Should f1 run coupes?

[Daniel]

How? If as you say the coupes are also designed to disintegrate on impact.......

Well as it stands now, a small wheel to wheel touch can send a car off the road and then wheels start coming off, bodywork is far more robust than suspension arms however and LMP's are more able than F1 cars to swap paint and not end up in the wall

[SGWilko]

Ummm, I think you'll find that the changes in safety make it safer for all cars to race there, I don't see how the changes in safety are just for open cockpit open wheel cars.

Is it safe to fly Daniel? Could adding parachutes for passengers to use make it safer?

[SGWilko]

Well as it stands now, a small wheel to wheel touch can send a car off the road and then wheels start coming off, bodywork is far more robust than suspension arms however and LMP's are more able than F1 cars to swap paint and not end up in the wall

A puncture or failed wing can send a car off the road - they still use pneumatic tyres.....

[Daniel]

A puncture or failed wing can send a car off the road - they still use pneumatic tyres.....

Brings up an interesting point. Would you say that a low profile (as used at Le Mans) or high profile tyre (F1 style) is better in terms of the way it reacts to a puncture?

IMHO there's no way that a high profile tyre can have the sidewall strength of a low profile tyre.

[SGWilko]

Well as it stands now, a small wheel to wheel touch can send a car off the road and then wheels start coming off, bodywork is far more robust than suspension arms however and LMP's are more able than F1 cars to swap paint and not end up in the wall


Brings up an interesting point. Would you say that a low profile (as used at Le Mans) or high profile tyre (F1 style) is better in terms of the way it reacts to a puncture?

IMHO there's no way that a high profile tyre can have the sidewall strength of a low profile tyre.

They can and do still fail, so they must be changed to something that does not have risk, right?

[Daniel]

Is it safe to fly Daniel? Could adding parachutes for passengers to use make it safer?

I think we're talking vastly different things here tbh. The problem is that it's a safety feature which in itself will cause extreme danger. I mean coming out of an airliner plumeting to the ground is not an ideal situation as you'll probably hit the wing or tailplane and die, you may be too close to the ground for the chute to open, did the person before you tamper with the chute? etc etc etc.

[Daniel]

They can and do still fail, so they must be changed to something that does not have risk, right?

OK, what are we going to replace tyres with?

[SGWilko]

Is it safe to fly Daniel? Could adding parachutes for passengers to use make it safer?

You gonna answer this?

[Daniel]

You gonna answer this?

I did :p

[SGWilko]

OK, what are we going to replace tyres with?

I don't think we need to, was just applying your logic.....

[SGWilko]

I think we're talking vastly different things here tbh. The problem is that it's a safety feature which in itself will cause extreme danger. I mean coming out of an airliner plumeting to the ground is not an ideal situation as you'll probably hit the wing or tailplane and die, you may be too close to the ground for the chute to open, did the person before you tamper with the chute? etc etc etc.

You see, flying is not safe, too dangerous. Folk still fly though, eh? They have calculated the risk and make their own decision. A bit like why it is perfectly acceptable to keep F1 as it is.

[schmenke]

Future F1 car:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5234/5837328468_d91994a83e.jpg




(no "Fred" jokes please :uhoh: )

[SGWilko]

Future F1 car:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5234/5837328468_d91994a83e.jpg



(no "Fred" jokes please :uhoh: )

Too dangerous, might run over your own tootsies.......

Lewis might run over his own..........???

:laugh:

[Daniel]

You see, flying is not safe, too dangerous. Folk still fly though, eh? They have calculated the risk and make their own decision. A bit like why it is perfectly acceptable to keep F1 as it is.

But if there was a way to lessen the risk then people would be happy for steps to be taken :) If we were to start driving those distances or go in ships then there would be more deaths, flying is the safer option.

Don't think that aviation is standing still when it comes to safety either.
Ballistic Recovery Systems - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_Recovery_Systems)

[ioan]

On the other hand adding a cockpit enclosure that is more than just a wind deflector adds significant mass to the vehicle, particularly affecting the centre of gravity, thus necessitating a complete redesign of the car to the extent that it no longer is a formula one specification.

They doubled the size of the fuel bladder, they added KERS and it's still called F1. Why would adding a cockpit enclosure change anything then?
And to keep to not so distant changes: they went from 3.5 V12 to 3.0 V10, then to 2.4 V8s, and from free 22000 rpm to limited 18000 rpm, and from slicks to groves and back, and the list longer then I care to remember.

So why would one safety related change be so bad for F1 when all the crap they put in it since the 22 years that I watched didn't apparently change much?

[SGWilko]

But if there was a way to lessen the risk then people would be happy for steps to be taken :) If we were to start driving those distances or go in ships then there would be more deaths, flying is the safer option.

Don't think that aviation is standing still when it comes to safety either.
Ballistic Recovery Systems - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_Recovery_Systems)

Could work in a minority of situations. You are still putting folk up in an environment where they cannot breathe the atmosphere, and rely on pressurisation or, in event of a breach, overhead air supply in the form of a mask which can fail. Why fly when the potential (important word that) for failure is too great. How many lives are lost due to air accidents every year, against how many drivers/spectators in all forms of global open cockpit open wheel motorsports are lost?

[BDunnell]

They doubled the size of the fuel bladder, they added KERS and it's still called F1. Why would adding a cockpit enclosure change anything then?
And to keep to not so distant changes: they went from 3.5 V12 to 3.0 V10, then to 2.4 V8s, and from free 22000 rpm to limited 18000 rpm, and from slicks to groves and back, and the list longer then I care to remember.

So why would one safety related change be so bad for F1 when all the crap they put in it since the 22 years that I watched didn't apparently change much?

Because F1 is an open-wheeled formula. Stop it being such, and open-wheeled racing is dead. This would be unnecessary.

[Bagwan]

Should all open top cars be enclosed ?
Should the cabriole/convertible be banned ?
Are they simply not safe ?

Should motorcycles be banned as well ?
They are , after all , open topped as well .

Karts have open wheels . Should we ban them , too ?


If any of those vehicles were following an F1 car , a spring could fly off on the perfect trajectory to hit them on the left side of thier visor .

[nigelred5]

I'm not in the camp that it would no longer be F1 if the cars looked like the Redbull car, but I would not want to see F1 loose being an open wheel series. Indycar is essentially enclosing the rear wheels to lessen the potential for locking wheels in the next indycar, but they are still openly visible and the front wheels remain open. Putting spats or cycle type fenders over the front wheels issues, and fixed full fenders I don't want to see in F1. There are obviously pros and cons. If a strike such as Massa's accident is the issue, then mandate the return of a clear windscreen taller than the driver's head but still open. Even offshore racing boats have had issues running fully enclosed canopies. F16 canopies are frequently used. You have to run pressurized air and essentially gear up like a fighter pilot. I can tell you first hand, it gets ungodly HOT inside one of those glass bubbles, even if it is tinted, and I doubt they will add air conditioning to an F1 car. It would likely be well over 150F at tracks like Sepang, Bahrain and Abu Dhabi, and probably not far from that in Austin.


I do like the Redbull and Caparo cars, though the Caparo looks like a two seater and comes much closer to being a sports car. The Red bull is what it is, and F1 car with a closed cockpit and enclosed fixed fenders. Not too far from the Delta Wing.....

[Malbec]

All that and you still don't seem to say what you feel should be done if there were fatalities in F1 from these sorts of injuries.

There is only one way of reducing the risk properly.

Ban motorsport.

[BDunnell]

There is only one way of reducing the risk properly.

Ban motorsport.

Precisely.

[Stuartf12007]

a ridiculous question.

[Daniel]

There is only one way of reducing the risk properly.

Ban motorsport.

I'm sorry but that's a disappointing answer coming from yourself and Ben, two people on here who I think are quite intelligent.

[ioan]

There is only one way of reducing the risk properly.

Ban motorsport.

The Swiss did it half a century ago.

[ioan]

a ridiculous question.

You don't want to know my opinion on your answer then.

[ioan]

Should all open top cars be enclosed ?
Should the cabriole/convertible be banned ?
Are they simply not safe ?

Should motorcycles be banned as well ?
They are , after all , open topped as well .

Karts have open wheels . Should we ban them , too ?


If any of those vehicles were following an F1 car , a spring could fly off on the perfect trajectory to hit them on the left side of thier visor .


Looks like this is the exaggeration hour.
Someone asks a logical question and all they get in turn is some over inflated exaggerations.

Maybe we can have an intelligent counterargument from you instead of the rubbish you posted above?

[BDunnell]

The Swiss did it half a century ago.

And still produced a multiple Grand Prix winner and a multiple touring car champion, in spite of their absurd over-reaction to a single tragic event.

[BDunnell]

Looks like this is the exaggeration hour.
Someone asks a logical question and all they get in turn is some over inflated exaggerations.

Maybe we can have an intelligent counterargument from you instead of the rubbish you posted above?

No, those points are far from 'rubbish'. Why not ban kart racing, or motorcycle racing, if F1 is to cease being an open-wheeled formula on alleged safety grounds?

[ioan]

And still produced a multiple Grand Prix winner and a multiple touring car champion, in spite of their absurd over-reaction to a single tragic event.

But no Swiss died anymore while racing or watching a GP in Switzerland.

[ioan]

No, those points are far from 'rubbish'. Why not ban kart racing, or motorcycle racing, if F1 is to cease being an open-wheeled formula on alleged safety grounds?

Why ban them when you can make them safer?
Who said we should ban F1? Daniel only proposed solutions to make it safer.

[BDunnell]

Why ban them when you can make them safer?
Who said we should ban F1? Daniel only proposed solutions to make it safer.

Equally, why make them safer when they are not intrinsically unsafe, and when an element of risk will always accompany the sport?

[BDunnell]

But no Swiss died anymore while racing or watching a GP in Switzerland.

By the same token, some Swiss people have been killed during that time while walking to the shops. Would you advocate the banning of that, too?

[Daniel]

Equally, why make them safer when they are not intrinsically unsafe, and when an element of risk will always accompany the sport?

Well, ummmm they are intrinsically unsafe in certain situations?

j1zqL86w0Gk
xjd5p8dDQdU

[BDunnell]

Well, ummmm they are intrinsically unsafe in certain situations?

So is anything one could care to mention.

[ioan]

By the same token, some Swiss people have been killed during that time while walking to the shops. Would you advocate the banning of that, too?

I didn't advocate the banning of anything, I only pointed out a fact. You might want to reread the thread before making up things I never posted.

[ioan]

So is anything one could care to mention.

Like thinking, for example?

[BDunnell]

I didn't advocate the banning of anything, I only pointed out a fact.

As did I.

[ioan]

As did I.

No, that wasn't a fact it was a lie.

[BDunnell]

No, that wasn't a fact it was a lie.

In what way is it a lie to say that some Swiss people have been killed walking to the shops?

[ioan]

In what way is it a lie to say that some Swiss people have been killed walking to the shops?

The lie was about me advocating a ban.

[Malbec]

I'm sorry but that's a disappointing answer coming from yourself and Ben, two people on here who I think are quite intelligent.

I had presumed you had started this thread with your tongue firmly in your cheek but it seems not.

Racing is inherently dangerous, you know that. Young testosterone loaded men duking it out on track with spectators watching or racing the clock inches from both trees and crowds, its inherently unsafe given the energies involved.

There are open wheeled formulae and there are closed wheel formulae. Drivers, marshalls and spectators are utterly free choose to take part in either or neither.

Do them a favour and respect the fact that all three groups may actually have the intelligence and free will to weigh up the risks involved and balance that against the benefits they get from taking part.

If open wheeled racing is too dangerous for them then all drivers are free to sign up with Audi, Peugeot and the like and go GT racing. The fact that they don't is due to their own free will. I'm sure that having seen what happened to Massa or Perez they are more than aware of the risks involved, more than you are.

I am all for improving safety wherever possible but open wheel racing is called that for a reason. Cover up the wheels and you change the entire nature of the sport. If you really have an issue with risk in motorsport don't pussy around with small things like covering up wheels and the cockpit, have the balls to ban the thing altogether.

[Daniel]

I had presumed you had started this thread with your tongue firmly in your cheek but it seems not.

Racing is inherently dangerous, you know that. Young testosterone loaded men duking it out on track with spectators watching or racing the clock inches from both trees and crowds, its inherently unsafe given the energies involved.

There are open wheeled formulae and there are closed wheel formulae. Drivers, marshalls and spectators are utterly free choose to take part in either or neither.

Do them a favour and respect the fact that all three groups may actually have the intelligence and free will to weigh up the risks involved and balance that against the benefits they get from taking part.

If open wheeled racing is too dangerous for them then all drivers are free to sign up with Audi, Peugeot and the like and go GT racing. The fact that they don't is due to their own free will. I'm sure that having seen what happened to Massa or Perez they are more than aware of the risks involved, more than you are.

I am all for improving safety wherever possible but open wheel racing is called that for a reason. Cover up the wheels and you change the entire nature of the sport. If you really have an issue with risk in motorsport don't pussy around with small things like covering up wheels and the cockpit, have the balls to ban the thing altogether.

