Should f1 run coupes?

[Mark]

I think the issue is the track in this instance not the cars. They were taking a corner at 225mph, Formula 1 cars do not take corners at this sort of speeds.

Yes, coupes would help which is why this kind of track is best left to NASCAR.

[SGWilko]

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.

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.

Go read JYS bio - and understand the mentality. So many of his friends were lost racing, conversations about it with his wife, but still they carried on.

Motorsport is dangerous.

This, from Joe Saward;

there are even a few misguided folk who believe that danger can be designed out of the sport (http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2011/10/17/the-day-after/)

[Daniel]

I think the issue is the track in this instance not the cars. They were taking a corner at 225mph, Formula 1 cars do not take corners at this sort of speeds.

Yes, coupes would help which is why this kind of track is best left to NASCAR.

But Mark, the contact resulted in poor Dan's car being launched and the rest is sadly history. Yes the track is definitely to blame for the initial contact happening in the first place, but if the wheels were enclosed as they are on the 2012 cars then it's quite possible that Dan wouldn't have been launched. IndyCar have enclosed the rear wheels for good reason. Accidents will always happen but if we can minimise the chance of that accident resulting in serious injury or death than we should.

It's not like this sort of accident doesn't happen in F1......
http://www.ausmotive.com/F1/2010/European-GP-Webber-flips-05.jpg

[SGWilko]

I think the issue is the track in this instance not the cars. They were taking a corner at 225mph, Formula 1 cars do not take corners at this sort of speeds.

Yes, coupes would help which is why this kind of track is best left to NASCAR.

Dan's car was in flames - what if an enlosed cockpit saved his life, but due to damage sustained from the impact could not be released and he burned to death.....

Then what?

[wedge]

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.

And what about bikes? those that compete in the IOM TT??


I think the issue is the track in this instance not the cars. They were taking a corner at 225mph, Formula 1 cars do not take corners at this sort of speeds.

It's partly the problem. It's 1.5 miles, high banked suited towards NASCAR than open wheelers. Indeed Dario Franchitti remarked he didn't like cars running at Texas Motorspeedway in a Motorsport magazine podcast. Whether he had a particular issue with Texas or 1.5 milers as a whole wasn't said though.

The bigger issue, IMHO, has been pack racing and having cars running with the same mandated rev limit. Yes we've seen cars go airborne in isolated incidents but this was Indycar's equivalent of the 'big one'. It has been coming but its a testament to the skill of the Indycar drivers.

[Daniel]

Dan's car was in flames - what if an enlosed cockpit saved his life, but due to damage sustained from the impact could not be released and he burned to death.....

Then what?

But what if say...... his car didn't launch off the back of another car and there wasn't the massive impact in the first place :dozey: That's the point I'm making. As Henners says, there is always going to be danger in motorsport. But if we can make lower the chance of a car being launched and even getting to the point where the driver is having the sort of accident which could kill them then surely this is the way to go?

Dan's impact was massive and I think coupe or whatever it would have been hard to survive, but the point is that with the changes (sensibly) being implemented next year would quite possibly have meant that the big impact never took place.

As they say, prevention is better than the cure.

[Daniel]

It truly was terrible to see. Its times like this I am glad F1 cars don't do ridiculous speeds (225mph) on oval circuits, surrounded by concrete walls with no run off area's and no tyre walls. In Dan's case his entire roll hoop failed on impact which is something I think F1 uses better design to combat. It reminded me very much of the Greg Moore accident years ago where his car turned upside down after carrying its speed across grass rather than textured run off area's. Not good. Will Power had a similar accident in all of this along with Pippa Mann but thankfully both walked/limped away, its just luck of the draw with motor racing, and the danger is always going to be there regardless of what measures are taken IMO. Sadly. :(

Completely agree. It would be silly of me not to have mentioned the fact that this happened on a track which wasn't really suitable for the type of racing that was going on. The danger is always going to be there as you say, but if someone dies and we can stand up and say hand on heart that all that could reasonably have been done was done then we can at least know that there was nothing more that could have been done. To say "Well they knew the risks" is to stick your head in the sand and hope that it never happens again. IMO of course......


And what about bikes? those that compete in the IOM TT??

Whilst the TT is massively dangerous, I think it's fairly safe to say that just about everything that can reasonably be done to keep the rides and spectators safe is being done. No one expects motorsport to be fatality free, we want that to be the case but any of us who has followed motorsport for any length of time knows this can sadly never be the case. I personally just want to know that when the lights go out that the drivers/riders/co-drivers/spectators/marshalls are as safe as we can reasonably make them.

[Daniel]

Go read JYS bio - and understand the mentality. So many of his friends were lost racing, conversations about it with his wife, but still they carried on.

What? Are we talking about the same Jackie Stewart?

The Jackie Stewart I've heard of continued, WHILST campaigning for changes and greater safety for all.

You are picking out little bits of history and presenting them in a certain way to back up your point. To make out that Jackie simply continued on racing and that was that misses out a lot of facts and twists the truth greatly.

Jackie wasn't happy with the way things were and through his determination many lives were saved. I seem to remember in an interview he said that he had considered quitting early, but felt that his views regarding safety wouldn't have been respected and he thought he stood a better chance of saving lives by staying in F1. Something which IMHO was the right thing to do.

