you are not a wimp, and you are not alone. I share these same views.

And I actually share Valve Bounce's views, too. I get no pleasure at all from being in a dangerous situation, or watching others engaged in a hazardous activity purely on the grounds that it is hazardous or due to that hazardous element being present.

[BDunnell]

We are back to me ignoring you, I think it will be better.

It would be better if you engaged in a proper debate on the points being put to you.

[BDunnell]

Absolutely, huh?!

Why the need to believe that you or BB are absolutely right?
Do you hold ultimate truth by chance?

Breaking news: none of us, in fact no human being does!

He is absolutely right to say that people have become pathetic about certain types of risk, and his examples were very pertinent to the discussion.

[BDunnell]

Maybe at least to the point of not thinking you can judge for others safety being enough when you sit in your armchair!

Why does that statement not also apply to you, then? After all, you are just as much of an 'armchair pundit' as anyone else.

[christophulus]

The FIA are looking into the incidents, as expected:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/77381


"Preliminary findings suggest the helmet being used by Felipe Massa may have played a significant role in limiting the injuries sustained. The FIA 8860 helmet, which took eight years to develop by the FIA and FIA Institute, provides increased protection in all key impact areas."

[BeansBeansBeans]

The FIA are looking into the incidents, as expected:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/77381

Good news.

A rational investigation is what is required. I await their findings with interest.

[Easy Drifter]

I for one am not dismissing Ioan's idea of a canopy out of hand.
I say the idea needs to be studied carefully from all angles, including the possible dangers of reduced visability and extraction in case of an upside down car. Remember a boat capsule is almost always ejected in one piece and water is not a solid. In other words the canopy can be opened upside down. Heat in the course of a race might also be a problem as would the danger of fogging in case of sudden rain. Car races last far longer than boat races.
Yes the enclosed protypes deal with these problems but it involves a lot of design changes. They can be made.
I think the helmet stood up very well. It was hit by a piece of steel weighing about 1 3/4 pounds travelling at who knows what velocity.
Lexan is probably the only transparent canopy material that is any where near strong enough to withstand a hit to be of any use.
I doubt that it would be strong enough to stop or deflect a wheel assembly with a mass of probably 25 lbs or more. Even if it was would the structure it was mounted on handle the impact?
I thought back to WW2 when at the beginning the standard UK anti tank gun was a 2 Pdr. In other words a 2 lb projectile designed to pierce armour. Not much heavier than what hit Massa. Admittedly the velocity was most likely far less in Massa's case.
Again studies would be needed to see what sort of an impact a canopy could withstand and if it failed how would it fail. Would there be pieces of ultra sharp canopy intruding into the cockpit? Would it become opaque thereby blinding a driver at maybe 200mph.?
Again I am not dismissing the idea out of hand. I just feel it needs careful and through study.
I do concur that better emergency response is required, but I do not think racing should be red flagged every time there is contact.
Remember also the corner workers are volunteers with varying degrees of experience. Many have never faced major trauma in their lives and until they do you will not know how a person will react.
Like Markabilly I lost far too many friends and people I knew to racing. It hurts but I just sucked it up and carried on. I raced later in the day when a friend had been killed. Not easy but I did it.
As far as I know Markabilly and I are the only ones posting here who have raced and we both did it when safety was a total joke compared to today. That probably infleunces our thinking as we know what went through our minds when we raced and friends were killed or maimed.
That said I am all for safety but any changes need to be looked at carefully to make sure a more dangerous situation is not created.
Ioan I am not dismissing your idea but I think you need to sit back and look at all aspects a little more. Drivers and Riders will be killed and maimed no matter what. We just need to control the risks as best we can.
I know when I raced I knew the risks.
There was nothing quite like the rush you got when you knew (and you did know) when you got a corner just right and that you couldn't possibly have taken it faster. It was indescribable.

[ioan]

I for one am not dismissing Ioan's idea of a canopy out of hand.
I say the idea needs to be studied carefully from all angles, including the possible dangers of reduced visability and extraction in case of an upside down car. Remember a boat capsule is almost always ejected in one piece and water is not a solid. In other words the canopy can be opened upside down. Heat in the course of a race might also be a problem as would the danger of fogging in case of sudden rain. Car races last far longer than boat races.
Yes the enclosed protypes deal with these problems but it involves a lot of design changes. They can be made.
I think the helmet stood up very well. It was hit by a piece of steel weighing about 1 3/4 pounds travelling at who knows what velocity.
Lexan is probably the only transparent canopy material that is any where near strong enough to withstand a hit to be of any use.
I doubt that it would be strong enough to stop or deflect a wheel assembly with a mass of probably 25 lbs or more. Even if it was would the structure it was mounted on handle the impact?
I thought back to WW2 when at the beginning the standard UK anti tank gun was a 2 Pdr. In other words a 2 lb projectile designed to pierce armour. Not much heavier than what hit Massa. Admittedly the velocity was most likely far less in Massa's case.
Again studies would be needed to see what sort of an impact a canopy could withstand and if it failed how would it fail. Would there be pieces of ultra sharp canopy intruding into the cockpit? Would it become opaque thereby blinding a driver at maybe 200mph.?
Again I am not dismissing the idea out of hand. I just feel it needs careful and through study.
I do concur that better emergency response is required, but I do not think racing should be red flagged every time there is contact.
Remember also the corner workers are volunteers with varying degrees of experience. Many have never faced major trauma in their lives and until they do you will not know how a person will react.
Like Markabilly I lost far too many friends and people I knew to racing. It hurts but I just sucked it up and carried on. I raced later in the day when a friend had been killed. Not easy but I did it.
As far as I know Markabilly and I are the only ones posting here who have raced and we both did it when safety was a total joke compared to today. That probably infleunces our thinking as we know what went through our minds when we raced and friends were killed or maimed.
That said I am all for safety but any changes need to be looked at carefully to make sure a more dangerous situation is not created.
Ioan I am not dismissing your idea but I think you need to sit back and look at all aspects a little more. Drivers and Riders will be killed and maimed no matter what. We just need to control the risks as best we can.
I know when I raced I knew the risks.
There was nothing quite like the rush you got when you knew (and you did know) when you got a corner just right and that you couldn't possibly have taken it faster. It was indescribable.

I agree that there will be some changes needed, to introduce a canopy or a high windshield (I tend to favor the later for the heating and fogging problems that would arise with the use of a fully closed canopy, even though there are systems, used in the current helmets too that make fogging a non problem).

Will it deflect a 25 lbs wheel or will it brake? If it's thick enough it might not brake, but even if it brakes it will only do so after deforming and thus absorbing a big part of the impact energy, which is still a huge plus cause in this case the helmet and the driver will have to withstand less forces if the object makes it's way through the protective shield.

Will it become opaque after the impact? If it's a huge impact it probably will, but let's say that at least it will give the driver the possibility to stay conscious and brake in order to not have a huge shunt like Massa had.

I can only hope that those in charge will see that something needs to be done for frontal protection of the driver's head, not only from the sides and from the rear as it's now.