Fair comment. Whilst I feel that the wheels should be covered I do see that it's part of the challenge (a small part of me, but a big part to others) but I really don't see a reason to leave the cockpits uncovered.

I understand the motorsport is dangerous, but to me I don't feel that covering the cockpit would spoil the racing :)

[wedge]

There is only one way of reducing the risk properly.

Ban motorsport.

Ban spectators?

eVd1HVlJD3A

[Daniel]

Ban spectators?

eVd1HVlJD3A

Holy sheet!

[airshifter]

I hope F1 never goes closed wheel. It completely changes the form of racing and the skill level when the cars can bang together with often very little physical consequence.

It's sort of like suggesting motorcyle racing use outriggers so they can't fall over. Pointless IMO.

[Daniel]

I hope F1 never goes closed wheel. It completely changes the form of racing and the skill level when the cars can bang together with often very little physical consequence.

It's sort of like suggesting motorcyle racing use outriggers so they can't fall over. Pointless IMO.

OK I can see the argument with regards to keeping it open wheel, personally it wouldn't bother me but I can see the point people are making. but I still don't understan the irrational hatred of roofs on cars?

[tfp]

OK I can see the argument with regards to keeping it open wheel, personally it wouldn't bother me but I can see the point people are making. but I still don't understan the irrational hatred of roofs on cars?

The audi r15 was open cockpit, but then with the regs changes in le mans for 2011 meaning they had to use smaller engines, they opted to use a tin top design for better aerodynamics...I wonder why this hasn't been used in F1?

[Daniel]

The audi r15 was open cockpit, but then with the regs changes in le mans for 2011 meaning they had to use smaller engines, they opted to use a tin top design for better aerodynamics...I wonder why this hasn't been used in F1?

Because the regs don't allow for it I guess. If they did put a roof on and covered the wheels up then the cars would be loads more fuel efficient and I suspect we wouldn't need this DRS crap anymore.

[BDunnell]

Because the regs don't allow for it I guess. If they did put a roof on and covered the wheels up then the cars would be loads more fuel efficient and I suspect we wouldn't need this DRS crap anymore.

And we would also be able to merge F1 and sportscar racing.

[tfp]

Because the regs don't allow for it I guess. If they did put a roof on and covered the wheels up then the cars would be loads more fuel efficient and I suspect we wouldn't need this DRS crap anymore.

I thought the FIA would have something to do with it:-)

[BDunnell]

I understand the motorsport is dangerous, but to me I don't feel that covering the cockpit would spoil the racing :)

It wouldn't, but it would be too fundamental a change to the character of the sport. The distinction between open-wheel forms of racing and such as touring cars, sportscars etc is an essential element of there being different forms of motorsport.

[BDunnell]

Ban spectators?

eVd1HVlJD3A

Now that IS frightening. How such a thing can happen is beyond me — and it's another indictment of deteriorating driving standards percolating down from certain well-known championships into club racing.

I hate to say it, though, but while both that footage and the Allan McNish shunt at Le Mans are incredibly scary in terms of the potential for spectator injury, it is also inevitable that spectators will continue to run that risk as long as they are allowed in to motor sport events, again owing to freak occurrences.

[Daniel]

And we would also be able to merge F1 and sportscar racing.

Just because the cars would be similar doesn't mean they're the same thing.

[Daniel]

Now that IS frightening. How such a thing can happen is beyond me — and it's another indictment of deteriorating driving standards percolating down from certain well-known championships into club racing.

I hate to say it, though, but while both that footage and the Allan McNish shunt at Le Mans are incredibly scary in terms of the potential for spectator injury, it is also inevitable that spectators will continue to run that risk as long as they are allowed in to motor sport events, again owing to freak occurrences.

Well the only people really in danger there were photographers and marshals.

[BDunnell]

Well the only people really in danger there were photographers and marshals.

But the potential for incidents involving spectators still exists.

[Daniel]

But the potential for incidents involving spectators still exists.

Of course, but you have to say that almost all reasonable steps have been taken that can be taken without completely spoiling the spectacle

[BDunnell]

Of course, but you have to say that almost all reasonable steps have been taken that can be taken without completely spoiling the spectacle

I would suggest that's the same as regards the drivers, too, on the grounds that the sort of accidents that have of late caused serious harm have generally been freak occurrences.

[Daniel]

I would suggest that's the same as regards the drivers, too, on the grounds that the sort of accidents that have of late caused serious harm have generally been freak occurrences.

Feak occurences or not, if it's possible to take measures to stop these incidents hurting people and it doesn't spoil the sport then what's the deal?

[BDunnell]

Hahahahaha :laugh:

Says the man who twisted my post (in this very thread) to suggest I had no regard for drivers lives!!!! :eek:

Which was, as I intimated earlier, highly predictable.

[BDunnell]

Hahahahaha :laugh:

Says the man who twisted my post (in this very thread) to suggest I had no regard for drivers lives!!!! :eek:

Which was, as I intimated earlier, highly predictable.

[Bagwan]

Looks like this is the exaggeration hour.
Someone asks a logical question and all they get in turn is some over inflated exaggerations.

Maybe we can have an intelligent counterargument from you instead of the rubbish you posted above?

Answer the questions .
Do that rather than suggest they are illogical , over inflated , unintelligent , or rubbish , please .

Where do you draw that line on safety in an area of sport there will always be danger ?

[Bagwan]

OK I can see the argument with regards to keeping it open wheel, personally it wouldn't bother me but I can see the point people are making. but I still don't understan the irrational hatred of roofs on cars?

Thanks , Daniel , for understanding the open wheel thing .

I can also see your point of wanting to make things safer .

The points I have seen to counter the roof you are suggesting aren't really irrational , though , are they ?
It would reduce the vision , which is already an issue in F1 .
It would be frighteningly hot at some tracks .
Driver extraction , in the case of a crash , could be more difficult .

[BDunnell]

Answer the questions .
Do that rather than suggest they are illogical , over inflated , unintelligent , or rubbish , please .

Where do you draw that line on safety in an area of sport there will always be danger ?

For ioan, I fear the line was drawn at the moment Massa had his accident.

[Bezza]

Anyone who watches Le Mans will have seen the two Audi's crash with practically no injury to the drivers. At some point an F1 driver is going to get hurt and coupes are obviously stinger.

Discuss :)

That is a worse idea than Bernie's sprinkler system. F1 cars are single seaters, if you want coupes just watch Sports Cars!

[nigelred5]

That is a worse idea than Bernie's sprinkler system. F1 cars are single seaters, if you want coupes just watch Sports Cars!

Bingo.

open wheel, open cockpit.

if you enclose the wheels and enclose the cockpit, you have a sports prototype. That's already "covered" and not even remotely as popular as F1 anywhere.

[steveaki13]

Of all the posts in this 17 pages. Only about 20 odd posts probably have proper points and issues raised, the rest seem to be pointless rambles or abuse. :rolleyes:

Quantity over Quality I fear. :(

[SGWilko]

absurd over-reaction to a single tragic event.

And yet, you think F1 is complacent vis a vis safety? Bucks Fizz.....

[Daniel]

The points I have seen to counter the roof you are suggesting aren't really irrational , though , are they ?
It would reduce the vision , which is already an issue in F1 .
It would be frighteningly hot at some tracks .
Driver extraction , in the case of a crash , could be more difficult .

Vision is a problem, but we've got the best engineers in the world supposedly? I mean these days the visibility is rubbish, we need some sort of standard level of visibility.
Agreed, there would probably need to be air conditioning
Again, best engineers in the world :) But it would need to be properly evaluated as it's not the sort of thing you could ask the teams to do in a afew months.

[SGWilko]

Vision is a problem, but we've got the best engineers in the world supposedly? I mean these days the visibility is rubbish, we need some sort of standard level of visibility.
Agreed, there would probably need to be air conditioning
Again, best engineers in the world :) But it would need to be properly evaluated as it's not the sort of thing you could ask the teams to do in a afew months.

Only way to improve visibility is to reduce the height of the head protection.....

......or use clear aluminium like wot they did in Star Trek IV for them humpbacks..... :p

[Daniel]

Only way to improve visibility is to reduce the height of the head protection.....

......or use clear aluminium like wot they did in Star Trek IV for them humpbacks..... :p

Well tbh they should probably sit up a bit higher really. F1 needs to set standards for visibility. I can just about accept that open wheels and the dangers that they bring are part and parcel of F1, but making it more difficult to see where your wheels and front wing are?????? :crazy:

[SGWilko]

Well tbh they should probably sit up a bit higher really. F1 needs to set standards for visibility. I can just about accept that open wheels and the dangers that they bring are part and parcel of F1, but making it more difficult to see where your wheels and front wing are?????? :crazy:

Raising the driver will need the cockpit sides raised. Would probably improve visibility to the front wing, but wont help with views of the periphery.

[Daniel]

But if there's a roof on the thing.....

[SGWilko]

But if there's a roof on the thing.....

Would have to be see-through, and I don't know of many clear products that are stronger and as light as carbon fibre.

[Daniel]

have you seen the windscreens on the coupe's?

[SGWilko]

have you seen the windscreens on the coupe's?

Is the windscreen acting as the roll hoop?

[Daniel]

Is the windscreen acting as the roll hoop?

No, that's the roof. You know, the thing that goes above the drivers head?

[ioan]

Just because the cars would be similar doesn't mean they're the same thing.

Don't they both have 4 wheels? What? That's not enough similarity?! ;)

[ioan]

Answer the questions .
Do that rather than suggest they are illogical , over inflated , unintelligent , or rubbish , please .

Where do you draw that line on safety in an area of sport there will always be danger ?

Why should I lose time answering rubbish?
BTW how much is life worth to you? I think this pretty much answers your questions.

[SGWilko]

No, that's the roof. You know, the thing that goes above the drivers head?

Where would you put the roof on an open cockpit F1 car, in the trunk?

[SGWilko]

BTW how much is life worth to you?

Not 10 posts ago you chastise the swiss from preventing deaths in their country as a result of taking part in motorsports............

[ioan]

Would have to be see-through, and I don't know of many clear products that are stronger and as light as carbon fibre.

You mean that weight is more of a problem in cars then in airplanes? Or that airplane designers are smarter than F1 engineers (which I believe it is right by the way)?

[ioan]

Not 10 posts ago you chastise the swiss from preventing deaths in their country as a reslt of taking part in motorsports............

Huh? Reading lessons anyone?

[SGWilko]

Huh? Reading lessons anyone?

Oh dear - I think I need to go to specsavers. Sorry ioan - poor show from me there.

No discourtesy intended. :)

[SGWilko]

And yet, you think F1 is complacent vis a vis safety? Bucks Fizz.....

BDunnell - please ignore my comment, I was suffering a senior moment and got in a mucking fuddle.... :)

[Daniel]

Where would you put the roof on an open cockpit F1 car, in the trunk?

I blocked you a few years ago for talking crap and I unblocked you because you started talking sense, now I'm blocking you for being deliberately annoying. Bye

[Mark]

Shall we be sensible or is it thread closing time?

[steveaki13]

Shall we be sensible or is it thread closing time?

No chance of sensible

[Daniel]

Shall we be sensible or is it thread closing time?

I've tried. The whole thread is about having a roof and somehow he is trying to argue against it on the basis that I'm advocating a flying roof type arrangement

http://thestar.com.my/archives/2009/10/12/lifeliving/flying.jpg

when clearly the coupe's in Le Mans have a cockpit enclosed by a roof and a windscreen.

I didn't start this thread because I wanted everyone to agree with me, neither did I start it because I wanted people to disagree with me. it was meant to provoke discussion rather than silly comments and so on.

[BDunnell]

You mean that weight is more of a problem in cars then in airplanes? Or that airplane designers are smarter than F1 engineers (which I believe it is right by the way)?

I'm not sure how one could ever come to an objective judgment on that.

[Bagwan]

Why should I lose time answering rubbish?
BTW how much is life worth to you? I think this pretty much answers your questions.

It's worth a lot , Ioan .

Just lost a friend on the road last night , as a matter of fact .
He was into my shop for a coffee earlier in the day .
He was on his way back to town later last night , and went out to pass a seed drill , hauled by a tractor , and caught the edge of the road shoulder , lost it , and rolled into the ditch .

Yeah , life's precious , and I was glad to have said hi , when he passed me on the way in . I won't ever get that chance again .

We don't really think as much about driving these hunks of steel at speed as we should .
And , we should think of that "we" , and beware of others who aren't likely thinking about it either .



But , perhaps it's different for those taking part in this F1 thing here .
It's the pinnacle .
It's what many , if not all racing drivers , think of as that pinnacle .

As far as danger , these days as opposed to the past , they are wrapped in a coccoon .

Kubica was hurt in a freak accident in a tin-top bad enough that there is question whether he will race again .
He was , though , virtually unhurt in comparison in Montreal with that shunt that rivalled some of the most violent .

Drivers compete in both disciplines , both despite , and because of that danger .