[SGWilko]

Completely agree. It would be silly of me not to have mentioned the fact that this happened on a track which wasn't really suitable for the type of racing that was going on. The danger is always going to be there as you say, but if someone dies and we can stand up and say hand on heart that all that could reasonably have been done was done then we can at least know that there was nothing more that could have been done. To say "Well they knew the risks" is to stick your head in the sand and hope that it never happens again. IMO of course......

Whilst the TT is massively dangerous, I think it's fairly safe to say that just about everything that can reasonably be done to keep the rides and spectators safe is being done. No one expects motorsport to be fatality free, we want that to be the case but any of us who has followed motorsport for any length of time knows this can sadly never be the case. I personally just want to know that when the lights go out that the drivers/riders/co-drivers/spectators/marshalls are as safe as we can reasonably make them.

Daniel, do you honestly believe that a motorsport participant HAS to drive an unsafe car?

So, you say that fatalities do happen, and it is reasonable to expect it to be impossible to prevent, but in the same breath, say that the risk of a fatality being known by the drivers is no excuse as to why they participate in such a potentially dangerous activity?

[SGWilko]

What? Are we talking about the same Jackie Stewart?

The Jackie Stewart I've heard of continued, WHILST campaigning for changes and greater safety for all.

You are picking out little bits of history and presenting them in a certain way to back up your point. To make out that Jackie simply continued on racing and that was that misses out a lot of facts and twists the truth greatly.

Jackie wasn't happy with the way things were and through his determination many lives were saved. I seem to remember in an interview he said that he had considered quitting early, but felt that his views regarding safety wouldn't have been respected and he thought he stood a better chance of saving lives by staying in F1. Something which IMHO was the right thing to do.

Yes - he knew the risks and continued to race. That is the mentality of each and every racer that I was referring to. Bingo.

[SGWilko]

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.

If the driver HAS to race a needlessly and inherently dangerous car, then there is something wrong with the sport, and someone will be charged with corporate manslaughter.

Or, the driver, knowing his car to be dangerous, has the choice to abstain. Prost was the only driver I recall ever having the bollocks to refuse to race in wet conditions he considered dangerous.....

[Daniel]

Daniel, do you honestly believe that a motorsport participant HAS to drive an unsafe car?

So, you say that fatalities do happen, and it is reasonable to expect it to be impossible to prevent, but in the same breath, say that the risk of a fatality being known by the drivers is no excuse as to why they participate in such a potentially dangerous activity?

That's not what I've said at all. Stop twisting my words like this.

What I have said quite clearly and unambiguously is that whilst motorsport is dangerous and fatalities will always happen, is that it should be made as safe as is reasonably possible. IndyCar have already prior to this incident seen fit to choose a design which enclosed the rear wheels for next year and meant that this sort of accident would be much less likely in the future. Surely that tells you something.

1. That the risk was there and obvious
2. That the risk was deemed to be too much
3. That it was felt that there was a solution to this issue which didn't compromise the racing

[SGWilko]

What happened yesterday in Las vegas could happen in F1.

Really? Since when do F1 cars run almost altogether, sometimes 3 or 4 abreast on wall enclosed banked oval tracks at speeds exceeding 220mph for most of the lap?

[SGWilko]

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 :(

Re your post above, I've bolded what you stated in bringing this thread to life again.......

[Daniel]

If the driver HAS to race a needlessly and inherently dangerous car, then there is something wrong with the sport, and someone will be charged with corporate manslaughter.

Or, the driver, knowing his car to be dangerous, has the choice to abstain. Prost was the only driver I recall ever having the bollocks to refuse to race in wet conditions he considered dangerous.....

I think you're missing the point by a mile. Whether the driver has to or whatever is not the point. Whether a driver has a choice or not will not stop an accident from happening and a driver from dying.

[SGWilko]

I think you're missing the point by a mile. Whether the driver has to or whatever is not the point. Whether a driver has a choice or not will not stop an accident from happening and a driver from dying.

Indeed, you cannot mandate for anything - if it's going to happen, it will.

[Daniel]

Yes - he knew the risks and continued to race. That is the mentality of each and every racer that I was referring to. Bingo.

Everytime you say this you forget to tag on the "...whilst tirelessly campaigning for extra safety measures and threatening track owners with boycotts if safety wasn't improved" bit.

If you want to continue "interpreting" things like this then you're welcome to do so.

[SGWilko]

In Dan's case his entire roll hoop failed on impact

Really, that's terrible - nothing would have saved him in that case when such an integral part of the structure fails due to the sheer loads involved.

[SGWilko]

Everytime you say this you forget to tag on the "...whilst tirelessly campaigning for extra safety measures and threatening track owners with boycotts if safety wasn't improved" bit.

If you want to continue "interpreting" things like this then you're welcome to do so.

Daniel, track owners ideas as to safety in those days were maybe to provide a bucket of sand in case there was a fire. When you turn up and armcos are fitted the wrong way round or bits missing, then that is another story.

You are banging on about fitting a canopy or enclosing wheels to a car to prevent the unpreventable freak accident.....