PS: I'm not asking them to stop racing, just top take steps forward to lessen the probability of such accidents even more in the near future.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I would like to congratulate the FIA on their continued efforts to improve F1 helmet safety. It is very likely that Massa's chances of survival were significantly increased by safety improvements enforced this year.


The FIA has currently commissioned work for the development of a next generation 'super helmet' for Formula One racing, intended to improve safety standards still further, especially in conjunction with the now mandatory use of the HANS (Head And Neck Support) system.

http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/understanding_the_sport/5291.html

[Robinho]

just read the whole thread - feel like i should have stuck with the first couple of pages as we've not progressed far since then.

Firstly my thoughts are with Felipe and i hope he continues to make a good recovery.

secondly, i don't think i've seen one post on here that has said that F1 (or racing) is as safe as it can be and that no more should be done to progress safety.

i agree that perhaps F1 has something to learn in terms of medical response - i belive their facilities and personnel are second to none, but the time it takes to reach an accident can and should be improved.

i am however unsure where you stop with that - should the same standards be mandated for all racing series in the knowledge that most if all national and club series would stuggle or fail to manage the standards? why are F1 drivers more precious than your sunday afternoon mini clubman racer? the risks are obviously higher as the speeds increase but accidents happen in all series and people have been killed at lower levels more often than in F1 recently.

the sport has undergone a revolution in safety in the last 50+ years, and has had the longest fatality free period as a result - the tracks are safer, the cars are stronger, the drivers are better protected and better equipped - without this improvment i feel sure that Luciano Burti, Robert Kubica, Hiekki Kovaleninen and Felipe Massa and others would not be here today - however Felipes's accident has resulted in a very nasty, potentially lethal and career ending.

the circumstances around Massa's accident were bizarre, freak, likely unrepeatebale but not avoidable. Surtees accident was equally a freak set of circumstances which i think can only have been avoided if the wheels could not be parted from the car in any incident (probably impossible) or if his head was completely covered (no helmet could have saved him i fear).

the same with Massa, the only way of avoiding is to ensure nothing ever comes off another car (impossible, but obviously noone will design something to fail) or covering the driver. In massa's accident the helmet did a comendable job and undoubtedly saved his life.

cars can probably be designed to better protect the drivers from flying debris, but at the cost of visibility - the drivers are argubley already more likely to collide as they can't see alongside due to the head protection.

i'm not sure i'm a fan of the canopy idea - it seems to have as many drawbacks as it does advantages, and i think whilst we should obviously mitigate safety features to the best extent possible, there will always be a risk element in driving 22 cars at up to 200 mph in a constarined area.

i do think that every incident should be investigated, and learned from, as there will likely always be something happen that no-one ever thought possible. we should listen to the drivers here - if they start clamouring for canopies then maybe there needs to be a fundamental change - no-one wants to see a driver die in front of them, but i'm not convinced canopies are the answer - issues with wet weather, oil/dirt/flies, escape in the event of rollover, fire etc. if it makes things worse in more probably instances then i don't think its necessarily a good idea. some sort of rollover prtotection above the driver ending infront wold have saved surtees, but smaller items could still get through.

i don't think there is any perfect solution for safety, other than banning racing, but whjat about boxing, horse racing, rugby, football, American football, marathon running, skiiing - deaths have occured in the last few years in all of these events yet compeitiors willingly enter in droves.

F1 and motorsport safety should never, ever be taken for granted and can always be improved, but the improvements have to be the right ones, for the right reasons and not create their own safety issues.

apologies for the long and winding rant, but i think we've got a bit lost on here - there have been a couple of similar incidents recently, but factor in the years since Senna dies and the frequency is vastly reduced.

as for moto GP, it should be noted that a few of the top riders are starting to use the airbag suits to protect against neck injury and i've seen the air barriers used at more circuits also - to me that is a vastly more dangerous sport, however the accidents tend to be at slightly lower speeds (in the corners) and whilst there are a lot of boken bomes, happliy there are very few fatalities, and the steps are being taken to lessen the risks.

we can't take away the risks and keep the sport, we can try to minmise the risks, but the drivers are certainly happy to be there. i'm a big rallying fan, but i can't help think that the fatality rate there is of far greater concern.

[Valve Bounce]

"The only thing about danger that I really enjoy is ski-ing. Go down a black run too fast and you get the feeling of impending doom, but I know nothing will happen to me. That's stupid isn't it, but that's me."

It's a rush , Valve , isn't it ?
So , you do know why they do it , then , don't you ?

.For me, it is a rush, and an achievement in being able to carve a turn and come out faster, and stay up without being buried in snow or sliding on my bum on the hard slope. I love it.

But I would not watch ski-ing, especially the downhill comp, for the danger element. I just watch the turns, the sector times, and marvel at their skill. Same with F1. I know it's dangerous, that's inevitable. But that is not the attraction. For me, the skill factor is what excites me when I watch F1. As I said before, I'd be delighted if nobody will get killed in F1 in the future.

[woody2goody]

I think a lot of the broken bones in motorcycle racing come from:

a) being launched up and landing on the concrete/gravel from a high-side

and b) rolling along the ground after crashing and getting an arm or leg caught at a funny angle.

At least in F1 we don't have the drivers coming out of the cars anymore.

I'm also extremely happy that Felipe is awake for good now. :)

[anthonyvop]

Now this. First the spring is left lieing on the road, no conrre workers around to notice or do anything.


The spring had just fallen off of Barri's car and was bouncing down the the road. We are talking two or three seconds tops. There is no corner worker group anywhere that could have done anything.

[AJP]

The spring had just fallen off of Barri's car and was bouncing down the the road. We are talking two or three seconds tops. There is no corner worker group anywhere that could have done anything.

I think we are forgetting that this is a freakish accident.

When you have a freakish accident, freakish things happen that are out of everyones control and foresight.

I can see the points of people arguing about F1 safety, but man, are there some crazy things being said in this thread.

I wish Massa all the best in his recovery, and really hope that his eye sight has not been permanently damaged.

[Bagwan]

There is a general concensus , it seems , that the spring was bouncing down the road in the same direction as the car .

This is not correct .
I was sitting with a buddy , and both of us saw something fly at the car in the first watching , long before the replays .
It was definitely moving at a serious rate of speed , itself , coming towards Massa's car .
We both saw the blur as it came towards the car , and I asked him if he saw the same thing , a dark object with a lighter centre .

I though immediately that the object must have been thrown by the tire on the car ahead , because the velocity was so great .
The closing speed must have been pretty serious .

[ioan]

There is a general concensus , it seems , that the spring was bouncing down the road in the same direction as the car .

This is not correct .
I was sitting with a buddy , and both of us saw something fly at the car in the first watching , long before the replays .
It was definitely moving at a serious rate of speed , itself , coming towards Massa's car .
We both saw the blur as it came towards the car , and I asked him if he saw the same thing , a dark object with a lighter centre .

I though immediately that the object must have been thrown by the tire on the car ahead , because the velocity was so great .
The closing speed must have been pretty serious .