And , simply , it gets safer all the time because of that danger as well .

[Daniel]

The difference IMHO is that the Kubica incident could not be stopped, save for just not rallying at all. I've never seen an accident like the one Kubica had where something has pieced the bulkhead of the car and then gone through into the passenger cell, it's simply unheard of, but open top cars having their drivers hit by things seems a bit more common. Now I certainly don't think we should stop F1 just because there is the chance of someone getting hit in the head, but giving them a bit more protection seems a good idea IMHO.

Sorry to hear about your friend. Whenever I hear a story like that I think of my friend Grant who lived not far from where I as living back in 2004 (I think it was 2004 anyway?) and I stayed at work a bit late one Friday and on my way back home on his street he glanced a car which was turning right whilst overtaking on his motorbike and he slid along the road and hit a parked van. I came across him a few minutes later and ran to his house to get his housemates. We all stood around not realising just how serious things were and talking about how pissed Grant was going to be when he saw how they'd cut up his leather jacket and how damaged his bike was but sadly Grant died that night. I always think about what would have happened if I'd left work on time that afternoon, I probably would have passed him and we'd have stopped to have a chat and he'd still be alive. Weird....

[BDunnell]

The difference IMHO is that the Kubica incident could not be stopped, save for just not rallying at all. I've never seen an accident like the one Kubica had where something has pieced the bulkhead of the car and then gone through into the passenger cell, it's simply unheard of, but open top cars having their drivers hit by things seems a bit more common.

I brought this up at the time, and was told there had in fact been at least one similar incident. I forget the details though.

[nigelred5]

I brought this up at the time, and was told there had in fact been at least one similar incident. I forget the details though.

Francois Cevert was killed by the armco penetrating his car in the esses at Watkins Glen in 1973

[SGWilko]

I blocked you a few years ago for talking crap and I unblocked you because you started talking sense, now I'm blocking you for being deliberately annoying. Bye

How did you know I was talking sense if I was blocked? I am being perhaps a little flippant with the trunk comment due to the fact that an open cockpit car does not, by its very definition, have a roof.

I'm still talking sense, you just don't like my opinion, and having not managed to provoke an argument to your satisfaction, you've gone down the 'I'm done with this guy' route

No need to be rude by the way.

[SGWilko]

The difference IMHO is that the Kubica incident could not be stopped, save for just not rallying at all.

Does this mean that you can now accept that, save for the non freak unstoppable type incidents, F1 cars and their safety features mean that enclosing the wheels and the cockpits is not required, and would anyhow, change the series into something other than F1.

[SGWilko]

I've tried. The whole thread is about having a roof .

It is about whether F1 should run coupes or not. It has been explained that F1 is an open wheel/open cockpit formula for a start. Examples have been given of why, potentially, enclosing the driver could actually add more risk.

You've then gone on to show re the Kubica RallyINGaccident, that sometimes, no matter what safety measures are in place, freak accident can and do happen.

[SGWilko]

I see what you're saying. But there were two bad incidents in the last couple of years which involved things hitting drivers in the head. Surtees and Massa of course. Now there's nothing to stop either of those accidents happening in F1 and IMHO this is no different to the change from having no seatbelts to having seatbelts or aluminium fuel tanks to the safer ones we have today.

i simply don't get what is so bad about the car below or the Caparo T1. The F1 genes are still very much apparent, but you have lessened the risk of wheel to wheel accidents and the risk of Surtees/Massa style incidents. But then I guess as usual someone has to die in F1 for it to want to be safer.....
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2010/10/web630-red-bull-x1-prototype-front.jpg

An additional problem with the above vehicle is the additional mass that could potentially fly into the crowd if a wheel and fairing assemply broke off......

[Bagwan]

The difference IMHO is that the Kubica incident could not be stopped, save for just not rallying at all. I've never seen an accident like the one Kubica had where something has pieced the bulkhead of the car and then gone through into the passenger cell, it's simply unheard of, but open top cars having their drivers hit by things seems a bit more common. Now I certainly don't think we should stop F1 just because there is the chance of someone getting hit in the head, but giving them a bit more protection seems a good idea IMHO.

Sorry to hear about your friend. Whenever I hear a story like that I think of my friend Grant who lived not far from where I as living back in 2004 (I think it was 2004 anyway?) and I stayed at work a bit late one Friday and on my way back home on his street he glanced a car which was turning right whilst overtaking on his motorbike and he slid along the road and hit a parked van. I came across him a few minutes later and ran to his house to get his housemates. We all stood around not realising just how serious things were and talking about how pissed Grant was going to be when he saw how they'd cut up his leather jacket and how damaged his bike was but sadly Grant died that night. I always think about what would have happened if I'd left work on time that afternoon, I probably would have passed him and we'd have stopped to have a chat and he'd still be alive. Weird....

The Kubica accident was a result of racing .
Sure , one way to stop him getting hurt would have been to have banned that racing .

But , the biggest issue in the crash was that the guard rails were not up to the standards prescribed .
They are designed in such a way that they will not stab through the car in the way that they did .

You can be sure , although I have not seen the state of the area of the crash , that the barriers have been replaced , and that they will be the way that they should be now .

Very similar barriers in F1 have been altered or replaced as the result of many crashes at speed , and as a result , we have drivers like Robert who survive unimaginable impacts .
Perez was lucky to have those barriers in place , as that crane , or the barriers behind it are both rather hard and unforgiving .

Both disciplines have thier own dangers that need to be mitigated , but , sadly sometimes , those dangers are mitigated reactively instead of proactively .


In the case of my friend's crash , he was caught out by a farmer , who , himself caught out by the weather , was trying to get home after dark , having stayed too long on the field .
He made a choice , to run the road after dark , and my friend died as a result .

There is a law that states he is not allowed on the road after dark , and that law was created as a reaction to the very same situation many years earlier , we can presume . They are not road-going vehicles after dark .
It was reactive , but still didn't stop his death .

And , guard rail design didn't stop Kubica from near death , either , despite being likely the result of many earlier accidental deaths , both in rally , and regular road travel .

Cevert died when he hit a section of guard rail put together backwards .



Even when the safety measures are performed retroactively , it is never a guarantee that they will work .

I think they need to design the cars to improve the vision of the driver .
Whether they mandate a more upright driving position , or move to alter the sidepod in some way to increase the sightlines dosen't matter to me .

Drivers complaining they cannot see the wings is inconceiveable to me .
Whether one could classify this change as reactive or proactive is hard , as the design has evolved to be this way , and for both speed and safety .
Tall , fat sidepod crash structures , while having evolved to protect , get in the way of seeing your opponent .
They've evolved in those LeMans cars , too , and they are no good in tight with other cars .

When Jacques ran those endurance races , having run F1 a lot , he was surprised at how little one could see , in comparison .

Add a cockpit cover , and you add other complications , not just lack of sight .

[Robinho]

The difference IMHO is that the Kubica incident could not be stopped, save for just not rallying at all. I've never seen an accident like the one Kubica had where something has pieced the bulkhead of the car and then gone through into the passenger cell, it's simply unheard of, but open top cars having their drivers hit by things seems a bit more common. Now I certainly don't think we should stop F1 just because there is the chance of someone getting hit in the head, but giving them a bit more protection seems a good idea IMHO.



I have to disagree, the accident could have very easily been prevented, one by ensuring the sections of armco were properly secured together so there was no "end" that could become a spike, and also by enhancing the strength and thickness of the bulkhead. Stupid as it sounds, a well placed hay bale probably would have prevented that freak accident too!

With any risk management you have to weigh up a number of things,

The liklihood of the risk occuring, the potential damage caused if the risk occurs and the "cost".

The risks of debris hitting a driver is low, but is real and has happened. Thta risk is lessened by an enclosed cockpit, but not reduced completley. Potentially it actually could increase the amount of debris involved if something breaks up and starts flying round. In terms of "cost" the monetary issue is small as it could be engineered relatively simple, but the cost to the sport?show?hirstory is far more difficult to calculate.

it is obvious that F1 has done a great deal to reduce the risks and to reduce the consequences when they do occur, and i do disagree in general with the idea of a closed cockpit F1, but i also don't think that just because the drivers are willing to put themselves in danger for what they love doing, that they should be left to be in unreasonable danger if a reasonable soultion to reducing or preventing that risk exists. As it is safety can always be improved, but I think F1 is doing a very good job of protecting the driver, despite a couple of recent incidents. In worry more about exposed drivers watching IRL cars flipping over on ovals, but i guess if you take a covered cockpit approach in F1, we should really be talking about mandating for all "open top" series thoughout motorsport

[airshifter]

My objection would mainly be due to the "open wheel" aspect.

IF somehow engineers could enclose only the cockpit area of the current spec F1 car and still maintain all the crash worthiness, driver extraction, visibility, cooling comfort ability, and such requirements then I wouldn't really have much of a problem with it. But I suspect even with a fighter plane type bubble which would allow visibility, it would slow the extraction of the driver even if other concerns could be addressed. This is a bad thing in the event of fire, which isn't really all that rare in the world of F1.

Then we would have the issue of how marshalls reach the steering wheel, which would likely cause the windscreen/bubble to be removed and increase time to move a failed car to a safe area.

At the very bare minimum, it would also add weight on the upper limits of the car, something not favorable to F1.



Kubica's accident was a prime example of a freak accident, similar to what happened to Felipe. So there is evidence that no form of racing can be 100% safe. A couple inches of windscreen or a higher impact rating on the helmet visors would have spared Massa his injuries.

[tfp]

It's worth a lot , Ioan .

Just lost a friend on the road last night , as a matter of fact .
He was into my shop for a coffee earlier in the day .
He was on his way back to town later last night , and went out to pass a seed drill , hauled by a tractor , and caught the edge of the road shoulder , lost it , and rolled into the ditch .

Yeah , life's precious , and I was glad to have said hi , when he passed me on the way in . I won't ever get that chance again .

We don't really think as much about driving these hunks of steel at speed as we should .
And , we should think of that "we" , and beware of others who aren't likely thinking about it either .



But , perhaps it's different for those taking part in this F1 thing here .
It's the pinnacle .
It's what many , if not all racing drivers , think of as that pinnacle .

As far as danger , these days as opposed to the past , they are wrapped in a coccoon .

Kubica was hurt in a freak accident in a tin-top bad enough that there is question whether he will race again .
He was , though , virtually unhurt in comparison in Montreal with that shunt that rivalled some of the most violent .

Drivers compete in both disciplines , both despite , and because of that danger .

And , simply , it gets safer all the time because of that danger as well .

Sorry to hear about that :(

[Daniel]

No link for this yet as its on the BBC gossip section.

Formula 1 is evaluating jet-fighter canopy technology to protect drivers from flying debris and airborne cars. (Autosport magazine)

Get ready to celebrate Daniel.. ;) :)

And get ready for the moaners to start whinging like bitches about how the sport is ruined because the drivers are better protected.

Thanks for the link Henners :)

[SGWilko]

No link for this yet as its on the BBC gossip section.

Formula 1 is evaluating jet-fighter canopy technology to protect drivers from flying debris and airborne cars. (Autosport magazine)

Get ready to celebrate Daniel.. ;) :)

Apparently, if you part with your hard earned and buy Autosport magazine, it's in there.....


get ready for the moaners to start whinging like bitches

I'd prefer to discuss and debate as opposed to whinge like a bitch, but hey ho.

[ArrowsFA1]

No link for this yet as its on the BBC gossip section.

Formula 1 is evaluating jet-fighter canopy technology to protect drivers from flying debris and airborne cars. (Autosport magazine)

Get ready to celebrate Daniel.. ;) :)

@NobleF1 (https://twitter.com/#!/NobleF1) The FIA Institute has recently conducted some tests on the safety benefits of closed cockpits. Here is a video on it
https://twitter.com/#!/NobleF1/status/91468271211134977

[Daniel]

@NobleF1 (https://twitter.com/#!/NobleF1) The FIA Institute has recently conducted some tests on the safety benefits of closed cockpits. Here is a video on it
https://twitter.com/#!/NobleF1/status/91468271211134977

Thankyou very much for that Arrows :)

Only thing I would mention would be heat (F1 teams should be forced to run an air conditioner) and some sort of reliable way to jettison the canopy if the need arises. You don't want to have a safety measure which kills someone through bad design.

[ArrowsFA1]

And get ready for the moaners to start whinging like bitches about how the sport is ruined because the drivers are better protected.
Daniel, that is unnecessarily inflamatory and misrepresents the views that differ from your own IMHO.

[Daniel]

Daniel, that is unnecessarily inflamatory and misrepresents the views that differ from your own IMHO.

It's very necessary. The sport has changed radically since it first started and for people to get hungup on having an open top or having open wheels when so much else has changed is silly. I didn't necessarily say that everyone who didn't agree with me was a whiney so and so, but some people in this thread showed a chronic lack of ability to make a reasonable argument for not enclosing the cockpit and or wheels of the car.

[SGWilko]

Thankyou very much for that Arrows :)

Only thing I would mention would be heat (F1 teams should be forced to run an air conditioner) and some sort of reliable way to jettison the canopy if the need arises. You don't want to have a safety measure which kills someone through bad design.