[Daniel]

Daniel, track owners ideas as to safety in those days were maybe to provide a bucket of sand in case there was a fire. When you turn up and armcos are fitted the wrong way round or bits missing, then that is another story.

You are banging on about fitting a canopy or enclosing wheels to a car to prevent the unpreventable freak accident.....

What?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!

Can you honestly tell me that with a field of 2012 cars, the same accident would have occured for sure in the same circumstances? This beggars belief. Why you are not a consultant with the FIA for safety is simply impossible to comprehend when you obviously can see the pointlessness in something which IndyCar has developed specifically to stop this sort of accident or at least minimise the occurence.

You're either very delusional about your ability to understand risk and the dynamics of contact between two open wheel vehicles or you're trolling. Throughout todays posting I have used terms like possibly and maybe to describe whether having the rear wheels enclosed on the car might have stopped this incident resulting in a fatality and you just come and say that the accident was "unpreventable".

This is a prime example why I've quit this forum, only returning to this thread because safety is always worth discussing. You try to be reasonable, you try to understand that no one can ever know anything 100% and someone comes along and states that an accident is 100% for sure cast iron dead cert unpreventable :dozey:

[Daniel]

Really? Since when do F1 cars run almost altogether, sometimes 3 or 4 abreast on wall enclosed banked oval tracks at speeds exceeding 220mph for most of the lap?

You seem to miss the point yet again. Exactly what happened in Las Vegas couldn't happen in F1. That's not the point. It doesn't need to be exactly the same accident for someone to be hurt or killed. Any car taking off greatly increases the chances of a driver being seriously injured or killed.

http://www.ausmotive.com/F1/2010/European-GP-Webber-flips-05.jpg
We came pretty close to losing the head of arguably the best driver F1 has ever seen. But hey ho! He knew the risks didn't he......
http://answers.bettor.com/images/Articles/thumbs/extralarge/2010_11_14-2010_11_14_12_56_6-jpg-41042.jpg

[SGWilko]

What?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!

Can you honestly tell me that with a field of 2012 cars, the same accident would have occured for sure in the same circumstances? This beggars belief. Why you are not a consultant with the FIA for safety is simply impossible to comprehend when you obviously can see that the pointlessness in something which IndyCar has developed specifically to stop this sort of accident.

You're either very delusional about your ability to understand risk and the dynamics of contact between two open wheel vehicles or you're trolling. Throughout todays posting I have used terms like possibly and maybe to describe whether having the rear wheels enclosed on the car might have stopped this incident resulting in a fatality and you just come and say that the accident was "unpreventable".

This is a prime example why I've quit this forum, only returning to this thread because safety is always worth discussing. You try to be reasonable, you try to understand that no one can ever know anything 100% and someone comes along and states that an accident is unpreventable :dozey:

So, if a car with enclosed wheels t-bones another car with enclosed wheels and STILL gets airborne, are you suggesting there is a design flaw, or just a result of the action/reaction of two bodies coming together with different closing speeds and trajectories?

[SGWilko]

You seem to miss the point yet again. Exactly what happened in Las Vegas couldn't happen in F1. That's not the point. It doesn't need to be exactly the same accident for someone to be hurt or killed. Any car taking off greatly increases the chances of a driver being seriously injured or killed.

http://www.ausmotive.com/F1/2010/European-GP-Webber-flips-05.jpg
We came pretty close to losing the head of arguably the best driver F1 has ever seen. But hey ho! He knew the risks didn't he......
http://answers.bettor.com/images/Articles/thumbs/extralarge/2010_11_14-2010_11_14_12_56_6-jpg-41042.jpg

Raised cockpit sides mandated due to a VERY SIMILAR incident involving DC and the other chap in a Williams I think it was.

The very same cockpit sides that everyone is moaning about cos you can't see diddly.

Motorsport is dangerous. Whatever measures you implement to improve safety will inevitably almost always have another unwanted or undesirable consequence....

[Daniel]

Raised cockpit sides mandated due to a VERY SIMILAR incident involving DC and the other chap in a Williams I think it was.

The very same cockpit sides that everyone is moaning about cos you can't see diddly.

Motorsport is dangerous. Whatever measures you implement to improve safety will inevitably almost always have another unwanted or undesirable consequence....

Of course. The thing is that you could easily put a canopy on and give the driver better vision and also better protection. I did think of posting that in one of the Lewis threads but tbh it's not worth the grief.


So, if a car with enclosed wheels t-bones another car with enclosed wheels and STILL gets airborne, are you suggesting there is a design flaw, or just a result of the action/reaction of two bodies coming together with different closing speeds and trajectories?

You're doing that thing where you completely forget the facts again. The thing with open wheels is that you can have a coming together with a relatively low speed differential and due to the fact that both tyres are spinning at high speed means that the car behind will almost certainly get airborne and at high speed when a car gets airborne then that's not good. Unlike yourself I am not claiming that enclosing the rear wheels would have meant this accident would have 100% not happened, I'm simply saying that it would have lessened the chance.

[Rollo]

Really, that's terrible - nothing would have saved him in that case when such an integral part of the structure fails due to the sheer loads involved.