With all due respect it is impossible that the spring was bouncing with high speed in opposite direction to that where Felipe's Ferrari was heading.

It is also impossible for us to decide if the relative speed between the spring and the car was higher or smaller than the actual speed of the car, because of the POV we got and especially because we can't make the difference with the naked eye.

[Dave B]

With all due respect it is impossible that the spring was bouncing with high speed in opposite direction to that where Felipe's Ferrari was heading.

It is also impossible for us to decide if the relative speed between the spring and the car was higher or smaller than the actual speed of the car, because of the POV we got and especially because we can't make the difference with the naked eye.

Obviously junior-school physics says that an object leaving a moving car will continue to travel in the same direction until a force acts on it, that much we know. Watching the replay (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/8169365.stm) suggests that the air resistance on the spring was such that it slows down fairly quickly so that by the time Massa arrives the relative speed is extremely quick. Had the spring maintained momentum the closing speed would have been much less.

Don't forget that it wouldn't actually be impossible for the spring to have changed direction relative to Barrichello's car: contact with the track could have sent it bouncing off at any angle.

[leopard]

Wherever throwing stick travels in a elliptical path, it returns to its point of origin. There might need to change the shape of spring into boomerang...

http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/pressreleases/FIA/2009/Pages/fia_safety_debris.aspx

"Preliminary findings suggest the helmet being used by Felipe Massa may have played a significant role in limiting the injuries sustained. The FIA 8860 helmet, which took eight years to develop by the FIA and FIA Institute, provides increased protection in all key impact areas"

[ioan]

Obviously junior-school physics says that an object leaving a moving car will continue to travel in the same direction until a force acts on it, that much we know. Watching the replay (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/8169365.stm) suggests that the air resistance on the spring was such that it slows down fairly quickly so that by the time Massa arrives the relative speed is extremely quick. Had the spring maintained momentum the closing speed would have been much less.

Don't forget that it wouldn't actually be impossible for the spring to have changed direction relative to Barrichello's car: contact with the track could have sent it bouncing off at any angle.

That's exactly what I said.

[ioan]

http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/pressreleases/FIA/2009/Pages/fia_safety_debris.aspx

"Preliminary findings suggest the helmet being used by Felipe Massa may have played a significant role in limiting the injuries sustained. The FIA 8860 helmet, which took eight years to develop by the FIA and FIA Institute, provides increased protection in all key impact areas"

Obviously it needs to be improved. That spring tore of the visor attachement point and managed to brake in and damage the drivers skull

[ioan]

I'm sure Schuberth are trying to improve the design all the time, but being a designer myself I'm not sure what material would stop 1Kg of metal hitting it at 162mph and not sustain some damage. I think the most damage was caused when part of the spring penetrated Felipe's visor which is always going to be a weak area IMO.

It's not everything about the material used but rather about how it is used to achieve a certain result.

It's not about not sustaining any physical damage but rather about how to absorb the energy of the incoming object in a way that would make it less harmful to the driver.

Take a look at automotive front impact structures, they are not design to be as strong as possible and to remain intact after the impact, it exactly the opposite they do deform in a controlled way absorbing the energy of the impact in the most effective way.

[Sonic]

I know this isn't what you are proposing Ioan but I now have an image of a Skid lid with a huge crumple zone attatched to the chin! :D

[ioan]

Yeah I understand the criteria of what is needed and at present it is several layers of Carbon fibre and I would imagine some kind of "silicone gel shock foam"... The helmet itself stood up extremely well but the visor became detacted during the impact and the photo showing the cut above Felipe's eye, to me suggests that part of the spring went through the visor area. My opinion of course, but if anything needs sorting, I would suggest a thicker visor. At present they are 3 to 4mm and there must be a way of increasing this, but hey I'm no helmet engineer... :)

I don't think that the typical carbon fiber composites will do. Something with a metal matrix might be needed, probably in several layers and complimented with a material that has the right compression properties.

maybe having the visor cover a bigger surface than strictly the facial opening of the helmet would make a difference in similar cases.

[markabilly]

I don't think that the typical carbon fiber composites will do. Something with a metal matrix might be needed, probably in several layers and complimented with a material that has the right compression properties.

maybe having the visor cover a bigger surface than strictly the facial opening of the helmet would make a difference in similar cases.
There you go---That has always been the problem--impact resistance, using something like very hard steel will keep objects from penetrating, but that does nothing to absorb the g-forces imposed on the brain to keep it from bouncing off the walls of the skull from the sudden stop--

Soft gels and crush type materials do that, but do nothing to keep sharp and heavy objects from penetrating.

Unfortunately right now, visors do not seem to do a good job with either

I also have a response to those who say, well "the driver knew what he was doing--"

well Easy is right, I took incredible and very stupid risks as did Easy---the first road race, a guy fell and literally left a yard of skin on the pavement. They took him and dumped him in an ambulance (which was actually run owned by a funeral home as were many "ambulances" back then and when business was slow.....well, who knows whether going to "the home" rather than the hospital was all that correct a response, if u know what i mean)

and the races continued and when a couple of more who needed it, waited until it returned.......

read the Right Stuff, even when the plane blew up in mid air, the other pilots would say, well if I had been there i would have done xx,,,,,he screwed the pooch.....with an attitude it can not happen to me.....

Dale E refused to wear the noose, RB did not want to wear the noose......there were drivers who wanted to continue wearing their wrist watches, did not want to wear seat belts, did not want to wear full face helmets

There is only one real big reason.

I can tell you everything about the 1966 and 1967 F1 season. But when Clark died, 1968, 1969 and 70 are nothing, I paid no attention and lost complete interest--I do not remember who the wdc winners were for those years and must always look it up.

On that i am on same page as valve Bounce......

So you do it for the good of the sport, to keep it from going back to where it was.....so REAL fans do not say well good bye, so people not being smart enough to be safe as they should be, do not hurt themselves..

.....NEVERTHELESS, in 1968 and 1969, I continued with my racing activities quite unabated..but i did get a cheap leather jacket and a better helmet with a bubble on front.....

because I was tired of having dirt in my eyes keeping me from seeing good all the time and bugs in my teeth, and the leather made me look like James Dean. :D

[markabilly]

.....NEVERTHELESS, in 1968 and 1969, I continued with my racing activities quite unabated..but i did get a cheap leather jacket and a better helmet with a bubble on front.....

because I was tired of having dirt in my eyes keeping me from seeing good all the time and bugs in my teeth, and the leather made me look like James Dean. :D
in very late 1970, without going to medical school I was doing that which, if reports are right about Rindt dying from a ruptured jugular vein because he did not wear his crotch portion of his seat belt, I was successfully doing that which the Monza med types could not do, in conditions far worse than those at Monza. Such a relatively simple procedure, even if it had been the cartoid artery. And Traches? far, far easier. Far tougher were sucking chest wounds and arteries cut inside the upper leg---nevertheless the heimlich valve use still saved many lives---even in the hands of untrained soldiers, but the very upper leg wounds were too often really tragic ---unlike tv shows

[race_director]

Guys


F1 safety standards is among the best i believe so. the car itself is so strong . after seeing kubica, ralf, massa . mika crash they all have came through 100% fine.

well in case of Massa . that really was unlucky. but a 800 gm thing doing such a damage to the person . i was wondering. we drive motor bikes on road. imaging if some thing gets fallen from the vehicle ahead and hitting our helmet.

we even had a drain cover fly under montoya's car a couple of years. in brazil i guess


Anyway. F1 safety standard's have been the best IMO. well in case of VISOR. we need them to be of bulletproof i guess.


and case for guys who have been shouting about the time it takes for the doctor to arrive in F1. compared to Indy Nascar in US. well we are normal racing fan. and watch normal racing compared to the supernatural geeks, who watch a supernatural race in which the supernatural Medic sit's facing left and reaches the spot within 15-20 sec's

Actually was trying indy and nascar racing on PC. in some places like richmond it them 25-30 sec a lap .