Jettisoning the canopy can have its own safety implications, as with pumping chilled air into an enclosed space - that's ideal fuel for a fire.........

[ArrowsFA1]

It's very necessary.
No, I don't believe it is. You say that some people cannot make a reasonable argument, and yet you talk about "the moaners...whinging like bitches". That's not a good way to characterise those you disagree with.

Anyway...Your argument seems straightforward: Introducing closed cockpits would improve safety.

What is the safety record of other racing series that have closed cockpits such as saloon cars and sports cars? Is it measurably better than F1?

[Sonic]

Thankyou very much for that Arrows :)

Only thing I would mention would be heat (F1 teams should be forced to run an air conditioner) and some sort of reliable way to jettison the canopy if the need arises. You don't want to have a safety measure which kills someone through bad design.

Ejector seats! :D

Gooooose! GOOOOOOSE!

[I am evil Homer]

No, I don't believe it is. You say that some people cannot make a reasonable argument, and yet you talk about "the moaners...whinging like bitches". That's not a good way to characterise those you disagree with.

Anyway...Your argument seems straightforward: Introducing closed cockpits would improve safety.

What is the safety record of other racing series that have closed cockpits such as saloon cars and sports cars? Is it measurably better than F1?

Comapring Apples to Oranges though isn't it - the major problem of Daniel's argument was an odd straw man: Look at this sportscar accident, if that had been F1 they wouldn't have walked away.

F1 and Sportscars aren't comparable for a number of factors. Then it descended into "F1 has to be open wheel" arguments which sort of missed the entire crux of the matter: safety. F1 as it stands today is safer than its ever been and you can't legislate for every single factor than may or may not occur during a 2 hour race.

[Daniel]

Comapring Apples to Oranges though isn't it - the major problem of Daniel's argument was an odd straw man: Look at this sportscar accident, if that had been F1 they wouldn't have walked away.

F1 and Sportscars aren't comparable for a number of factors. Then it descended into "F1 has to be open wheel" arguments which sort of missed the entire crux of the matter: safety. F1 as it stands today is safer than its ever been and you can't legislate for every single factor than may or may not occur during a 2 hour race.

I guess you're new to F1 and open wheel racing then? What about Henry Surtees or Felipe Massa? If you take the time to look at the video you'll see that Henry would have almost certainly survived his incident if an jet style canopy were fitted. Massa probably would have walked away from his incident also, rather than taking months to recouperate.

[SGWilko]

Daniel,

What is your position on karting and safety, just as a amatter of interest?

[ArrowsFA1]

Daniel, while you're thinking about that would you care to answer my question as well.

Is the safety record of other racing series that have closed cockpits such as saloon cars and sports cars measurably better than F1?

[Daniel]

Daniel,

What is your position on karting and safety, just as a amatter of interest?

How much do kart tyres/wheels weigh?

[SGWilko]

How much do kart tyres/wheels weigh?

I have no idea, but that wasn't the question, was it?

[Daniel]

Daniel, while you're thinking about that would you care to answer my question as well.

Is the safety record of other racing series that have closed cockpits such as saloon cars and sports cars measurably better than F1?

That sort of question is impossible to answer and the answer itself would be misleading. Another series may have a lower budget, may run on tracks which are less safe, may have less skilled drivers.......

The fact that the FIA is looking at this suggests that the FIA see some merit in having an enclosed cockpit and tbh that means more than the opinions of some people on a forum.

[SGWilko]

Another series may have a lower budget, may run on tracks which are less safe.

:confused: Are you linking budgets to safety now, and are you suggesting unsafe tracks are allowed........ :Zowey Cavey:

[Daniel]

I'd say a kilo to a kilo and a half per wheel. Bear in mind that karts can do 80mph and have no seat belts and a human body being flung into a tyre wall at that speed is more dangerous than most forms of motorsport. I would guess more people have died karting in the last 10 years than in 30 years of F1, but thats a guess.

I do think its abit rich of you to call people like me moaners because we enjoy watching open cockpit racing and don't have the answers that you want to hear. I've given detailed reasons for my stance yet earlier in this thread you mocked me and told me my answers were not good enough. You also tried to act as moderator at one point I do believe. Lets take this latest news for what it is and take interest in the possibility. I do think canopies will restrict the drivers view, steam up and cause more harm than good if I'm honest. Tear off strips on windscreens might be impossible too so I'd be interested to hear how drivers can keep their field of vision clear with these new methods.

The Le Mans prototypes have tear off strips. That said you'd need a wiper to run in the rain possibly.

[Daniel]

I'm sure the teams could come up with some pretty ingenious wiper designs seeing how much care is taken to make an F1 car as aerodynamic as possible. Plus with the cars being so streamline with immense downforce, small objects like wipers would have to be fixed with great care or we'd also have an opening for more objects causing danger whilst racing. For example wipers going through drivers windscreens lol. I'm sure we'll see more on this in the coming weeks and they won't be as ridiculous as they sound or look in the testing vid. :)

Of course. I somehow doubt we'll be seeing this next year or the year after if it ever does come to F1. By which time I'm sure that everything that should be taken into consideration will have been taken into consideration.

[ioan]

I'm sure the teams could come up with some pretty ingenious wiper designs seeing how much care is taken to make an F1 car as aerodynamic as possible. Plus with the cars being so streamline with immense downforce, small objects like wipers would have to be fixed with great care or we'd also have an opening for more objects causing danger whilst racing. For example wipers going through drivers windscreens lol. I'm sure we'll see more on this in the coming weeks and they won't be as ridiculous as they sound or look in the testing vid. :)

I didn't see any kind of wipers on driver helmets until now. The right shape is more than enough for getting the water away from the windshield especially at speed.

[ioan]

Is the safety record of other racing series that have closed cockpits such as saloon cars and sports cars measurably better than F1?

Yep, it is.

[ioan]

And curved windscreen's on single seaters have proved problematic in the past as the cars are not wide enough to allow a curve that does not distort the field of view. Obviously if there was a quick fix to such problems we would have seen better results by now and windscreens have been considered since the 60's. We won't know anymore until its trialled.

PS: Could you share with us these 'wipers on helmets' you've seen? I'm curious as that sounds interesting. :)

How could I if they don't exist?! English seems to be a problem for the Brits around here. :rolleyes:

Anyway back to your previous insinuation, why would they need wipers on a F1 canopy?
And if the rain is no problem with the curvature of the helmet visor why would it be on a canopy with the same curvature?

[Daniel]

These windscreens were used in the 60's in Formula Two but were scrapped due to complications and not being effective. Times have moved on and materials have moved on greatly but glare and dirt gathering on a screen that is difficult to clean is a problem that will be difficult to solve IMO.

For reference:

http://www.carlosghys.be/photographs/autographs/photo_autograph_ahrens_3_400x316.jpg

http://www.tcnj.edu/~edelbach/ring67/ferrari-f2.jpg

50 years of progress will help though

[Malbec]

And if the rain is no problem with the curvature of the helmet visor why would it be on a canopy with the same curvature?

Ever worn a helmet in the rain ioan? The visor gets covered in water quickly and glare IS a problem, a very serious one.

Bikers and F1 drivers can wipe away the rain, in fact most riding gloves have a leather strip on the index finger to allow just that. F1 drivers also get the usual tear-offs too.

A canopy would need a wiper system in the rain or would quickly become unusable.

[Daniel]

Ever worn a helmet in the rain ioan? The visor gets covered in water quickly and glare IS a problem, a very serious one.

Bikers and F1 drivers can wipe away the rain, in fact most riding gloves have a leather strip on the index finger to allow just that. F1 drivers also get the usual tear-offs too.

A canopy would need a wiper system in the rain or would quickly become unusable.

To be honest at speed and with the surface of the canopy being so streamlines I don't see it as a huge problem. But it certainly needs to be looked at.

[Mia 01]

Theres been moore fatal accidents i the Le Mans racing. I don´t know what you are talking about.

[ArrowsFA1]

The thing about this is where does it all end?

We all recognise that an activity such as motorsport can never be 100% safe for everyone involved. In these risk averse days the removal of all risk seems to be the aim. On the face of it this is very laudable. Clearly no-one wants to see people injured or killed.

Is the end solution to have drivers logged into their computers in their tax-haven homes and competing in on-line racing? Anyone could login and spectate (Bernie will of course charge a fee!!) and just think...we could go back to the 'golden era' and have have the drivers racing on classic circuits in classic cars!!

Safety would no longer be a concern for anyone. Marvellous!!!!

All a load of nonsense of course, but the point is - how far do we go down this road?

[Malbec]

The thing about this is where does it all end?

We all recognise that an activity such as motorsport can never be 100% safe for everyone involved. In these risk averse days the removal of all risk seems to be the aim. On the face of it this is very laudable. Clearly no-one wants to see people injured or killed.

Is the end solution to have drivers logged into their computers in their tax-haven homes and competing in on-line racing? Anyone could login and spectate (Bernie will of course charge a fee!!) and just think...we could go back to the 'golden era' and have have the drivers racing on classic circuits in classic cars!!

Safety would no longer be a concern for anyone. Marvellous!!!!

All a load of nonsense of course, but the point is - how far do we go down this road?

Precisely.

As I said earlier, if we're really serious about risk in motorsport lets ban the whole thing.

There have been no circuit racing fatalities in Switzerland since 1955. Now thats what I call safe!

[Bagwan]

Reports are starting to come out now about the rejection of this idea .

Reasons are said to be the difficulty of extraction and worries about fire , in the event of a collision and/or roll-over .

One thing we didn't think of that apparently was discussed , was the potential for debris ricochetting off the canopies into the crowd .
It doesn't seem like much of an additional concern to me , as things can deflect off that area of the car regardless of whether it is "canopied" or not .

Reminds me of a joke :
What's the difference between a poor Scot and a rich one ?
The rich one has a canopy over his bed , and the poor one has a can-o-pee under his .

Too off-topic , or perhaps even "racist" ?
Sorry in advance .

[nigelred5]

Something else to look at would be the behaviour of water on the canopies when travelling at low speed behind a safety car as we have seen lately that drivers have difficulty seeing as it is. Would races be run in the wet if cars were unable to use viable windscreen wipers? Canopies that rely on water running off at speed would fail if we had another race like Canada where cars are travelling at 50mph for several laps IMO. I hope this is addressed as I would hate to see a race red flagged at every incident in the wet that needed a safety car.

Rain-X: Outsmart the Elements | Wiper Blades, Windshield Treatments, Weather Bug and Tar repellent products for your car, Weatherbeater, Latitude, weather, glass, vehicle, visibility (http://www.rainx.com)

Works at 35 on my car and bike helmet, inside and out. Rain isn't the problem IMHO, the distortion caused by such a heavily contoured windscreen would be. Sure, they could use flat 'glass or a flatter profile, but the aerodynamicists would scream. Offshore powerboats have used open top F5 and F16 canopies for years now, but that is a huge canopy compared to what would be necessary for an F1 car, and even with an open top, I can tell you from personal experience they are HOT! wearing a full helmet and firesuit in a boat. it would be ungodly in a small F1 chassis.

[Daniel]

Rain-X: Outsmart the Elements | Wiper Blades, Windshield Treatments, Weather Bug and Tar repellent products for your car, Weatherbeater, Latitude, weather, glass, vehicle, visibility (http://www.rainx.com)

Works at 35 on my car and bike helmet, inside and out. Rain isn't the problem IMHO, the distortion caused by such a heavily contoured windscreen would be. Sure, they could use flat 'glass or a flatter profile, but the aerodynamicists would scream. Offshore powerboats have used open top F5 and F16 canopies for years now, but that is a huge canopy compared to what would be necessary for an F1 car, and even with an open top, I can tell you from personal experience they are HOT! wearing a full helmet and firesuit in a boat. it would be ungodly in a small F1 chassis.

Running air conditioning wouldn't be too hard.

Again, this is something which couldn't simply be implemented in 12 months or even 2 years.

[Daniel]

It would certainly add extra weight and slow the cars down I suppose. The FIA would support that.

Would it? I would imagine that the current cars are ballasted.

[ioan]

Ever worn a helmet in the rain ioan? The visor gets covered in water quickly and glare IS a problem, a very serious one.

Bikers and F1 drivers can wipe away the rain, in fact most riding gloves have a leather strip on the index finger to allow just that. F1 drivers also get the usual tear-offs too.

A canopy would need a wiper system in the rain or would quickly become unusable.

Do they have wipers on their helmet visors? No they don't.
Did you hear drivers ask for wipers on their helmet visors? I didn't.
So why would an even more streamlined canopy need a wiper?

[ioan]

Theres been moore fatal accidents i the Le Mans racing. I don´t know what you are talking about.

Did you check the number of cars and drivers taking part in Le Mans?

[ioan]

Running air conditioning wouldn't be too hard.

Again, this is something which couldn't simply be implemented in 12 months or even 2 years.