It's true, nothing would have saved him, especially since the equipment is inherently inadequate to cope with the loads involved but it still doesn't stop people running those sorts of cars on those tracks.

Good money was spent in researching making racetracks safer; that usually involves run off areas but ovals have zero run off and actually help to funnel broken cars back onto the racing line.

Does anyone remember Paul Dana? Scott Brayton? Greg Moore? If people do, then I guess that the must deem that the rate of death on ovals appears to be acceptable, because no-one it appears is blaming the track design. So I suppose that someone dying at the rate of one every few years will continue.

Carry one then. I'll continue to hate oval racing.

In response to F1 cars on ovals previously:

F1 cars on an oval would be terrible...
...for a start they'd tear up the cricket pitch :D

[Daniel]

It's true, nothing would have saved him, especially since the equipment is inherently inadequate to cope with the loads involved but it still doesn't stop people running those sorts of cars on those tracks.

Good money was spent in researching making racetracks safer; that usually involves run off areas but ovals have zero run off and actually help to funnel broken cars back onto the racing line.

Does anyone remember Paul Dana? Scott Brayton? Greg Moore? If people do, then I guess that the must deem that the rate of death on ovals appears to be acceptable, because no-one it appears is blaming the track design. So I suppose that someone dying at the rate of one every few years will continue.

Carry one then. I'll continue to hate oval racing.

In response to F1 cars on ovals previously:

Completely agree Rollo, drivers were saying before the race that it wasn't safe so you have to question whether they should have been on the track in those numbers in the first place. People were also saying on the Las Vegas thread in the IndyCar section that tracks like Las Vegas are fine for NASCAR. A cursory glance on youtube at NASCAR accidents will show you that due to not having their wheels open, Stock Cars behave very differently during "big ones" and tend not to send each other high into the crash fences as much.

[SGWilko]

Does anyone think he may have seen the collision up ahead as an opportunity to make up a whole heap of places, given we know this;

Wheldon was moving his way through the 34-car field after starting from the back of the pack, which was part of his $5 million challenge to win the race. His was one of the last cars to get involved in the crash, and was sent flying from the bottom of the racetrack into the wall on the outside. (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/95473)

Whatever, it is a very sad outcome and a tragic loss of life.

[gloomyDAY]

Dan, I completely agree with you. I also thought of this thread when I read about Wheldon.

I'm proudly in the 10% minority of the poll because I think we're right. The clock is ticking and when it happens, not if, then people are going to say, "Well, why didn't he have something covering his head?" Motorsports evolve and that includes F1.

I know hardcore fans here want to keep open canopies, but F1 is a business. The sport cannot afford anyone getting killed, and an even more important point is that people's lives are at stake. We may jeer and snicker when drivers think they're almighty, but it takes a split second to see that they're just as fragile as anyone.

[Dr. Krogshöj]

...

[SGWilko]

Daniel,

I see you've been telling Joe what they need to do over the pond to make racing there safe, rubbing him and others up the wrong way as you go.

[jens]

There is an interesting piece on James Allen's blog regarding canopies. It can be suspected that visibility and quick escape by a driver will be new issues that need to get addressed. Let's see if anything comes out of it.

[BDunnell]

Carry one then. I'll continue to hate oval racing.

I wouldn't go as far as 'hate', but I will still dislike it, albeit not because of what has just occurred. It's much the same reason as I never had the slightest interest in the Reno air races, and will continue to hold that view for those reasons rather than this year's tragedy having a bearing on my judgement. But I would never advocate banning Reno, and I would never advocate banning oval racing.

[Daniel]

Daniel,

I see you've been telling Joe what they need to do over the pond to make racing there safe, rubbing him and others up the wrong way as you go.

What of it?

[Andrewmcm]

Las Vegas as an oval race track in an of itself is safe. The now obsolete Dallara Indycars are, in and of themselves, safe. What was unacceptable about Sunday's race was largely determined by the aerodynamic package of the cars. Low HP, high downforce results in no separation of cars and as such we have 34 cars doing flat-out 220mph with a separation of mere inches, and no chance of breaking away from the pack. This is indeed a very dangerous game to play - Indycar has dodged bullets with interlocking wheel contact for several years (Conway, Brack, Briscoe spring to mind) and the luck ran out on Sunday.

Once a car gets in the air there is little that can be done to predict the nature of the impact that it will experience. On Sunday we witnessed what happened when a car goes into the fence cockpit first. Webber and Villeneuve could both have encountered similar fates in the past had circumstances been different. We also saw three further examples of cars that impacted into walls/fences at different angles, and those drivers emerged relatively unscathed.

Improving safety measures to prevent accidents can take numerous paths. The simplest things that Indycar can do are to increase horsepower, dramatically reduce downforce and race on low-banked ovals. This will force drivers to drive and the element of skill will separate the cars and the likelihood of cars being launched through interlocking wheel contact is greatly reduced.

Closed-cover cockpits are a knee-jerk reaction at this stage. Legard and Allen should know better than to shoot their mouths off within 24 hours of the incident. People need time to cool off before things can be considered in a rational and logical manner.