ACTUALLY I TRIED AT HOME. IT TAKES ME AROUND 40-50 SECS TO COME AROUND MY FRONT HALL . :)

[CNR]

time for f1 safety overhaul
this time it was a GP2 race

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5iTxNEWpVdAVw4pCiZGckq_I6qU0Q
Mechanic in induced coma following accident at GP2 race

Rossi suffered a head injury after Ricardo Teixeira's car caught on a cable as he accelerated through the pit lane. The cable caught on a wheel gun, which crashed down on Rossi's head

Q: is it time to reduce the speed in pit lane

[ioan]

Poor guy. Hopefully he'll be alright.
Time for cordless wheel guns maybe. I always wondered what might happen if a team forgets to take their stuff away when a neighbor team's car comes into the pits, with all those wheel gun hoses t would be a massacre in the pits.

[call_me_andrew]

Battery powered impact wrenches have been around for years. They're just not seen in racing becuase they're slower than pneumatic wrenches and they don't make that cool noise.

But the easier solution would just be to ban those air hose gantries.

[race_director]

why not have a device which can warn driver's if there is something flying straight into them . i remember this thing for the armagaddon movie. when the ship's enters the tail of the commit with debries flying around. the call it some radar

[ioan]

why not have a device which can warn driver's if there is something flying straight into them . i remember this thing for the armagaddon movie. when the ship's enters the tail of the commit with debries flying around. the call it some radar

I better not answer this one.

[ioan]

Or develop a 'force field system' to surround the front of the car maybe? It could be endorsed by Bruce Willis and the team could get unlimited free white vests for a year. It is 2009 afterall so you would think the cars would be running without wheels by now wouldn't you? They should be floating around using nano technology reducing friction, and limiting the number of parts falling off anyway. I need a lie down .. :)

:D ;)

[BobbyC]

Remember that in North American motorsport, it's required that a medic be on hand in every crucial zone. They are often put in safety trucks along with the rescue team. The NHRA Safety Safari is the most notable organisation -- for road course events at O'Reilly Raceway Park (club racing notably), the NHRA (which owns the track) has them parked in various positions. Each of them is equipped with a paramedic. That's why in NA, safety vehicles are almost always pickup trucks. The IRL requires paramedic or firefighter certification for all safety teams, and there must be a mix of both types in each truck.

So when an Emergency Medical Technician is in every truck, and rolling upon each incident, that person can go to the driver first.

[SGWilko]

Just saw Massa's crash--SCARY very
Quite by accident while looking for a live feed of motogp, I ended up seeing H Surtees accident, and thought the actual impact with the tire might not be so bad, but the straight on crash with the barrier was too much
Then others pointed out the wheel assempbly and all.

Anyway, now this.


Everyone can look down their noses at american racing, but for years I have been very impressed with corner workers and their responsiveness to road debris and safety---Having worked corners at a few amatuer races, I can tell you that there is an element of danger working those postions.

Even more so is the medical response. AMAZING. And doing what they do, on the track while cars are buzzing by, WELL they do not get enough credit.

Then we have F1, el supremo, stupid and double stupid.

I was at Indy F1 when RS had his big crash on the last corner, and the stupid wait while the ole fart of a doctor got around to leaving the pits and driving the whole track to get there. And when he arrived, he got his little medical kit out.

WOW.
Lucky he did not have a serious bleeder or he would have been dead long before the doc got there. Lucky there was no fire. Lucky there was some american med help that was finally permitted to arrive.

Now this. First the spring is left lieing on the road, no conrre workers around to notice or do anything.

Massa in the tire wall.
Corner workers lollogaging over to check things out. Yawn, looks like we might need a little help. Well maybe. Finally one gets close enough to actually look at him.

Then after however the hell long, comes the stupid little mercedes car with its doc, who gets out and walks over.

well maybe we need an ambulance....so after however long, here comes an ambulance....so let us not get into much of a hurry, what is the big RUSH??

Well, okay, for example, if Massa had had his cartoid artery cut by a piece of carbon fiber---A real possiblilty in a crash like that, he could have easily bled to death before one qualified medical person started looking at him. Or a fire? or ???????

I hope he is fine, but with head injuries, it can be sometime before the real injury becomes apparent, people walk around and act just fine, and then....and as a long time fan of Mark Donohue, hope Massa gets better care in "hungary" than what Mark recieved

or Ronnie Peterson or Jochen Rindt (who did have his artery cut and bled to death while unqualified yoyos screwed around, a completely unnecessary death as good med personnel have been saving people with such injuries when given the opportunity for years, remember the hospital scene in Pearl Harbor?) All three died because of incompetent medical response and care.

So much for el surpremeo corner workers and medical care. They need to take a good look at how it is done in the USA

Oh dear, you been drinking your own juice? I think Mika Hakkinen owes his life to F1 medical team..........

[SGWilko]

Yes there is, in my opinion, and that is the argument — no, not the argument, the fact — that it is impossible to remove every potential element of risk. I'm sure some unimaginative person on here will suggest that this means I want to see people dying, but nothing could be further from the truth. I'm simply stating that there is no way, as with every danger in life, that any possible form of fatal accident in F1 can be prevented from happening.

Furthermore, is anyone else as irritated by the (inevitable, I know) comparisons being made, and not just by the media but also the likes of Rubens Barrichello, between the Massa accident and the crash that killed Henry Surtees? As far as I can work out, any similarities are utterly, and awfully, coincidental. I don't think these two freak accidents occurring within a week of each other needs to serve as a 'wake-up call'. Had the two incidents been identical, then yes, there would probably be a wider message, but despite the fact that both involved a driver being hit on the head by a loose object I cannot see how they are linked. Others have stated, surely correctly, that it is impossible to effectively prevent wheels coming off open-wheeled cars. I would suggest that it is also impossible to prevent all other potentially damaging objects coming off open-wheeled cars.

Hold on a sec. Both incidents involved;

airborne debris,

from a car ahead,

that, despite the 100000:1 chance hits the following driver in the head,

in an open wheel, open top formula,

that has serious implications for the health - terminal in one case....

and you say no similarity.