They sure need time for it but it can be done properly, no question about it.
On top of it it is time for F1 to move on and catch up with the times.

[Malbec]

Do they have wipers on their helmet visors? No they don't.
Did you hear drivers ask for wipers on their helmet visors? I didn't.
So why would an even more streamlined canopy need a wiper?

I'll explain this in simple terms.

In an open cockpit the helmet visor gets wet if it rains.

With a helmet visor, one can use your own finger to wipe away excess water. This negates the need for a wiper system to be installed on helmets. I'm sure this isn't that difficult a concept to understand. Hands really are quite versatile things I find.

It is rather more difficult to use ones hand to clean the canopy whilst driving a single seater vehicle at high speeds. Hence why a canopy will need a wiper system.

You ought to remember that given diffusers and whatnot, racecars throw up an incredible amount of spray, meaning that racecars are subjected to a lot more waterspray than conventional roadcars are. A highly curved streamlined canopy might reduce the amount of water that sticks to it but not all, and then it would be extremely vulnerable to glare.

[ioan]

I was thinking along the lines of cars having KERS, and an air conditioning system (not light) not to mention the car being wider to accomodate a flat windscreen that will give the driver a better view when cornering.

It sure isn't light however they do not need an AC as big as the one in road cars given that they only need to cool about 1/5th or less of air volume compared to what you have in a road car.
And to be honest I believe that easiest is to properly isolate the cockpit from the engine compartment and use an even smaller AC.

[ioan]

I'll explain this in simple terms.

In an open cockpit the helmet visor gets wet if it rains.

I wonder how did you figure that out! LOL



With a helmet visor, one can use your own finger to wipe away excess water. This negates the need for a wiper system to be installed on helmets. I'm sure this isn't that difficult a concept to understand. Hands really are quite versatile things I find.

And how often did you see drivers wipe their visors with their hands during a wet race?! :\



It is rather more difficult to use ones hand to clean the canopy whilst driving a single seater vehicle at high speeds. Hence why a canopy will need a wiper system.

No one suggested that this is needed, other than you.



You ought to remember that given diffusers and whatnot, racecars throw up an incredible amount of spray, meaning that racecars are subjected to a lot more waterspray than conventional roadcars are. A highly curved streamlined canopy might reduce the amount of water that sticks to it but then it would be extremely vulnerable to glare.

The slower they go the less water is raised by the car in front, the faster they go the easier the water flows away from the canopy and visibility improves.
Looks like a non problem to me to be honest, in simple terms like yours. :p

[Malbec]

And how often did you see drivers wipe their visors with their hands during a wet race?! :\

Errr quite often...

Sorry but your 'arguments' merely suggest you don't have experience of using helmets.


No one suggested that this is needed, other than you.

Thats right, only myself. Oh BTW isn't it odd that every closed cockpit all-weather racecar ever built has happened to have windscreen wipers? Must be for decoration since you deem them unnecessary.


The slower they go the less water is raised by the car in front, the faster they go the easier the water flows away from the canopy and visibility improves. Looks like a non problem to me to be honest, in simple terms like yours. :p

Great in theory. In practice you might find that water doesn't instantly disappear at high speeds. Check onboard footage in heavy rain, it takes time for water to flow off glass even at high speeds.

[SGWilko]

Did you check the number of cars and drivers taking part in Le Mans?

Once a year race v 16-20 race championship.......

Comparing apples with butt plugs methinks..... ;)

[Daniel]

Once a year race v 16-20 race championship.......

Comparing apples with butt plugs methinks..... ;)

Just remember how many hours that race runs for and the fact that it runs in the dark too.

[airshifter]

And get ready for the moaners to start whinging like bitches about how the sport is ruined because the drivers are better protected.

Thanks for the link Henners :)

You've been whining for over 1/4 of the total posts on the thread, does it irritate you that others will follow the childish attitude that only their own opinion can be the right one?

I've yet to see a single poster on this thread state that the sport is ruined if drivers are better protected, and most have given their reasonings for not wanting to see enclosed cockpits. Quite a few have asked if you have any valid statistics or other information showing closed cockpit racing is safer, yet you haven't shown any such data if it exists.

So do us all a favor and quit acting like a child, using the internet to toss about insults you'd likely be scared to death to deliver to most people in person. You're simply not impressing anyone by thinking you should be the only one allowed to have an opinion, and consistently breaching forum regulations with insults if you don't get your way.




And am I the only one that's been around aircraft or other canopies? When you start dealing with shields made for high impact ratings they aren't exactly lightweight. Tack on the AC unit compressor, condensor, etc, etc, and it will be without doubt a new "formula".

On the up side, they can add at least one or two more buttons to the steering wheel for the AC controls and wipers. Can we add seat heaters too? :)

[Mark in Oshawa]

Nothing wrong with a canopy if you can make it work and not roast the driver and be able to be jettisoned easily without creating other problems.

The reality is, the problem's that the canopy would solve would be compounded by all the other problems it brings.

Racing is dangerous, suck it up and get used to it. They are doing all they can to protect drivers, it isn't as if no one in the FIA cares. The HANS and design features to protect the driver have made the modern f1 car about as safe as can be expected.

If you can give me a canopy that doesn't create more issues than the odd incident injuring a driver without one, well then maybe you have something, but it hasn't been demonstrated yet.

[Daniel]

You've been whining for over 1/4 of the total posts on the thread, does it irritate you that others will follow the childish attitude that only their own opinion can be the right one?

I've yet to see a single poster on this thread state that the sport is ruined if drivers are better protected, and most have given their reasonings for not wanting to see enclosed cockpits. Quite a few have asked if you have any valid statistics or other information showing closed cockpit racing is safer, yet you haven't shown any such data if it exists.

So do us all a favor and quit acting like a child, using the internet to toss about insults you'd likely be scared to death to deliver to most people in person. You're simply not impressing anyone by thinking you should be the only one allowed to have an opinion, and consistently breaching forum regulations with insults if you don't get your way.




And am I the only one that's been around aircraft or other canopies? When you start dealing with shields made for high impact ratings they aren't exactly lightweight. Tack on the AC unit compressor, condensor, etc, etc, and it will be without doubt a new "formula".

On the up side, they can add at least one or two more buttons to the steering wheel for the AC controls and wipers. Can we add seat heaters too? :)

Do yourself a favour and stop posting on here, it is not me who started with the childishness, it annoys me that people can't have a sensible discussion but I'm not throwing my toys out of the pram like you.

I came in here with a genuine question which the FIA were working on probably before I even posted it, the main argument that people have is that things are the way they are so shouldn't be changed. Tbh that's a stupid argument and anyone with half a brain knows it. Now you're saying that somehow having a compressor, condensor suddenly makes it a different series. What about all the silly winglets, did that make it a different series, what about KERS, what about DRS? What about double deck diffusers? I'm sorry but the status quo argument is a silly argument. I've enjoyed it when people have suggested geniune issues like heat, or perhaps fire or being stuck in the car. Now tbh I don't see how a drive can get out of an upside down F1 car now anyway (especially with HANS) so personally I don't feel it's a problem but I'm sure the FIA will run their tests and make sure before they even think about suggesting this to teams. :)

[Daniel]

If you can give me a canopy that doesn't create more issues than the odd incident injuring a driver without one, well then maybe you have something, but it hasn't been demonstrated yet.

Like I said we have the best and most inovative engineers in the world. I certainly think it would be stupid to institute something which is almost certain to cause further danger due to the fact that the drivers are more fatigued due to heat or due to other dangers. No one wants this and that's why it's great that the FIA are testing this and not simply forcing it upon the teams.

The little windscreen seemed to do a decent enough job and obviously doesn't have the downsides of a full canopy, how do people feel about that?

[Daniel]

It does a good job in deflecting objects but I feel is dangerous as it obstructs the drivers view. The driver looks down the nose of the car and with a small curved screen in the way, I don't see how it will act as anything other than a distraction. It will also affect the way the driver lines up the front of the car IMO.

Well lets see what it's actually like in a test before we say that it definitely obstructs the drivers view.

[airshifter]

Do yourself a favour and stop posting on here, it is not me who started with the childishness, it annoys me that people can't have a sensible discussion but I'm not throwing my toys out of the pram like you.

I came in here with a genuine question which the FIA were working on probably before I even posted it, the main argument that people have is that things are the way they are so shouldn't be changed. Tbh that's a stupid argument and anyone with half a brain knows it. Now you're saying that somehow having a compressor, condensor suddenly makes it a different series. What about all the silly winglets, did that make it a different series, what about KERS, what about DRS? What about double deck diffusers? I'm sorry but the status quo argument is a silly argument. I've enjoyed it when people have suggested geniune issues like heat, or perhaps fire or being stuck in the car. Now tbh I don't see how a drive can get out of an upside down F1 car now anyway (especially with HANS) so personally I don't feel it's a problem but I'm sure the FIA will run their tests and make sure before they even think about suggesting this to teams. :)


Quit your whining.

Only if you ignore the sensible posts with those users valid reasons do the posts become simply about change. Not a single poster has stated they they don't care at all about driver safety, they simply stated concerns beyond that.

I stated the open wheel aspect was my biggest concern, and listed other concerns with the canopy. I don't want change that adds weight and complexity and can lessen the performance of the cars, especially unless it's proven (not speculated) that the changes will make a real increase in safety.

[CNR]

FIA tests fighter-jet canopy for use in Formula 1 (http://maintenance.autoblog.com/2011/07/17/fia-tests-fighter-jet-canopy-for-use-in-formula-1/)
FIA tests fighter-jet canopy for use in Formula 1

http://www.hindustantimes.com/F1-drivers-against-closed-cockpits/Article1-722346.aspx


The Formula One governing body has rejected the proposals to fit car cockpits with F-16 type safety canopies. Many Formula One teams were considering to use poly- carbonate screens to provide added
protection following Felipe Massa's near fatal smash with a flying suspension spring

[Bagwan]

There's another point against , that I read in a quote from Marc Surer .

What about a KERS failure , where the vapours get into the cockpit ?

[Malbec]

What about a KERS failure , where the vapours get into the cockpit ?

What vapours?

[SGWilko]

What vapours?

The vapours from the chemical reactions in a failed/overheated battery pack - that's not nice stuff!

[Daniel]

The vapours from the chemical reactions in a failed/overheated battery pack - that's not nice stuff!

I don't quite see how that would get into the car though considering its behind the driver and the cockpit would presumably be sealed except for an intake near the front of the car.

Good to see people trying to think of practical reasons why it won't work rather than "It's just not cricket" type arguments.

[Daniel]

Kimi had a KERS failure in 2009 where the smoke was that bad he was climbing out of the car as it was still moving. Can't remember the race however. :)

Well clearly it's something which needs to be looked at and the cockpit needs to be sealed. It's hardly ideal at the moment that the gases can get in owing to their being no canopy now is it? ;) :p

[SGWilko]

I don't quite see how that would get into the car though considering its behind the driver and the cockpit would presumably be sealed except for an intake near the front of the car.

Good to see people trying to think of practical reasons why it won't work rather than "It's just not cricket" type arguments.

The example of vapours as Bagwan alluded to has actually happened with Kimi in the Ferrari in 2009. Might I suggest that factual reasoning not be ridiculed?

[Bagwan]

I don't quite see how that would get into the car though considering its behind the driver and the cockpit would presumably be sealed except for an intake near the front of the car.

Good to see people trying to think of practical reasons why it won't work rather than "It's just not cricket" type arguments.

One has to weigh the benefits against the issues created by the implementation of any safety "improvement" .
Directly related to this issue is the raising of the sides of the cockpit leading to the drivers saying more often that they have limitted vision .

If we were to , instead of adding a closed shell , add a higher bar , and lower "shoulders" on the cockpit , would it not improve impact safety at the same time as allowing for better sighting for the driver ?

[Bagwan]

The example of vapours as Bagwan alluded to has actually happened with Kimi in the Ferrari in 2009. Might I suggest that factual reasoning not be ridiculed?

Daniel , I believe , is suggesting that if there was a canopy , that it would be sealed .
At present , it is not .

Relevent point , but one also must concede , Daniel , that in a high impact situation , that the proximity of the two comparments is rather close , and that a breach in the cockpit cell is easily possible , and perhaps even likely .

[Daniel]

The example of vapours as Bagwan alluded to has actually happened with Kimi in the Ferrari in 2009. Might I suggest that factual reasoning not be ridiculed?

Might I suggest that you actually read my post. I was saying that it was good that people were coming up with factual arguments rather than this whole "It's not cricket" nonsense.

[Daniel]

Daniel , I believe , is suggesting that if there was a canopy , that it would be sealed .
At present , it is not .

Relevent point , but one also must concede , Daniel , that in a high impact situation , that the proximity of the two comparments is rather close , and that a breach in the cockpit cell is easily possible , and perhaps even likely .

And there would certainly have to be some sort of quick release mechanism for the canopy. I certainly think that if this change is made that it should be done after a lengthy design process and a consultation period with the teams as well as an exhaustive look at the dangers which it could potentially cause. Heck if it's found that it's far worse than having the roof open then it should be left open of course.