Greg Moore's accident was a result of the access road being at a different height to the surrounding grass. In the wake of his accident the infield of most superspeedways has now been paved, removing this particular potential for accident from the equation.

[Daniel]

Las Vegas as an oval race track in an of itself is safe. The now obsolete Dallara Indycars are, in and of themselves, safe. What was unacceptable about Sunday's race was largely determined by the aerodynamic package of the cars. Low HP, high downforce results in no separation of cars and as such we have 34 cars doing flat-out 220mph with a separation of mere inches, and no chance of breaking away from the pack. This is indeed a very dangerous game to play - Indycar has dodged bullets with interlocking wheel contact for several years (Conway, Brack, Briscoe spring to mind) and the luck ran out on Sunday.

Once a car gets in the air there is little that can be done to predict the nature of the impact that it will experience. On Sunday we witnessed what happened when a car goes into the fence cockpit first. Webber and Villeneuve could both have encountered similar fates in the past had circumstances been different. We also saw three further examples of cars that impacted into walls/fences at different angles, and those drivers emerged relatively unscathed.

Improving safety measures to prevent accidents can take numerous paths. The simplest things that Indycar can do are to increase horsepower, dramatically reduce downforce and race on low-banked ovals. This will force drivers to drive and the element of skill will separate the cars and the likelihood of cars being launched through interlocking wheel contact is greatly reduced.

Closed-cover cockpits are a knee-jerk reaction at this stage. Legard and Allen should know better than to shoot their mouths off within 24 hours of the incident. People need time to cool off before things can be considered in a rational and logical manner.

Greg Moore's accident was a result of the access road being at a different height to the surrounding grass. In the wake of his accident the infield of most superspeedways has now been paved, removing this particular potential for accident from the equation.

I completely agree with your statement.

I think people have typically missed the point of my posts which is not really about enclosing the cockpit in this case, I don't think it was a survivable impact unless the cars were built like a Tiger tank, the thing I think that could have saved Dan was to not have the accident in the first place and I think enclosing the rear wheels is a great step towards seeing less cars getting launched into the air.

I know that's incredibly simplistic, but aren't some of the best solutions for lifes problems the ones which are painfully simple? The fact is that if Dan Wheldon's car hadn't have taken off then I'd probably still not be posting on this forum. Now how do people in this thread think we could keep F1 cars out of the air and on the ground?

I have to say I think the idea that a canopy could have protected Dan is a bit fanciful in my opinion. Great for keeping wheels or springs out of the cockpit, but not so good at keeping out catch fences which are attached to the earth.

[Mark]

I will concede the likes of a 'rear bumper' on F1 cars wouldn't be the end of the world!

[Malbec]

I will concede the likes of a 'rear bumper' on F1 cars wouldn't be the end of the world!

I agree, however I also doubt how much effect that would have in a massive pile up as at Las Vegas.

One big factor behind accidents like this and Mark Webber's in Valencia is that while the open wheels allow contact between cars to flip up, the reason they fly so high isn't due to the energy received from the rotating tyre but because once substantial amounts of air get down below the flat low chassis it drives the whole car up. This cannot be resolved easily.

Canopies aren't necessarily the answer either. I believe the polycarbonate canopies used recently in FIA trials are from F16s, and that two F16 pilots have been killed in non-penetrating birdstrikes where the canopy deformed enough to hit the pilot causing fatal brain and spinal injury. Polycarbonate canopies are also heavy enough to make removing them in case of an accident a serious problem, and one ought to remember that accidents that require rapid access to the cockpit without penetration are far more common than penetration injuries to the cockpit.

Many of the factors behind the tragic accident are peculiar to Indycar, open wheel racing on oval tracks with spec chassis at high speed, very little field spread with cars often 3 abreast. In addition to that sadly at Las Vegas a few extra drivers who were race-rusty were added onto the field, including Dan Wheldon himself, although I'm sure that wasn't a factor in his involvement.

As David Coulthard's article in the Telegraph indicates though Indycar had a reputation amongst drivers for relatively high risk racing, a reputation borne out by the high number of deaths and injuries relative to F1. It was their choice and ultimately isn't that why we the fans hold these guys in awe? They know the risks and yet they still face them week after week, that indeed makes them special.

[Daniel]

I agree, however I also doubt how much effect that would have in a massive pile up as at Las Vegas.

One big factor behind accidents like this and Mark Webber's in Valencia is that while the open wheels allow contact between cars to flip up, the reason they fly so high isn't due to the energy received from the rotating tyre but because once substantial amounts of air get down below the flat low chassis it drives the whole car up. This cannot be resolved easily.

Canopies aren't necessarily the answer either. I believe the polycarbonate canopies used recently in FIA trials are from F16s, and that two F16 pilots have been killed in non-penetrating birdstrikes where the canopy deformed enough to hit the pilot causing fatal brain and spinal injury. Polycarbonate canopies are also heavy enough to make removing them in case of an accident a serious problem, and one ought to remember that accidents that require rapid access to the cockpit without penetration are far more common than penetration injuries to the cockpit.

Many of the factors behind the tragic accident are peculiar to Indycar, open wheel racing on oval tracks with spec chassis at high speed, very little field spread with cars often 3 abreast. In addition to that sadly at Las Vegas a few extra drivers who were race-rusty were added onto the field, including Dan Wheldon himself, although I'm sure that wasn't a factor in his involvement.