I don't know what to say, I've heard it all now. :down:

[ioan]

Hold on a sec. Both incidents involved;

airborne debris,

from a car ahead,

that, despite the 100000:1 chance hits the following driver in the head,

in an open wheel, open top formula,

that has serious implications for the health - terminal in one case....

and you say no similarity.

I don't know what to say, I've heard it all now. :down:

Well spotted.
BTW where were you?

[SGWilko]

Well spotted.
BTW where were you?

For the Hungary GP?

I was on Holy Island, trapsing around Lindisfarne Castle on a miserably wet afternoon. We had been out on the Saturday at the Border Union Show in Scotland as we were on holiday. Caught the last few moments of qualifying on return to our cottage. Wasn't until I logged on to amazingly poor mobile coverage and looked at Autosport that I learned of Massa's deepening troubles.

Caught second half of the race on MW radio - BBC Five Live, while my Mother and Father in law had an argument!!!

[Mark]

I was on Holy Island, trapsing around Lindisfarne Castle on a miserably wet afternoon.

It always seems to rain whenever I go there!

[BeansBeansBeans]

Hold on a sec. Both incidents involved;

airborne debris,

from a car ahead,

that, despite the 100000:1 chance hits the following driver in the head,

in an open wheel, open top formula,

that has serious implications for the health - terminal in one case....

and you say no similarity.

I don't know what to say, I've heard it all now. :down:

Ben said that all similarities were simply coincidental. Not that there were no similarities.

[SGWilko]

Mika was lucky

I bet he felt real lucky that day....

Come on everyone. Take a look at aircraft - everyone knows that in all but the rarest of cases, if it crashes, you are going to die. People still fly.

Are these deaths all in vain?

A little grasp of perspective is needed here. The sport involves high speeds, and is, by its very definition DANGEROUS.

It will continue to be so, and folks will still race and folks will still watch.

Was Massa lucky, or did his safety equipment simply do its job?

Take surtees for example - if you got a medical team to him in .5 of a nanosecond, would they have been able revive him?

Lets all calm down and just take a step back, and breathe a little....

[SGWilko]

All too true and very sad. But none of the racers died because they were waiting on somebody to show up,

Hmmmm, is that a pattern I see forming?

So, who lost their life in F1 race due to inadequate medical response?

Senna - well, I don't think living the rest of your life by artifical means constitutes a life...

So, anyone?

Answers.

I am not anti safety here guys, I just have a dose of realism...

[DexDexter]

Hmmmm, is that a pattern I see forming?

So, who lost their life in F1 race due to inadequate medical response?

Senna - well, I don't think living the rest of your life by artifical means constitutes a life...

So, anyone?

Answers.

I am not anti safety here guys, I just have a dose of realism...

Ronnie Peterson 1978, but the hospital was to blame for that.

Elio De Angelis 1986, but that was a test.

So in effect nobody.

[SGWilko]

This isn't at all a simple issue , and I have to admit that I am of two minds here .
Firstly , I am very worried for Felipe . I hope he recovers soon .
He took a hit that was not anyone's fault .
A tiny jerk of the wheel one way or the other , and he could have either died instantly or missed the moment of impact entirely .

That he was hit by this object at such speed , and sustained such a limitted injury , is a testament to the safety equipment already in use . Certainly , they will learn from the data acquired here , and improve the strength in that area of the helmet , limitting further the damage that could occur in a similar event .
That's all simple and logical .
Accident occurs -inquest suggests changes as a result .
But , it's not that simple .

A few years ago , I watched a documentary on the improvements that have been made to road safety over the history of the car .
One designer (responsible for inventing the air-bag , I believe) said that he felt he was likely responsible for more deaths as a result of his work in safety than if he had not designed the items he made at all .
He had noted that throughout his career , which had been long , and fruitful , the cars were going much faster , and were being crashed by people driving much farther beyond thier capabilities .

ABS was one that he noted to be very bad , in terms of giving the less experienced and/or poor driver a sense of more control , inciting them to over-drive the car , getting them in worse trouble than if they had feared locking the brakes .

His pet peeve , and the central reason for far too many accidents is "tail-gating" , following the car ahead too closely to be able to react .
His suggestion , not completely serious , of course , but "sharp" , to make a point , was to mount a six inch stilletto blade in the very centre of the steering wheel . This was the only way to remind people that the tail-gating action was dangerous .


I guess my point in all of that is to say that , though I am currently very worried about a driver in hospital presently , it is , in part , that danger which draws me to hold these racers in reverence .
The drivers we have lost through the years are a testament to the bravery of all those who have raced or still do .

It has come to a point here , where the only part of the body that is exposed in any way , is the face .
In the past few years , we have seen the cockpit sides raised , and , though it was done to protect the head , we have also seen the effect of reduced vision , causing accidents . Those accidents when wheels touch , can flip cars , and make it more necessary to have raised cockpit sides .
So , it's not all that simple .

Obscure the vision in any way , and I believe you will cause more trouble than you mitigate .


In a way , Felipe has done us a favour here , and thankfully didn't have to die to get the message through .
Racing is dangerous .
And , he is one of a group of gladiators who risk life , itself , to be the fastest .
Whether a part large or small of the reason one watches racing , the bravery of the driver is a part of why we watch .
And , it's a part of why they race , themselves , showing they can walk closer to the edge . The finest race craft sits on the edge of disaster .

Baggy, if there were a post scoring system, I would have given you 11/10 for that. :up:

I would like to add that, as the cars and tracks etc get safer, the drivers WILL take more risks. That is a fact of human nature.

[Garry Walker]

why not have a device which can warn driver's if there is something flying straight into them . i remember this thing for the armagaddon movie. when the ship's enters the tail of the commit with debries flying around. the call it some radar

Wow. When can we congradulate you on your nobel prize?

[DexDexter]

Wow. When can we congradulate you on your nobel prize?

Maybe the cars should have missiles on board so they could destroy the object flying around before impact: :D

[SGWilko]

Ronnie Peterson 1978, but the hospital was to blame for that.

Elio De Angelis 1986, but that was a test.

So in effect nobody.

Perhaps I should have said 'modern' F1. As in, since rapid response was first introduced to F1 by Professor Fart and BCE.

[SGWilko]

Maybe the cars should have missiles on board so they could destroy the object flying around before impact: :D

I've tried to stop myself posting this, but I wont listen to me.....

Schumi would have blown a competitor off the road if that were available.

Sorry.

[SGWilko]

It always seems to rain whenever I go there!

Isn't that the reason for it being an island??? :laugh:

[BDunnell]

Hold on a sec. Both incidents involved;

airborne debris,

from a car ahead,

that, despite the 100000:1 chance hits the following driver in the head,

in an open wheel, open top formula,

that has serious implications for the health - terminal in one case....

and you say no similarity.

I don't know what to say, I've heard it all now. :down:

What is the similarity other than 'things falling off cars'? Given the enormous differences between the incidents, that isn't enough to go on in terms of coming up with a response. And, as has been pointed out, the incidents were utterly coincidental, as was the fact that they occurred within a week of each other.