[Bagwan]

And there would certainly have to be some sort of quick release mechanism for the canopy. I certainly think that if this change is made that it should be done after a lengthy design process and a consultation period with the teams as well as an exhaustive look at the dangers which it could potentially cause. Heck if it's found that it's far worse than having the roof open then it should be left open of course.

Sure , it was worth a look , but it looks like they took that look and decided it wasn't worth it .

[SGWilko]

Might I suggest that you actually read my post. I was saying that it was good that people were coming up with factual arguments rather than this whole "It's not cricket" nonsense.

My bad. I just expect the worst from your posts unfortunately.

Apologies.

[Daniel]

My bad. I just expect the worst from your posts unfortunately.

Apologies.

No problems. Not trying to sound a cock, but I expected you not to expect much from my posts so I suspected that might be the case :p

[Daniel]

Sure , it was worth a look , but it looks like they took that look and decided it wasn't worth it .

Did they?

Lets be honest. Looking at that video there's only one conclusion to draw and that is that a windscreen or a canopy gives a driver a very good chance of escaping unharmed from what would either be certain death or at least serious injury.

Now is there a workable way of putting a canopy or windscreen on an F1 car without making things more dangerous? I think it takes more than just a few minutes to work that out :)

[SGWilko]

No problems. Not trying to sound a cock, but I expected you not to expect much from my posts so I suspected that might be the case :p

Not unexpected I suspect. :D

[SGWilko]

Did they?

Lets be honest. Looking at that video there's only one conclusion to draw and that is that a windscreen or a canopy gives a driver a very good chance of escaping unharmed from what would either be certain death or at least serious injury.

Now is there a workable way of putting a canopy or windscreen on an F1 car without making things more dangerous? I think it takes more than just a few minutes to work that out :)

There is a cause and effect consideration that has to be balanced in all of this. It has already been touched upon I think.

Whatever scenario you may prevent by implementing the canopy, you potentially introduce a number of other factors/risks.

The balance has got to be the chances of the event that the canopy could potentially protect against occuring, against the likelyhood of other risks inherant with the implementation of a canopy - driver trapped, fire, heat, fumes etc from occuring.

I am sure there a complicated equation that could be applied.

[SGWilko]

Cockpit research post-Massa « (http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2011/07/18/cockpit-research-post-massa/)

[Daniel]

There is a cause and effect consideration that has to be balanced in all of this. It has already been touched upon I think.

Whatever scenario you may prevent by implementing the canopy, you potentially introduce a number of other factors/risks.

The balance has got to be the chances of the event that the canopy could potentially protect against occuring, against the likelyhood of other risks inherant with the implementation of a canopy - driver trapped, fire, heat, fumes etc from occuring.

I am sure there a complicated equation that could be applied.

All very good points as I've said countless times before. As I keep saying however, the engineers in F1 are a talented bunch and IMHO would be able to find ways of overcoming those other risks and we certainly can't go forward with changes till those risks have all been looked at and accounted for.

[Daniel]

Cockpit research post-Massa « (http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2011/07/18/cockpit-research-post-massa/)

Thanks. I would have been very surprised if research wasn't ongoing :) Lets see how this pans out and take it from there. I think we're more or less done talking about this for the moment ;)

[gloomyDAY]

F1 should be closed-cockpit because it just looks cool. Forget the safety aspect of it! ;)

Also, thanks for the link to the video.

[Retro Formula 1]

Why don't people that want to see that sort of racing watch DTM or GT racing and not bugger about with F1.

Obviously the TWG are looking to make F1 safer but this is an idea too far.

Hate it, hate it, hate it.

[Daniel]

Why don't people that want to see that sort of racing watch DTM or GT racing and not bugger about with F1.

Obviously the TWG are looking to make F1 safer but this is an idea too far.

Hate it, hate it, hate it.

This is exactly the stupid argument I was talking about before. Just because there's a canopy on the car doesn't make it a DTM car or an endurance racer.

[Retro Formula 1]

This is exactly the stupid argument I was talking about before. Just because there's a canopy on the car doesn't make it a DTM car or an endurance racer.

As per normal, you resort to insults :rolleyes:

People don't like the idea. That is their opinion and just because it differs from yours, does not make it wrong.

I hate the idea; period. I don't need to qualify any further than that for it to be a valid point.

[Daniel]

As per normal, you resort to insults :rolleyes:

People don't like the idea. That is their opinion and just because it differs from yours, does not make it wrong.

I hate the idea; period. I don't need to qualify any further than that for it to be a valid point.

I said that your argument was stupid. It's not an insult. The unofficial motto is to attack the post, not the poster and that's what I did. You are the one that's attacking me by accusing me of resorting to insults.

[ArrowsFA1]

I said that your argument was stupid. It's not an insult.
Would it not perhaps have been better to say you disagree with the argument, rather than the argument is stupid? :s mokin:

[Daniel]

Would it not perhaps have been better to say you disagree with the argument, rather than the argument is stupid? :s mokin:

Perhaps. But it's hardly an insult is it :s mokin: But then again if you're the sort of person who likes to overdramatise things....... :laugh:

[SGWilko]

This is exactly the stupid argument I was talking about before. Just because there's a canopy on the car doesn't make it a DTM car or an endurance racer.

He didn't say it did! Why is it a stupid argument? It is a valid viewpoint, and getting stroppy because it differs from yours is not helping the debate very much.

Retro does not want to see covered cockpits in F1, that's his opinion and he's entitled to it. What givesyou the right to tell him he is wrong or stupid for having that opinion?

[Daniel]

He didn't say it did! Why is it a stupid argument? It is a valid viewpoint, and getting stroppy because it differs from yours is not helping the debate very much.

Retro does not want to see covered cockpits in F1, that's his opinion and he's entitled to it. What givesyou the right to tell him he is wrong or stupid for having that opinion?

The thing is as usual, you've not read my post. I said his opinion was stupid. The implication was there that this takes F1 closer to GTM or endurance racers. The silly thing is that he said "Why don't people that want to see that sort of racing watch DTM or GT racing and not bugger about with F1." which is just silly, how does having the canopy on there actually change the racing? :confused:

I can understand if someone doesn't like the look, it's foreign to them, but to make silly statements about it changing the racing is just..... silly.

[SGWilko]

I said his opinion was stupid.

I know what you said.

[Daniel]

I know what you said.

Then why is your statement based on something I didn't say? :confused:

[SGWilko]

Then why is your statement based on something I didn't say? :confused:

Because, by stating


I said his opinion was stupid.

you are attacking the poster, not the post. You even contradicted yourself with that little snippet.

[Daniel]

Because, by stating



you are attacking the poster, not the post. You even contradicted yourself with that little snippet.

Wow, just wow. So by saying for instance that your dog is stupid, means that I'm calling YOU stupid? :confused: I never said Knockie was stupid in this thread, merely that his opinion is stupid. If you can't understand that then I do trulli (sic) despair.

[SGWilko]

Wow, just wow. So by saying for instance that your dog is stupid, means that I'm calling YOU stupid? :confused: I never said Knockie was stupid in this thread, merely that his opinion is stupid. If you can't understand that then I do trulli (sic) despair.

'I think your opinion is wrong' would have been better.

We need to step back a little and remind ourselves of the not inconsiderate fact that F1 is mandated as 'open wheel, open cockpit'.

In my opinion, and I expect you to disagree on this, if you enclose the cockpit, it becomes a different formula.

[Daniel]

'I think your opinion is wrong' would have been better.

We need to step back a little and remind ourselves of the not inconsiderate fact that F1 is mandated as 'open wheel, open cockpit'.

In my opinion, and I expect you to disagree on this, if you enclose the cockpit, it becomes a different formula.

And in the past F1 had turbo's they had V10's etc etc. As someone mentioned early in this thread, F1 is whatever the regulations say it is. I put it to you that 99.99% of people in the real world (mean not the pseudo-connoiseur's on this forum) probably wouldn't care. F1 has changed over time, we went from slicks to grooved tyres and although it looked strange, we soon got used to it, we went back to slicks and we got used to them, we went from wide rear wings to skinnier ones and we got used to it.

I'm willing to accept that actually covering the wheels might be a bit much for people, but I really don't see a canopy being a problem. That is unless you're the reincarnation of Sandy Bot.

[SGWilko]

And in the past F1 had turbo's they had V10's etc etc. As someone mentioned early in this thread, F1 is whatever the regulations say it is. I put it to you that 99.99% of people in the real world (mean not the pseudo-connoiseur's on this forum) probably wouldn't care. F1 has changed over time, we went from slicks to grooved tyres and although it looked strange, we soon got used to it, we went back to slicks and we got used to them, we went from wide rear wings to skinnier ones and we got used to it.

I'm willing to accept that actually covering the wheels might be a bit much for people, but I really don't see a canopy being a problem. That is unless you're the reincarnation of Sandy Bot.

But it has remained open cockpit, open wheel. An engine is an engine. Size, power etc is determined by the rules.

Tyres are tyres, again size and tread pattern being dealt with in the rules. They remain uncovered, as does the cockpit.

[Daniel]

But it has remained open cockpit, open wheel. An engine is an engine. Size, power etc is determined by the rules.

Tyres are tyres, again size and tread pattern being dealt with in the rules. They remain uncovered, as does the cockpit.

But the thing is that covering the cockpits changes doesn't fundamentally change the racing. Neither does making the rear wings narrower or getting rid of winglets, double diffusers or exhaust blown diffusers.

[SGWilko]

But the thing is that covering the cockpits changes doesn't fundamentally change the racing.

Agreed - it does change the formula though.

I want open wheel open cockpit racing.

The formula as it is has been made as safe as it can be given current technologies and knowhow.

[Daniel]

Agreed - it does change the formula though.

I want open wheel open cockpit racing.

The formula as it is has been made as safe as it can be given current technologies and knowhow.

as pointed out the formula has changed and will continue to change.

[ArrowsFA1]

Could we have a vote on it?

[SGWilko]

Could we have a vote on it?

How about-

Should F1;

Remain Open Wheel, Open Cockpit

or

Move to an enclosed wheel and cockpit formula?

[Daniel]

Could we have a vote on it?

Well tbh I don't think the forum is indicative of the wishes of F1 fans in general ;)

[Retro Formula 1]

Well tbh I don't think the forum is indicative of the wishes of F1 fans in general ;)

No, the forum is indicative of the people that choose to vote on this forum. However, it does give a clear idea about what the more committed fans think. After all, the casual fan probably wouldn't bother putting up with all the crap we have to ;)

[Daniel]

No, the forum is indicative of the people that choose to vote on this forum. However, it does give a clear idea about what the more committed fans think. After all, the casual fan probably wouldn't bother putting up with all the crap we have to ;)

BRAVO! BRAVO! BRAVO! Another thinly veiled insult from Knockie, the person who complains when people so much as appear to insult him :rolleyes:

[gloomyDAY]

Yes, let's have a poll. :D


BRAVO! BRAVO! BRAVO! Another thinly veiled insult from Knockie, the person who complains when people so much as appear to insult him :rolleyes: You're so annoying Dan. lol!

[Daniel]

Yes, let's have a poll. :D

You're so annoying Dan. lol!

:up: At least someone who's got the balls to at least say what he thinks rather than make some cowardly little comment :D :up:

[SGWilko]

Well tbh I don't think the forum is indicative of the wishes of F1 fans in general ;)

So, you are not of the opinion that F1 fans join motorsport forums to discuss F1 then? Of course, there is no such thing as a general F1 fan, as the demographic and criteria that would class an individual as an F1 fan would be unique to that individual.....

There are those that want to discuss, and those that attack discussions as they differ from their own.

That's neither thinly veiled nor an attack, merely a statement of fact.

BTW, you have not appeared to insult Retro, you actually have, you know you have, and are now going through the motions of trying to laugh it off as an overreaction. Without being able to see facial expression etc, the printed word has the ability to offend and insult, even when the intention was not the purpose.

Retro said he was insulted, the simple and courteous thing to have done would be to have apologised, followed by expalining it was not, and why it was not intended to offend or insult. However, you have deemed it appropriate to attempt to throw the situation on its head and are now accusing very banal posts from Retro as insulting.

Get a grip, deal with it, move on.

Now then, where is that Poll?

[SGWilko]

Now then, where is that Poll?

Thanks Mods! :up:

[Retro Formula 1]

BRAVO! BRAVO! BRAVO! Another thinly veiled insult from Knockie, the person who complains when people so much as appear to insult him :rolleyes:

:confused: I was saying casual fans as opposed to us committed F1 fans. Things like KERS yes, KERS no, medals not points, Diffusers, blown diffusers, no blown diffusers, diffusers back, stupid penalties, Ferrari favouritism, McLaren bias, grooved tyres, strange electronics, team orders etc. Committed fans are fed up with this crap whereas casual fans don't know about all this and don't care.

The latest one is trying to make the ultimate open wheel championship into some sort of enclosed coupé series. Now, you may be quite new to F1 Daniel but there are others that have followed this sport all their lives are fed up with the messing about.