As David Coulthard's article in the Telegraph indicates though Indycar had a reputation amongst drivers for relatively high risk racing, a reputation borne out by the high number of deaths and injuries relative to F1. It was their choice and ultimately isn't that why we the fans hold these guys in awe? They know the risks and yet they still face them week after week, that indeed makes them special.

But we're not talking about canopies.

The issue here is that the car took off. Why did it take off? Because it had air underneath it. Why did it have air underneath it? Because it rode up over the back of another car.

If you stop the cars riding up over the back of each other than you stop this sort of accident from happening. Will rear bumpers as Mark calls them help to minimise the risk of this? One would reasonably have to say yes due to the fact that wheel to wheel contact is less likely. I don't think the designers made that particular change just for aesthetics.....

I'm slightly confused by the inability by why we're talking about canopies in regards to an accident which was probably not survivable in anything else other than a Panzer tank..... prevention is better than the cure.

[Malbec]

But we're not talking about canopies.

Why be so defensive? Canopies were mentioned on posts 551 and 552 which is why I mentioned it.


The issue here is that the car took off. Why did it take off? Because it had air underneath it. Why did it have air underneath it? Because it rode up over the back of another car.

Which is probably why I agreed with Mark's post about rear 'bumper' style things on F1 cars being a decent idea, if you weren't so defensive you might have noticed this point.

However there are plenty of accidents that involve a car being pushed up into the air without wheel to wheel contact as you well know, so don't expect such a change to reduce the rate of these accidents as much as you think they will.

In addition open wheel racing has traditionally been 'cleaner' than closed wheel racing because of the fear of wheel/wheel contact and the subsequent risk of injury and death. This contrast has become less obvious recently ironically due to improved safety and the resulting groundbreaking behaviour of drivers like Senna and Schumacher who would have paid with their lives for some of the stunts they pulled had they both raced 20 years earlier. Imagine what it would be like in the future if wheels are completely covered. Just compare NASCAR and Indy or BTCC and F3 to get an idea of how different the actual racing is once the risk of wheel/wheel contact is reduced substantially. Open wheel racing is called that for a reason, it defined the very nature of the sport which is why I have reservations about covering the wheels up too much.

[SGWilko]

If the cars did not use aero to push them onto the track, then they would not be going so fast that when air does get under the car, it does not do an S-Club 7 and reach for the stars.

[BDunnell]

I'm slightly confused by the inability by why we're talking about canopies in regards to an accident which was probably not survivable in anything else other than a Panzer tank..... prevention is better than the cure.

Which, no matter whether we're talking about canopies, the Wheldon accident or whatever, brings us back again to the point that the ultimate means of prevention is not to do a particular activity at all.

[BDunnell]

In addition open wheel racing has traditionally been 'cleaner' than closed wheel racing because of the fear of wheel/wheel contact and the subsequent risk of injury and death. This contrast has become less obvious recently ironically due to improved safety and the resulting groundbreaking behaviour of drivers like Senna and Schumacher who would have paid with their lives for some of the stunts they pulled had they both raced 20 years earlier. Imagine what it would be like in the future if wheels are completely covered. Just compare NASCAR and Indy or BTCC and F3 to get an idea of how different the actual racing is once the risk of wheel/wheel contact is reduced substantially. Open wheel racing is called that for a reason, it defined the very nature of the sport which is why I have reservations about covering the wheels up too much.

And the notion that the drivers involved in F1 would somehow steer clear of contact because of their superiority as drivers compared to the practitioners of NASCAR, the BTCC, etc can be thrown out of the window straight away. Behaviour would change.

[Andrewmcm]

I think there are crossed wires here. There are two main instances in which cars may become airborne through contact with another car. The first is interlocking wheels, where the rotation of the wheels on each car forces one to mount the other, resulting in lift off of the affected car (i.e. Kenny Brack and Ryan Briscoe). The second is where the closing rate of the car behind is so great that its chassis makes contact with the car in front, and the rearmost car is launched into the air.

I'm not overly keen on watching replays of Sunday's incident, but I'm fairly sure that Wheldon, Power and Mann were all airborne because they were effectively launched owing to their relatively high rate of closing. Bumpers around the rear wheels may not have helped much in this case. As I said above the best way to avoid mayhem like Sunday is to avoid a rules package that puts the cars in those circumstances in the first place.

[SGWilko]

But we're not talking about canopies.

B-b-b-b-but this IS the canopy thread, which you resurrected in response to the death of a driver in an open cockpit car.

Are you indecisive now, or just not sure?

[Malbec]

I'm not overly keen on watching replays of Sunday's incident, but I'm fairly sure that Wheldon, Power and Mann were all airborne because they were effectively launched owing to their relatively high rate of closing. Bumpers around the rear wheels may not have helped much in this case. As I said above the best way to avoid mayhem like Sunday is to avoid a rules package that puts the cars in those circumstances in the first place.

Couldn't agree more.