[rkalevich]

If Alex Zanardi had his accident in a F1 race he would not be with us today

[Anubis]

If Alex Zanardi had his accident in a F1 race he would not be with us today

He quite possibly wouldn't have been with us to even have that crash had he been in something other than an F1 car at Spa 1993. Swings and roundabouts.

[markabilly]

If Alex Zanardi had his accident in a F1 race he would not be with us today
Bingo

And let us get all excited that some ole doc managed to do that for Mika which paramedics routinely perform.....and I performed more difficult procedures with less training in a far more difficult environment---read the thread-----

if RS at Indy had the same problem at Indy, he would have be dead before they got to him.

If a crash like Zanardi's occurs in f1, and they respond like they did to RS, Mika or Massa, that driver will be dead.

Simple.

And such nonsense to the contrary is so stupid, from someone who obviously has not read the entire thread and is just trolling, and while arm chair quarterbacking while toying with people's lives, by someone who has never put their butt on the line while motor racing or saving lives (and whose nationality and thought process is such they can not keep mass murdering terrorists locked up where they belong and demonstrating why great britain has become the laughing stock of the world), I have no further response to anything such as wilko's posts as they are unworthy of further comment, :down:

[SGWilko]

Bingo

And let us get all excited that some ole doc managed to do that for Mika which paramedics routinely perform.....and I performed more difficult procedures with less training in a far more difficult environment---read the thread-----

if RS at Indy had the same problem at Indy, he would have be dead before they got to him.

If a crash like Zanardi's occurs in f1, and they respond like they did to RS, Mika or Massa, that driver will be dead.

Simple.

And such nonsense to the contrary is so stupid, from someone who obviously has not read the entire thread and is just trolling, and while arm chair quarterbacking while toying with people's lives, by someone who has never put their butt on the line while motor racing or saving lives (and whose nationality and thought process is such they can not keep mass murdering terrorists locked up where they belong and demonstrating why great britain has become the laughing stock of the world), I have no further response to anything such as wilko's posts as they are unworthy of further comment, :down:

So, you don't agree that, as F1 cars get safer, so drivers won't take more risks?
You don't think Schumacher would have been banging into the likes of Hill or Villeneuve
If he had no seatbelts, monocoque, safety cell, medical air, removeable seat etc?

Not to mention your blatant attacks and slurs and name calling of a well respected doctor
Who, for no personal gain, had to fight, beg, borrow to get, sometimes even the most basic, medical
Facilities at all tracks? I think it is very naïve.
So you think that, a driver taking silly risks and posibbly dies (theoretical here) then some
Keyboard tapping upstart comes along and brands the medical team hopeless because they
Were 5 seconds or whatever late to save the guys life?
As I said before, we all need to regain the grasp on reality.

[BDunnell]

Bingo

And let us get all excited that some ole doc managed to do that for Mika which paramedics routinely perform.....and I performed more difficult procedures with less training in a far more difficult environment---read the thread-----

if RS at Indy had the same problem at Indy, he would have be dead before they got to him.

If a crash like Zanardi's occurs in f1, and they respond like they did to RS, Mika or Massa, that driver will be dead.

Simple.

And such nonsense to the contrary is so stupid, from someone who obviously has not read the entire thread and is just trolling, and while arm chair quarterbacking while toying with people's lives, by someone who has never put their butt on the line while motor racing or saving lives (and whose nationality and thought process is such they can not keep mass murdering terrorists locked up where they belong and demonstrating why great britain has become the laughing stock of the world), I have no further response to anything such as wilko's posts as they are unworthy of further comment, :down:

Whereas your posts, of course, offer unmissably insightful analysis every time...

[ArrowsFA1]

Elio De Angelis 1986, but that was a test.
Being a test was no excuse. Elio's death was shocking and shameful.

The marshalling shambles that followed was nothing short of a scandal, as Elio remained trapped upside down in the cockpit for as long as 10 minutes whilst the car started to slowly catch fire. The first person in attandance was Alan Jones, who later commented that "There was nothing I could do, I just stood there with my hands in the air. Bloody dreadful". Jones was soon joined by fellow F1 drivers Alain Prost and Nigel Mansell as they attempted to right the car, but found that they could not get near it due to the heat and crackling. Eventually they were joined by a marshal wearing nothing but shorts and a tee shirt as he attempted to put the fire out. However, as Alan Jones noted "most of the powder went into the cockpit rather than on the engine fire. Apart from anything else, the powder would have done Elio no good...".

After around 10 mins trapped inside the car, Elio was finally extracted. However, as the circuit had no helicopter another 30 mins elapsed before one could be flown in from nearby Marseille and Elio finally could get taken to nearby Marseille hospital.
http://www.geocities.com/chasey_uk/may14.htm

Elio's only injuries were a broken collar bone and light burns to his back.

[SGWilko]

and I performed more difficult procedures with less training in a far more difficult environment

Well, I am impressed. And if the procedures you were not properly trained for caused death - you'd be sued for gazillions, and probably serve a custodial sentence for malpractice, negligence etc etc etc.

As to placing medics here there and everywhere, lest we not forget that on two seperate occasions a marshall was killed at the trackside by flying debris. Why would any sane minded individual want to risk further deaths just so they can have a better chance of getting to a driver a few seconds quicker.

Balance of probabilities, assessment of risk and all that???

[SGWilko]

Being a test was no excuse. Elio's death was shocking and shameful.

http://www.geocities.com/chasey_uk/may14.htm

Elio's only injuries were a broken collar bone and light burns to his back.

Thanks Arrows. I recall some info in the press recently about the GPDA unhappy still at the level of medical support etc at some of the test tracks - might have been a year ago now, time flies these days....

[BDunnell]

Well, I am impressed. And if the procedures you were not properly trained for caused death - you'd be sued for gazillions, and probably serve a custodial sentence for malpractice, negligence etc etc etc.

As to placing medics here there and everywhere, lest we not forget that on two seperate occasions a marshall was killed at the trackside by flying debris. Why would any sane minded individual want to risk further deaths just so they can have a better chance of getting to a driver a few seconds quicker.

Balance of probabilities, assessment of risk and all that???

The points you raise in your last sentence there are key. As I have said many times, we cannot seek to eliminate every potential risk from our lives, and this includes motorsport. I consider it very unfortunate that there are apparently people who feel that those of us who hold this view enjoy seeing people being hurt or killed in the course of their participation. Nothing could be further from the truth.

[SGWilko]

The points you raise in your last sentence there are key. As I have said many times, we cannot seek to eliminate every potential risk from our lives, and this includes motorsport. I consider it very unfortunate that there are apparently people who feel that those of us who hold this view enjoy seeing people being hurt or killed in the course of their participation. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Indeed. Now, equate this to the worlds roads;

How many serious accidents happen every day. How quickly are the emergency services expected to respond? 8 minutes.

This, remember is people conducting their lives, not being paid millions to drive one of the safest high performance sports vehicles.

Again, let us just grasp reality.