On top of all that, do you really feel you are all that significant? The answer is no so can we drop the personal and get back to discussing this thread as you are the only one that is being insulting.

[Daniel]

:confused: I was saying casual fans as opposed to us committed F1 fans. Things like KERS yes, KERS no, medals not points, Diffusers, blown diffusers, no blown diffusers, diffusers back, stupid penalties, Ferrari favouritism, McLaren bias, grooved tyres, strange electronics, team orders etc. Committed fans are fed up with this crap whereas casual fans don't know about all this and don't care.

The latest one is trying to make the ultimate open wheel championship into some sort of enclosed coupé series. Now, you may be quite new to F1 Daniel but there are others that have followed this sport all their lives are fed up with the messing about.

On top of all that, do you really feel you are all that significant? The answer is no so can we drop the personal and get back to discussing this thread as you are the only one that is being insulting.

Listen, I'm done with your blatant trolling and am adding you to my ignore list. I've also reported you for blatant personal insults.

[SGWilko]

Listen, I'm done with your blatant trolling and am adding you to my ignore list. I've also reported you for blatant personal insults.

I guess we'll let the mods be the judge in that one then.

Heat and kitchen, heat and kitchen.......

[555-04Q2]

This subject is still going on :s hock:

[Daniel]

I guess we'll let the mods be the judge in that one then.

Heat and kitchen, heat and kitchen.......

Listen, I have no problem with the heat in here, but I object to someone insulting me and then complaining when I'm not even insulting them.

[Robinho]

to be honest I think Retro and Daniel are both being prats, and having met Retro in real life i can confirm he can be one then too ;)

as for canopies I have major misgivings about extraction with no doors, especially when upside down. I also have an issue with a mechanism for the canopiy to be ejected after an accident given that this could mean the canopy itself could become additional debris evither from an accident or if the system fails and ejects on the track. the device itself could therefore become the major contributor of a whole new accident.

the profile is an issue with the narrow cockpit, with visibility issues if its too think and also the rain/oil/bugs issue, it can't be wiped by the driver, it can't have tear off's removed and would need some sort of cleaning device (wipers), but that wouldn't celar bugs and oil, becoming a major visibility risk.

Whilst it might prevent some head to object incidents, these are very rare, although normally pretty serious, i think there is serious potential for it to create more issues than it solves.

then you do have a historical/formula issue, with the cars being open cockpitted. and i do belive this sort of thing should be mandated in lower formulae if anywhere where the cars are arguably less strong and run on less safe tracks. its not an F1 issue, its an all open cockpit cars issue.

I also fail to see how McNish's accident was worse or more dangerous to a driver than say Kubica's in canada the other year. Both driver survived largely unharmed, on in a coupe one not.

[SGWilko]

to be honest I think Retro and Daniel are both being prats, and having met Retro in real life i can confirm he can be one then too ;)

as for canopies I have major misgivings about extraction with no doors, especially when upside down. I also have an issue with a mechanism for the canopiy to be ejected after an accident given that this could mean the canopy itself could become additional debris evither from an accident or if the system fails and ejects on the track. the device itself could therefore become the major contributor of a whole new accident.

the profile is an issue with the narrow cockpit, with visibility issues if its too think and also the rain/oil/bugs issue, it can't be wiped by the driver, it can't have tear off's removed and would need some sort of cleaning device (wipers), but that wouldn't celar bugs and oil, becoming a major visibility risk.

Whilst it might prevent some head to object incidents, these are very rare, although normally pretty serious, i think there is serious potential for it to create more issues than it solves.

then you do have a historical/formula issue, with the cars being open cockpitted. and i do belive this sort of thing should be mandated in lower formulae if anywhere where the cars are arguably less strong and run on less safe tracks. its not an F1 issue, its an all open cockpit cars issue.

I also fail to see how McNish's accident was worse or more dangerous to a driver than say Kubica's in canada the other year. Both driver survived largely unharmed, on in a coupe one not.

That'll be a no then? :laugh:

[Daniel]

to be honest I think Retro and Daniel are both being prats, and having met Retro in real life i can confirm he can be one then too ;)

as for canopies I have major misgivings about extraction with no doors, especially when upside down. I also have an issue with a mechanism for the canopiy to be ejected after an accident given that this could mean the canopy itself could become additional debris evither from an accident or if the system fails and ejects on the track. the device itself could therefore become the major contributor of a whole new accident.

the profile is an issue with the narrow cockpit, with visibility issues if its too think and also the rain/oil/bugs issue, it can't be wiped by the driver, it can't have tear off's removed and would need some sort of cleaning device (wipers), but that wouldn't celar bugs and oil, becoming a major visibility risk.

Whilst it might prevent some head to object incidents, these are very rare, although normally pretty serious, i think there is serious potential for it to create more issues than it solves.

then you do have a historical/formula issue, with the cars being open cockpitted. and i do belive this sort of thing should be mandated in lower formulae if anywhere where the cars are arguably less strong and run on less safe tracks. its not an F1 issue, its an all open cockpit cars issue.

I also fail to see how McNish's accident was worse or more dangerous to a driver than say Kubica's in canada the other year. Both driver survived largely unharmed, on in a coupe one not.

Fair points. I apologise if I've been a prat, but I really do just want to discuss the subject.

As I said above, I think we've reached the limits of what talking on a forum can achieve on this subject, the FIA certainly won't put this into place if the other issues that it could potentially cause, haven't been sorted. One thing I don't quite agree with is how a canopy makes extraction of a driver from an upside down car any worse. With HANS there is no way a driver can get out of an upside down car these days anyway. I'm not a canopyphile or anything, I don't just want to see F1 cars with canopies on because it gives me my jollies, I honestly feel that over the last 10 years or so there have been quite a few near misses. I mean Schuey nearly got his head taken off last year in the final race of the season in the first few corners if I remember right.

I for one am glad that the FIA is looking into this, it may turn out that they can make a workable solution including a canopy or a windscreen or it may turn out that it's not possible. But hell I'm really happy it's being looked into.

[Robinho]

That'll be a no then? :laugh:

yep, that just about covers it, but it was a qualifed one.

all that said i dread the day we all watch a driver get beheaded on live TV when the freak accident noone thinks will ever happen finally does. there are probably a number of drivers who'd still be with us still too (thinking Tom Pryce, Senna, Henry Surtees to name a few) if this sort of protection were available.

put it this way, if they can come up with an effective solution that kept the core of F1 the same and protected the drivers without creating new problems i certainly wouldn't stop watching F1 because of it

[SGWilko]

yep, that just about covers it, but it was a qualifed one.

all that said i dread the day we all watch a driver get beheaded on live TV when the freak accident noone thinks will ever happen finally does. there are probably a number of drivers who'd still be with us still too (thinking Tom Pryce, Senna, Henry Surtees to name a few) if this sort of protection were available.

put it this way, if they can come up with an effective solution that kept the core of F1 the same and protected the drivers without creating new problems i certainly wouldn't stop watching F1 because of it

Or, if it is the marshall that is beheaded trying to assist a trapped driver and the canopy ejects.........

[Daniel]

yep, that just about covers it, but it was a qualifed one.

all that said i dread the day we all watch a driver get beheaded on live TV when the freak accident noone thinks will ever happen finally does. there are probably a number of drivers who'd still be with us still too (thinking Tom Pryce, Senna, Henry Surtees to name a few) if this sort of protection were available.

put it this way, if they can come up with an effective solution that kept the core of F1 the same and protected the drivers without creating new problems i certainly wouldn't stop watching F1 because of it

That is my view too. I'll repeat myself for the thousandth time here, but I don't want to see any sort of "solution" implemented before any new risk factors are evaluated and accounted for :)

[Robinho]

Fair points. I apologise if I've been a prat, but I really do just want to discuss the subject.

As I said above, I think we've reached the limits of what talking on a forum can achieve on this subject, the FIA certainly won't put this into place if the other issues that it could potentially cause, haven't been sorted. One thing I don't quite agree with is how a canopy makes extraction of a driver from an upside down car any worse. With HANS there is no way a driver can get out of an upside down car these days anyway. I'm not a canopyphile or anything, I don't just want to see F1 cars with canopies on because it gives me my jollies, I honestly feel that over the last 10 years or so there have been quite a few near misses. I mean Schuey nearly got his head taken off last year in the final race of the season in the first few corners if I remember right.

I for one am glad that the FIA is looking into this, it may turn out that they can make a workable solution including a canopy or a windscreen or it may turn out that it's not possible. But hell I'm really happy it's being looked into.

but the HANS only connects the drivers to their own shoulders doesn't it. it may limit their head movements but it shouldn't stop them getting out of the car whether its upside down or not. its the same for anyone with the HANS device in any catergory, unless i've misunderstood your point?

[SGWilko]

but the HANS only connects the drivers to their own shoulders doesn't it. it may limit their head movements but it shouldn't stop them getting out of the car whether its upside down or not. its the same for anyone with the HANS device in any catergory, unless i've misunderstood your point?

HANS is to stop severe whiplash and is effectively a yoke that rests on the shoulders and is tethered to the helmet.

I think.....

[Daniel]

but the HANS only connects the drivers to their own shoulders doesn't it. it may limit their head movements but it shouldn't stop them getting out of the car whether its upside down or not. its the same for anyone with the HANS device in any catergory, unless i've misunderstood your point?

It connects the helmet to the HANS device which means that the drivers ability to bend their neck is lessened. I remember a little while after the HANS device became mandatory in the WRC, V8 supercars, F1 and so on, Marcos Ambrose rolled has car upside down into a gravel trap and had great difficulty getting out. I can't remember which race or which year it was, but nevertheless it hindered his ability to get out and I don't think it makes it easy for a driver to get out of an upside down F1 car, that said I think we wouldn't have Kubica here after his accident in Canada so overall HANS is a very good thing.

[Retro Formula 1]

and having met Retro in real life i can confirm he can be one then too ;)



:laugh: It might be painful, it might be dangerous and it might be illegal but it's never boring ;)

[nigelred5]

The HANS is frequently fitted with quick release buckles that allow the driver to detach the helmet from the device. The device is only held in place by the shoulder belts. Once the belts are released, especially on the smaller models, the device really doesn't restrict motion of the neck anymore than the helmet when the driver isn't strapped in.
The stock models for formula cars allow up to 40 degrees forward motion, and drivers are able to get in and out of stock cars wearing the HANS fairly easily.

Fyi:
Helmet Attachment - Quick Click, for SA Helmet (http://hansdevice.com/Helmet-Attachment-Quick-Click-for-SA-Helmet?sc=2&category=8)

Ambrose was probably wearing a model with more restricted motion suited to a more upright seating position in a saloon car and without the release buckles.

[Retro Formula 1]

Listen, I'm done with your blatant trolling and am adding you to my ignore list. I've also reported you for blatant personal insults.

Again, I am confused?

Can you, or anyone else point out one instance on this thread where I insulted you or have been trolling? Even when you claim my opinions are stupid or I have had to clarify a post because you took offence where none was intended, I have tried to do so without ridiculing you. (which would have been quite easy).

I really don't know where you are coming from or why you're getting so worked up so it really is best if you do put me on your ignore list.

[Daniel]

Again, I am confused?

Can you, or anyone else point out one instance on this thread where I insulted you or have been trolling? Even when you claim my opinions are stupid or I have had to clarify a post because you took offence where none was intended, I have tried to do so without ridiculing you. (which would have been quite easy).

I really don't know where you are coming from or why you're getting so worked up so it really is best if you do put me on your ignore list.
Listen, you know very well where you insulted me and anyone who knows you and your track record will see it. You've even done it in this post.

[pino]

Daniel and Retro, please discuss your issues via PM thanks :)

[nigelred5]

Thanks Pino! This is an enjoyable thread to discuss the pros and cons of the suggestion minus all of the personal attacks.

[Retro Formula 1]

Daniel and Retro, please discuss your issues via PM thanks :)

Sorry mate. Back to the subject which seems to be a resounding NO to the idea of closed cockpits.

Hope the TWG don't adopt this idea.

[Daniel]

The silly though about this was that the poll shouldn't be about coupe's but having a canopy or a windscreen, but whatever :)

[Mark]

Never flippin' happy!!

[Daniel]

Just saying :)

[SGWilko]

Never flippin' happy!!

As Chas 'n Dave would sing....... ;)

[airshifter]

The silly though about this was that the poll shouldn't be about coupe's but having a canopy or a windscreen, but whatever :)


Thread: Should f1 run coupes? (http://www.motorsportforums.com/f1/145976-should-f1-run-coupes-25.html)

Silly moderators. They should have known the question that is the thread title wasn't really the question. :)

[Daniel]

Thread: Should f1 run coupes? (http://www.motorsportforums.com/f1/145976-should-f1-run-coupes-25.html)

Silly moderators. They should have known the question that is the thread title wasn't really the question. :)

Well we have been talking almost exclusively about having a canopy for the last few pages (you know, since the FIA started investigating the feasibility of a CANOPY/WINDSCREEN) in F1?