[SGWilko]

And the notion that the drivers involved in F1 would somehow steer clear of contact because of their superiority as drivers compared to the practitioners of NASCAR, the BTCC, etc can be thrown out of the window straight away. Behaviour would change.

Agreed, but you must factor in the amount of rookies/inexperienced pilots, the sheer volume of cars on the track, the speeds and the fact that one guy was racing through the pack with the carrot of $5m dangling in front if he won.................(vis a vis the race that claimed Dan I mean)

[BDunnell]

Agreed, but you must factor in the amount of rookies/inexperienced pilots, the sheer volume of cars on the track, the speeds and the fact that one guy was racing through the pack with the carrot of $5m dangling in front if he won.................(vis a vis the race that claimed Dan I mean)

The last point I believe to be irrelevant in these circumstances. I agree very much with the sentiments of Andrewmcm's last post.

[Malbec]

Whilst the TT is massively dangerous, I think it's fairly safe to say that just about everything that can reasonably be done to keep the rides and spectators safe is being done.

This statement is simply not true.

Pretty much nothing has been done to make the TT safer apart from moving spectators back a bit in certain areas and improving marshalling and medical access. Any active improvement has been the result of advances in motorbike design in general.

If you want to see how road circuits can be made safer take a look at La Sarthe or Spa, both of which have been in use for a similar period as the IoM course. Both had dedicated run off areas built and in Spa's case the course length was butchered to give a shorter track with vastly improved safety features. They've done nothing like it in the IoM.

[Daniel]

Which, no matter whether we're talking about canopies, the Wheldon accident or whatever, brings us back again to the point that the ultimate means of prevention is not to do a particular activity at all.

It really is a pity that such an intelligent person as yourself posts crap like this.

So how does your "advice" seek to make motorsport any safer? Oh wait.... it doesn't :dozey:

[Daniel]

This statement is simply not true.

Pretty much nothing has been done to make the TT safer apart from moving spectators back a bit in certain areas and improving marshalling and medical access. Any active improvement has been the result of advances in motorbike design in general.

If you want to see how road circuits can be made safer take a look at La Sarthe or Spa, both of which have been in use for a similar period as the IoM course. Both had dedicated run off areas built and in Spa's case the course length was butchered to give a shorter track with vastly improved safety features. They've done nothing like it in the IoM.

Did you not notice crash barriers in certain areas which are a bit more forgiving than stone walls? There are now people with flags in most of the danger spots and the race pretty much gets cancelled if there are more than a few drops of water on the road.

[Daniel]

B-b-b-b-but this IS the canopy thread, which you resurrected in response to the death of a driver in an open cockpit car.

Are you indecisive now, or just not sure?

Listen. There is a dedicated canopy thread. Stop trolling or a decent moderator might come along and give you an infringement for trying to cause a fight..

[Malbec]

Did you not notice crash barriers in certain areas which are a bit more forgiving than stone walls? There are now people with flags in most of the danger spots and the race pretty much gets cancelled if there are more than a few drops of water on the road.

So in 100 years we've now got crash barriers and better marshalling?

As I said, compare that with the changes made in Spa over the same period, a road circuit of similar length to the IoM (or even greater IIRC), then you may view your statement that everything possible has been done to improve safety at the TT in a new light.

[Rollo]

Pretty much nothing has been done to make the TT safer apart from moving spectators back a bit in certain areas and improving marshalling and medical access. Any active improvement has been the result of advances in motorbike design in general.

If you want to see how road circuits can be made safer take a look at La Sarthe or Spa, both of which have been in use for a similar period as the IoM course. Both had dedicated run off areas built and in Spa's case the course length was butchered to give a shorter track with vastly improved safety features. They've done nothing like it in the IoM.

I concur with the above.

There are no runoff areas with oval tracks, the cars run 200+ mph next to walls. If an accident happens, they don't spray off into a gravel trap and in the case of high-banked turns but slide back down the track and into the path of oncoming traffic.
NASCAR at least has the benefit of placing the drivers in a moly-tube roll cage; their heads aren't exposed to flying bits but Indycars...?

The IoM is worse in that respect, bike riders when they fall off risk becoming part of the scenery.

[Andrewmcm]

I think some people are not seeing the wood for the trees here about 'danger' and acceptance of risk. Motorbike road racers in Northern Ireland and the TT accept that there is a finite chance that the next time they get off the bike it may well be at 180mph and into the nearest available piece of scenery. The Northwest 200 track was modified at Mather's Cross following Robert Dunlop's accident, and several of the riders now complain that the track is now too sanitised. Some of the riders in motorbike road racing want the thrill of 'pure' racing on the roads. The sheer length of the TT course renders it impossible to ensure that every corner has minimal risk. But riders turn up in their droves to compete and always rave about the challenge and excitement the course offers. I would much rather have sanctioned road racing in NI and the Isle of Man, where safety features are present instead of illicit road races being organised with no safety at all.

In much the same manner there are reports that several of the Indycar drivers intimated that a large crash was likely on race day. They all still went out to compete though. They accepted the risk and unfortunately that acceptance cost one driver his life. They've accepted the risk for that kind of oval pack racing for numerous years and finally the luck ran out.