[markabilly]

Perhaps I should have said 'modern' F1. As in, since rapid response was first introduced to F1 by Professor Fart and BCE.
Still sprewing forth ignorance...you mean the tepid imitation of safety response first introduced to the world at american racing series..... :rolleyes:




[quote]So, you don't agree that, as F1 cars get safer, so drivers won't take more risks?

they were taking incredible risks as i did and as easy drifter did when racing many years ago, cars are much safer now because of seatbelts etc---something which as as an arm chair expert, you would know nothing about, becuase you never did actually race in such conditions....




You don't think Schumacher would have been banging into the likes of Hill or Villeneuve
If he had no seatbelts, monocoque, safety cell, medical air, removeable seat etc?


all of which was borrowed, often years later from american racing




Not to mention your blatant attacks and slurs and name calling of a well respected doctor
Who, for no personal gain, had to fight, beg, borrow to get, sometimes even the most basic, medical
Facilities at all tracks? I think it is very naïve.


the fact that the old fool had to beg, says it all about the greed of maxie and bernie--again you may have read, but clearly understand nothing




So you think that, a driver taking silly risks and posibbly dies (theoretical here) then some
Keyboard tapping upstart comes along and brands the medical team hopeless because they
Were 5 seconds or whatever late to save the guys life?
As I said before, we all need to regain the grasp on reality.


You were not there when RS crashed at Indy, while the minutes went by at Indy, while an ambulance sat yards away from being immediately on the scene and if it had been nascar or IRL (or even old champ car), it along with a proper crash crew would have been immediately on the scene


So, you don't agree that, as F1 cars get safer, so drivers won't take more risks?
You don't think Schumacher would have been banging into the likes of Hill or Villeneuve
If he had no seatbelts, monocoque, safety cell, medical air, removeable seat etc?


As I said before, we all need to regain the grasp on reality.

more like you need to grasp the ignorance of what you write







Well, I am impressed. And if the procedures you were not properly trained for caused death - you'd be sued for gazillions, and probably serve a custodial sentence for malpractice, negligence etc etc etc.

As to placing medics here there and everywhere, lest we not forget that on two seperate occasions a marshall was killed at the trackside by flying debris. Why would any sane minded individual want to risk further deaths just so they can have a better chance of getting to a driver a few seconds quicker.

Balance of probabilities, assessment of risk and all that???

No, it was their guts being ripped out--the rest of your post is as about as ignorant as everything else you have posted here. Go read the thread from top to bottom again....

I guess all those crews at amercian racing series must be totally insane....... :angel:


Indeed. Now, equate this to the worlds roads;

How many serious accidents happen every day. How quickly are the emergency services expected to respond? 8 minutes.

This, remember is people conducting their lives, not being paid millions to drive one of the safest high performance sports vehicles.

Again, let us just grasp reality.

let me think, are race tracks like regular roads, with speed limits stop signs .....and so forth....well duh, there goes that sprewing once again :rolleyes:

8 minutes???? that was about how long it took for RS recieved meaningful medical attention, at a race track, where serious accidents should be expected to occur....


I think if you look at the amount of deaths in F1 compared to other racing series, this does the medical services justice IMO... Either that or the fact that the engineering in F1 regarding safety is supreme in comparison.
I also think with the shambles regarding Iraq and Afganistan over the past 8 years, Great Britain can only really claim number 2 in the laughing stock stakes... ;) [/quote:2rfgqyex]


The cars are well engineered, having borrowed that safety engineering from american racing

No, the whimps still claim number one......as I am not sure beyond the symbolism why GB even bothered....oh I get it, a bunch of brits died in those towers along with a bunch in Scotland....all those deaths still did not stop the top dog cowards from letting the killer go home free to do whatever....cowardly and weak moves supported by some people on this forum

Bottom line--speaking of a return to ''reality"---for what is suppose to be the el supremo racing series, safety response is on the level of a bunch of monkeys trying to screw a football, a proverbial chinese fire drill, on par with the three stooges... :down:

[Colin_Harvey]

The cars are well engineered, having borrowed that safety engineering from american racing

Which is why serious injury in F1 is (fortunately) rare, yet in Indycar Will Power's broken back on a road course where the average lap speed is slower than any F1 track except Monaco, is just the latest in a long line of injuries.

Whilst you may argue that Zanardi would have been dead had he had his crash in F1, similarly, Robert Kubica would probably have been dead had his crash at Montreal in 2007 been in an Indycar race.

[DexDexter]

Still sprewing forth ignorance...you mean the tepid imitation of safety response first introduced to the world at american racing series..... :rolleyes:






they were taking incredible risks as i did and as easy drifter did when racing many years ago, cars are much safer now because of seatbelts etc---something which as as an arm chair expert, you would know nothing about, becuase you never did actually race in such conditions....




all of which was borrowed, often years later from american racing




the fact that the old fool had to beg, says it all about the greed of maxie and bernie--again you may have read, but clearly understand nothing




You were not there when RS crashed at Indy, while the minutes went by at Indy, while an ambulance sat yards away from being immediately on the scene and if it had been nascar or IRL (or even old champ car), it along with a proper crash crew would have been immediately on the scene


So, you don't agree that, as F1 cars get safer, so drivers won't take more risks?
You don't think Schumacher would have been banging into the likes of Hill or Villeneuve
If he had no seatbelts, monocoque, safety cell, medical air, removeable seat etc?



more like you need to grasp the ignorance of what you write








No, it was their guts being ripped out--the rest of your post is as about as ignorant as everything else you have posted here. Go read the thread from top to bottom again....

I guess all those crews at amercian racing series must be totally insane....... :angel:



let me think, are race tracks like regular roads, with speed limits stop signs .....and so forth....well duh, there goes that sprewing once again :rolleyes:

8 minutes???? that was about how long it took for RS recieved meaningful medical attention, at a race track, where serious accidents should be expected to occur....




The cars are well engineered, having borrowed that safety engineering from american racing

No, the whimps still claim number one......as I am not sure beyond the symbolism why GB even bothered....oh I get it, a bunch of brits died in those towers along with a bunch in Scotland....all those deaths still did not stop the top dog cowards from letting the killer go home free to do whatever....cowardly and weak moves supported by some people on this forum

Bottom line--speaking of a return to ''reality"---for what is suppose to be the el supremo racing series, safety response is on the level of a bunch of monkeys trying to screw a football, a proverbial chinese fire drill, on par with the three stooges... :down:

Talking about America, a rapid safety response or other measures are worthless if you race on circuits where armco barriers are dangerously low, run-off areas are non-existent or dangerous and the circuits are not truly closed. Road America is a good example, the famous carousel is a place where a car that goes airborne can easily fly off the circuit into the trees. Watkings Glen is another example. Those type of circuits would never be used in F1 for safety reasons. Should F1 borrow also the circuit design from the US?

[SGWilko]

the fact that the old fool had to beg, says it all about the greed of maxie and bernie--again you may have read, but clearly understand nothing
:

As a matter of interest, I think you will find that Bernie was extremely instrumental in assisting Sid Watkins wherever possible.

[SGWilko]

8 minutes???? that was about how long it took for RS recieved meaningful medical attention,

I got to 80 seconds counting while watching the footage on YouTube. Agreed however that that was unacceptable. But, some of the other drivers were still blasting past.... can you imagine what COULD happen there???????