But I guess agreeing with me and being sensible about it wouldn't have allowed you to take your childish little dig at me :)

[SGWilko]

Well we have been talking almost exclusively about having a canopy for the last few pages (you know, since the FIA started investigating the feasibility of a CANOPY/WINDSCREEN) in F1?

But I guess agreeing with me and being sensible about it wouldn't have allowed you to take your childish little dig at me :)

I've been advocating that the move to coupes (and you likened this with your referral to McNish in Le Mans) and the loss of open wheel, open cockpit is against what I see as the whole ethos of F1.

If you've had a change of heart since starting the thread, that, like a lighthouse keeper, is your lookout.

[Retro Formula 1]

I've been advocating that the move to coupes (and you likened this with your referral to McNish in Le Mans) and the loss of open wheel, open cockpit is against what I see as the whole ethos of F1.

If you've had a change of heart since starting the thread, that, like a lighthouse keeper, is your lookout.

People that change their minds on here as often as the wind are generally the ones that criticise Hill for adjusting his stance after more than a decade :laugh:

[airshifter]

Well we have been talking almost exclusively about having a canopy for the last few pages (you know, since the FIA started investigating the feasibility of a CANOPY/WINDSCREEN) in F1?

But I guess agreeing with me and being sensible about it wouldn't have allowed you to take your childish little dig at me :)

A canopy does not make a coupe, it makes an enclosed cockpit.

We can't help it if you already changed your mind since starting the thread, and if you wanted a poll you should have specified what question you wanted. There was no dig involved, you started a thread asking a question about couples and the responses and poll have answered that question.

The canopy question is IMO an entirely different question. There are many ways even a partial canopy could add to driver safety, yet not require special releases any more difficult than the current driver surround method.

[gloomyDAY]

Dan and I are the clear minority, a.k.a. the Bolsheviks!

[Daniel]

A canopy does not make a coupe, it makes an enclosed cockpit.

We can't help it if you already changed your mind since starting the thread, and if you wanted a poll you should have specified what question you wanted. There was no dig involved, you started a thread asking a question about couples and the responses and poll have answered that question.

The canopy question is IMO an entirely different question. There are many ways even a partial canopy could add to driver safety, yet not require special releases any more difficult than the current driver surround method.

I'm sorry but the last few pages were specifically in regards to the canopy :dozey: I didn't change my mind, the FIA started investigating canopies and that was what were were discussing in case you hadn't noticed :confused:

[Daniel]

Dan and I are the clear majority, a.k.a. the Bolsheviks!

I agree Commissar gloomyDAY! :D

[ioan]

Do you guys ever sleep?!

[airshifter]

I'm sorry but the last few pages were specifically in regards to the canopy :dozey: I didn't change my mind, the FIA started investigating canopies and that was what were were discussing in case you hadn't noticed :confused:


In case you haden't noticed your thread title was "Should F1 run coupes?"

I'm sure Mark could make another poll thread about whether F1 should run canopies. It might even improve to an 80/20 split. :)

[Malbec]

Theres alot of nitpicking going on here as we have discussed the potential of having 'windscreens' for this entire thread, and this is not massively different to having a completely closed cockpit. Canopy/windscreen same ballpark and same outcome, so lets not try and say the poll is now invalid over a minor technicality.

Surely there is a big difference between having a coupe with a fixed solid roof that is integral to the stressbearing structure of the car as the OP title suggested and a canopy which is a non-stressbearing structure? The former will require doors to get in and out, the latter won't but access will be significantly more difficult if the canopy is damaged or the car is upside down. Also the curvature of the screens would be completely different.

I'm still against both coupes and canopies in F1 but my arguments against either would be different. Some people may agree with one but not the other.

[Daniel]

Is the proposed implementation of a canopy different in purpose to the introduction of windscreens on F1 cars? If I have missed the point then sorry but I thought both are suggested to make racing safer for the driver. That being the main focus in this debate I thought? If its purely for aesthetical reasons then my apologies.

Of course it's not for aesthetical reasons.

As Dylan says, a coupe is vastly different to an F1 car with a fighter style canopy on it

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2347/2293350636_b9d890efc2.jpg
http://www.cnet.co.uk/i/c/blg/cat/cartech/f1canopy.jpg

Hence why asking in the poll should F1 run coupes is a completely different question to asking whether they should run with a canopy to protect the driver.

[nigelred5]

A canopy is far different than a coupe IMHO, but neither belong in F1 for a host of reasons as we have all discussed. Bringing back a windscreen brings up visibility issues but it would be a viable option as that can be designed to be removable by the driver for egress like the cockpit horseshoe is now. Looking at the seating position and height of most of the drivers, they only need a screen of maybe 6" to provide more protection. They brought the cockpit sides up to protect the driver, however maybe a change in the regs could push the high noses of the cars back down a few inches to allow better forward visibility through a windscreen. It could gret rid of the high nose style cars as well which wouldn't be a horrible thing IMHO.
an evolution of this with a screen just a scoshe higher to ensure the driver's helment is lower than the top of the screen. current polycarbonates are clear, bullet proof and certainly strong enough to provide protection.

http://carsincontext.us/images/IRL/1980-Chaparral.jpg

I see Dan and I were typing at the same time...

It doesn't need to be and shouldn't be fully enclosed unless you are going to include air conditioning, oxygen and onboard fire suppression.

[Daniel]

In case you haden't noticed your thread title was "Should F1 run coupes?"

I'm sure Mark could make another poll thread about whether F1 should run canopies. It might even improve to an 80/20 split. :)

In case dogs fly boobies on the underground fart face bum orange GOAT jelly.

Seriously, what the hell does this have to do with the price of eggs in China? Sure the thread was about should F1 run coupe's but then the thread more or less stopped and someone posted about F1 testing a CANOPY system and that was discussed for a few pages and then it was requested

I posted this


But the thing is that covering the cockpits changes doesn't fundamentally change the racing. Neither does making the rear wings narrower or getting rid of winglets, double diffusers or exhaust blown diffusers.

then Arrows posted this


Could we have a vote on it?

So it's pretty obvious to anyone who isn't being silly for the sake of it, that the poll requested was whether F1 cars should run a canopy, to be fair it's not up to Pino to read through pages and pages of crap, perhaps it should have been more clearly stated.

Tbh there's no excuse for your nitpicking as henners calls it, grow up and discuss the topic and stop trying to have an argument over nothing.

[Daniel]

Maybe when I reopened this thread to discuss the canopy tests the FIA were running I should have created a new thread for it as it has nothing to do with turning F1 cars into coupe's. Two different concepts although I had thought the discussion was more in line with driver safety rather than the design issues. My mistake. Maybe we can transfer discussion to a relevent thread?

Also thanks for pointing out the difference between a coupe and an open cockpit F1 car. They look so similar I would never had told the difference lol.

I wasn't trying to be patronising if that's what you mean :)

Tbh I've asked Pino to delete this thread, it hurts my ****ing head so much. As I said in my report, the FIA will do whatever they do and tbh it'll either happen or not happen regardless of what people on some forum think. The fact that the FIA are looking into it says that they feel that it's a serious issue worth looking into and I think that says a lot about the issue.

You shouldn't have to start another thread just because some people are hard of understanding, it was pretty clear for anyone reading through the thread as to what was being discussed at what stage.

I'd like to thank people like yourself, Dylan and Arrows who were able to be sensible about the issue and not act in an embarassing manner like some other people.

[SGWilko]

I'd like to thank people like yourself, Dylan and Arrows who were able to be sensible about the issue and not act in an embarassing manner like some other people.

Like this, perhaps?


In case dogs fly boobies on the underground fart face bum orange GOAT jelly.

:)

[airshifter]

Like this, perhaps?



:)

Don't quote Daniel contradicting his insults.


You asked a question Daniel, and got an answer. As a matter of fact I answered both the open wheel and canopy aspects and suggested something similar to what Nigelred posted above concerning a windscreen without an enclosed canopy. I also stated my reasons for not wanting enclosed wheels.

You commented to Mark that the poll was silly, yet never requested any specific question, nor did anyone else suggest anything other than a poll. Being the thread title was a question they obviously felt that was the question for the poll.

If you don't like the responses you're getting, get over it. As much as you may feel otherwise everyone else on here is just as entitled to their opinion. The big difference seems to be that you can insult others, but can't take the slightest ribbing in return. As the saying goes, don't dish it out if you can't take it.

[Valve Bounce]

I strongly favor something like this: Google Images (http://www.google.com/imgres?q=Lightburn+Zeta&hl=en&sa=X&biw=1920&bih=945&tbm=isch&prmd=ivns&tbnid=K112ya_iZG6XGM:&imgrefurl=http://microcarmuseum.com/tour/zeta.html&docid=dL-EAYxYUUMspM&w=480&h=360&ei=mvMwTsGgEOfTiALk7OixBg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=179&vpy=229&dur=4025&hovh=194&hovw=259&tx=151&ty=86&page=1&tbnh=132&tbnw=176&start=0&ndsp=58&ved=1t:429,r:9,s:0)

[Daniel]

Don't quote Daniel contradicting his insults.

You are insulted by random gibberish? :confused: You Knockie and Wilko should form a love triangle, you seem to get on rather well I think :) Now I know that could be considered an insult, but I genuinely feel that you guys would get on well.....

[555-04Q2]

The poll result so far pretty much shows what fans think and is not a surprise to me at all.

[Retro Formula 1]

You are insulted by random gibberish? :confused: You Knockie and Wilko should form a love triangle, you seem to get on rather well I think :) Now I know that could be considered an insult, but I genuinely feel that you guys would get on well.....

Somehow I think you are right and we would get on. Don't know about a ménage au trois but I'm sure 3 guys like us could easily double (or tipple) our numbers with members of the opposite sex :)

[Daniel]

I have to say after yesterdays events I was sadly reminded of this thread. I agonised over whether to post this and decided that the best thing to do was to post. Call me callous, call me cruel, say that I'm using someone's death to make a point, whatever, but I just don't see why people have to race with something that's needleessly inherently dangerous.

Of course the fact that the race was on a high banked oval with lots of cars was a big factor. But Dan got launched because when two open wheel cars touch, the one behind is generally going to get launched. I won't post pictures on here out of respect for Dan (RIP), but you clearly see him getting launched off the back of someone and then the rest is history sadly.... Do we need cars launching in motorsport? Should we not do everything to make sure this doesn't happen?

Extremely sad that he would die in the very last race before the design of the cars was to be changed in a way which probably would have meant Dan wouldn't have been launched.
http://indycar.com/var/assets_content/2012update.png

RIP Dan Wheldon :(

[SGWilko]

I just don't see why people have to race with something that's needleessly inherently dangerous.

They don't - they can chose not to race if they are concerned.


RIP Dan Wheldon :(

Indeed - a tragic accident that happens once in a million.

[DexDexter]

Shouldn't you post this on the indycar forum? Comparing F1 to racing on very dangerous banked ovals just isn't viable.

[Daniel]

Shouldn't you post this on the indycar forum? Comparing F1 to racing on very dangerous banked ovals just isn't viable.

Sure, fine, you go post a thread called "Should IndyCar run 2012 IndyCar's in 2012" in there. Did you even look at the picture in my post???????

[DexDexter]

Sure, fine, you go post a thread called "Should IndyCar run 2012 IndyCar's in 2012" in there. Did you even look at the picture in my post???????

Yep, I did. Why do you have to use a tragic event to start another argument on a topic that was discussed enough on this forum????

[SGWilko]

Sure, fine, you go post a thread called "Should IndyCar run 2012 IndyCar's in 2012" in there. Did you even look at the picture in my post???????

Son, lay off the weed this early in the morning - it appears to making you paranoid......

[Daniel]

They don't - they can chose not to race if they are concerned

Typical silly statement. You go tell the widow that although that accident could probably easily have been prevented needn't have been because it was his choice.

I find it incomprehensible that somehow because it was his choice that it's OK. I don't get it. I genuinely do not understand the logic and don't feel that there is any logic behind that statement. Did F1 stand still when people were getting thrown from cars and say "Well it doesn't matter, it's their choice to race so why should we have seatbelts?" or when people were getting burnt to death and say "Well we could do something, but he understood the dangers so lets do nothing" and when Dale Earnhardt died they sure as hell didn't stand still and neither did F1 and most other high level forms of motorsport would Kubica be alive still if not for the HANS device in Canada a few years ago? I doubt it.

It's easy for people to post the sort of unintelligent illogical drivel which has been posted in here when the last death in F1 was in 1994 and incidents like the ones which happen sadly too often in IndyCar are a few years in the past.

[Daniel]

Yep, I did. Why do you have to use a tragic event to start another argument on a topic that was discussed enough on this forum????

Discussed enough? What happened yesterday in Las vegas could happen in F1. The point that was rather obvious was that the changes which IndyCar are ALREADY implementing for next year will minimise the chance of this sort of accident. F1 has done nothing to minimise the chances of one car driving over another and being launched.

As for your post SGWilko, if you think that's an appropriate way to act then I feel truly sad for you.