Also, was Ralph in radio contact with the team, and if so was this relayed to the medical centre?


at a race track, where serious accidents should be expected to occur....

Does anyone expect an accident to occur - I hope not. What you mean perhaps is that the likelihood of an accident is higher at certain tracks than other. But not expected, that's bordering on morbid isn't it....

[markabilly]

I got to 80 seconds counting while watching the footage on YouTube. Agreed however that that was unacceptable. But, some of the other drivers were still blasting past.... can you imagine what COULD happen there???????

Also, was Ralph in radio contact with the team, and if so was this relayed to the medical centre?



Does anyone expect an accident to occur - I hope not. What you mean perhaps is that the likelihood of an accident is higher at certain tracks than other. But not expected, that's bordering on morbid isn't it....
u tube is not accurate-I was there-
Cars going by? You mean like the Zanardi crash, where responding in microseconds saved his life while the cars were going by

while there are many many safety issues with american tracks, the IRL, yes indeed, the crummy ole IRL, puts f1 in the shade, out of the competition and makes f1 look like backass, slow hillbillies----american racing been doing that for years, despite lacking the riches and massive spending of F1

Morbid? Oh yeah, let us not be morbid, and just do away with all ambulances and so forth........oh yeah, how well i remember Rindt dying from a cut artery, something I could have stopped.....or ronnie peterson dying from a broken leg....a broken leg!!!!!! or mark donhue, or ratenzerberger from lack of a hans device

[SGWilko]

u tube is not accurate

Well, it was the ITV F1 footage, no ads or breaks. Maybe the innacuracy is 10 or 20 seconds either way. But it may not have been the medical car that I saw so I wont argue.

What injuries did RS suffer. Was he in radio contact? These things I don't know because I was not there.

[DexDexter]

u tube is not accurate-I was there-
Cars going by? You mean like the Zanardi crash, where responding in microseconds saved his life while the cars were going by

while there are many many safety issues with american tracks, the IRL, yes indeed, the crummy ole IRL, puts f1 in the shade, out of the competition and makes f1 look like backass, slow hillbillies----american racing been doing that for years, despite lacking the riches and massive spending of F1

Morbid? Oh yeah, let us not be morbid, and just do away with all ambulances and so forth........oh yeah, how well i remember Rindt dying from a cut artery, something I could have stopped.....or ronnie peterson dying from a broken leg....a broken leg!!!!!! or mark donhue, or ratenzerberger from lack of a hans device

It's no use arguing with a person who believes in the superiority of Americans in everything.

[markabilly]

I don't think this deluded tripe needs much of a comment. This isn't a political forum and I don't think the majority of the UK agree with the release of that bomber scumbag. Calling us whimps is just a weak way of trying to get some kind of response IMO, and if you expect any of your posts to be taken seriously in the future, you've let yourself down with this rubbish. If your arguement has run out of steam mate its best to give up. :)

I expect nothing except the same ole tripe from you, given your constant whining on this thread and desire to defend ole fart waktins, he being of british heritage along with the rest of them screwing around with safety response, it is all of the same composition and born from the same lack of backbone and lack of leadership that marked GB once they dumped Winston Churchill.

Obviously you have nothing new to say and know nothing of the issue of safety response or medical services.

[SGWilko]

I expect nothing except the same ole tripe from you, given your constant whining on this thread and desire to defend ole fart waktins, he being of british heritage along with the rest of them screwing around with safety response, it is all of the same composition and born from the same lack of backbone and lack of leadership that marked GB once they dumped Winston Churchill.

Obviously you have nothing new to say and know nothing of the issue of safety response or medical services.

Markabilly, have you lost the plot? You are starting to ramble about political leadership in the UK on an F1 forum??

Was Winston involved in F1 at all?

[markabilly]

Well, it was the ITV F1 footage, no ads or breaks. Maybe the innacuracy is 10 or 20 seconds either way. But it may not have been the medical car that I saw so I wont argue.

What injuries did RS suffer. Was he in radio contact? These things I don't know because I was not there.
Radio contact???

:crazy: :rotflmao:

I saw a man with one leg blown off at the knee and the other leg shattered ask for help in standing up and was pissed because no one would help him until the poor guy realized the hand he thought he was holding up for help, was not there anymore...

[SGWilko]

Radio contact???

:crazy: :rotflmao:

I saw a man with one leg blown off at the knee and the other leg shattered ask for help in standing up and was pissed because no one would help him until the poor guy realized the hand he thought he was holding up for help, was not there anymore...

That is your answer to the question is it?

[ArrowsFA1]

while there are many many safety issues with american tracks, the IRL, yes indeed, the crummy ole IRL, puts f1 in the shade, out of the competition and makes f1 look like backass, slow hillbillies----american racing been doing that for years, despite lacking the riches and massive spending of F1
Doesn't the layout of an oval help the speed of response when it comes to safety. The whole track can be seen from one position. Full course cautions can be thrown in an instant, with safety teams being able to reach an incident far quicker than is possible on a road course.


oh yeah, how well i remember Rindt dying from a cut artery, something I could have stopped.....or ronnie peterson dying from a broken leg....a broken leg!!!!!! or mark donhue, or ratenzerberger from lack of a hans device
IIRC the details of both Rindt and Peterson's injuries were rather more serious than you imply. Rindt did not fit the crotch straps of his safety belt and this was a major factor in his death. Ronnie Peterson suffered multiple fractures of both legs, but died due to complications following an operation.

Certainly the Hans device might have saved a number of lives before it was made mandatory, but it wasn't available to Mark Donohue, and was not used widely anywhere at the time of Roland Ratzenberger's accident. F1 introduced Hans in 2001, as did CART (for ovals) and NASCAR.

[SGWilko]

Rindt did not fit the crotch straps of his safety belt and this was a major factor in his death.

Is it fair, given this knowledge, that we lambast the medical care, when, in fact, the driver knew the additional risk, but took it anyway....?

[ArrowsFA1]

Is it fair, given this knowledge, that we lambast the medical care, when, in fact, the driver knew the additional risk, but took it anyway....?
Indeed. Dale Earnhardt Sr described Hans as "that damn noose" and did not wear it, and yet it was his accident at Daytona in 2001 that did much to advance the merits of the device among rulemakers and drivers.

[Dave B]

I expect nothing except the same ole tripe from you, given your constant whining on this thread and desire to defend ole fart waktins, he being of british heritage along with the rest of them screwing around with safety response, it is all of the same composition and born from the same lack of backbone and lack of leadership that marked GB once they dumped Winston Churchill.

Obviously you have nothing new to say and know nothing of the issue of safety response or medical services.

:dozey:

I've heard of reductio ad Hitlerum but that's the first time I've heard Churchill used as an argument. Oh yes yes yes...

[SGWilko]

:dozey:

I've heard of reductio ad Hitlerum but that's the first time I've heard Churchill used as an argument. Oh yes yes yes...

Are YOU paying too much for your car insurance......?

Oooooohhhhhhhhhh yes!