I would love to see someone attempt to design an oval with a run-off area. How do you stop the gravel running down into the actual race track? Doesn't the run off have to be at the same inclination as the banking in order to stop the cars launching when they reach the 'run-off' area? Gravity dictates that cars which hit the outer wall of an oval may well slide back down onto the racing line, so how much run-off is enough? Is it feasible to build an oval track that is about 300ft wide? Where do the crowd sit?

The SAFER barrier is a marvellous invention. The next step in terms of oval track safety, as Paul Tracy points out, is to develop some form of glass-like 'fence' analogous to that used in the NHL, but it must obviously be capable of taking the impact of a 1,000kg car travelling at 220mph+. The most obvious step for Indycars is to avoid pack racing on ovals, as stated above. Knees are still being jerked on this thread.

[Daniel]

So in 100 years we've now got crash barriers and better marshalling?

As I said, compare that with the changes made in Spa over the same period, a road circuit of similar length to the IoM (or even greater IIRC), then you may view your statement that everything possible has been done to improve safety at the TT in a new light.

Of course. But as long as there is racing on a track with open wheeled cars there are always going to be cars flying or riding up over each other unless the rear wheels ar enclosed. Even then I'm sure we'll still see cars flying, but the point is that the risk is lessened. If you want to go off on one about the TT then fantastic, there's a whole forum for that. Comparing Spa to the TT is silly, the circuits are nowhere to a similar length. There is only so much you can do anywhere to protect a person who is daft enough to not be in a car and goes flying into the scenery at speed. It's entirely possible that the accident on the weekend need not have happened in the first place.

[Daniel]

I think some people are not seeing the wood for the trees here about 'danger' and acceptance of risk. Motorbike road racers in Northern Ireland and the TT accept that there is a finite chance that the next time they get off the bike it may well be at 180mph and into the nearest available piece of scenery. The Northwest 200 track was modified at Mather's Cross following Robert Dunlop's accident, and several of the riders now complain that the track is now too sanitised. Some of the riders in motorbike road racing want the thrill of 'pure' racing on the roads. The sheer length of the TT course renders it impossible to ensure that every corner has minimal risk. But riders turn up in their droves to compete and always rave about the challenge and excitement the course offers. I would much rather have sanctioned road racing in NI and the Isle of Man, where safety features are present instead of illicit road races being organised with no safety at all.

In much the same manner there are reports that several of the Indycar drivers intimated that a large crash was likely on race day. They all still went out to compete though. They accepted the risk and unfortunately that acceptance cost one driver his life. They've accepted the risk for that kind of oval pack racing for numerous years and finally the luck ran out.

I would love to see someone attempt to design an oval with a run-off area. How do you stop the gravel running down into the actual race track? Doesn't the run off have to be at the same inclination as the banking in order to stop the cars launching when they reach the 'run-off' area? Gravity dictates that cars which hit the outer wall of an oval may well slide back down onto the racing line, so how much run-off is enough? Is it feasible to build an oval track that is about 300ft wide? Where do the crowd sit?

The SAFER barrier is a marvellous invention. The next step in terms of oval track safety, as Paul Tracy points out, is to develop some form of glass-like 'fence' analogous to that used in the NHL, but it must obviously be capable of taking the impact of a 1,000kg car travelling at 220mph+. The most obvious step for Indycars is to avoid pack racing on ovals, as stated above. Knees are still being jerked on this thread.

The human mind is very interesting when it comes to how we deal with risk. I **** myself when I see a big spider and go and run and stand on a chair to keep the 8 legged ******* away from me. Yet I'll happily go out on the moors and drive quickly knowing full well I could fall off the road and that is that. The fact that I gain 0 enjoyment out of dealing with a spider and me gaining plenty of enjoyment out of having what is a pretty sedate drive over the moors by the standards of most will tell you why I'm happy to risk it in my car.

I think there are plenty of ways to still have the thrill of oval racing yet lessen the risk. Less risk is always good IMHO.....

[Daniel]

And the notion that the drivers involved in F1 would somehow steer clear of contact because of their superiority as drivers compared to the practitioners of NASCAR, the BTCC, etc can be thrown out of the window straight away. Behaviour would change.

Funny thing is I posted a thread along a similar line which basically theorised that as cars on the road get safer, people drive less safely because they think that with all the safety equipment that they'll never be the one to die. People disagreed of course :p

[Malbec]

Of course. But as long as there is racing on a track with open wheeled cars there are always going to be cars flying or riding up over each other unless the rear wheels ar enclosed.

Enclosing the rear wheels will still result in cars flying up, albeit less than now.


Comparing Spa to the TT is silly, the circuits are nowhere to a similar length. There is only so much you can do anywhere to protect a person who is daft enough to not be in a car and goes flying into the scenery at speed. It's entirely possible that the accident on the weekend need not have happened in the first place.

This is where I think you show your enthusiasm but lack of knowledge.

Spa used to be about 9 miles long and lined with trees that grew to the circuit edges like the ones that claimed the life of Dick Seaman who wrapped his Mercedes round one. It was made safer after the war with the trees cut down, then they shortened the track to roughly what we have now, then run off areas have been added, gravel initially then tarmac. Finally the circuit has recently become a permanent one as opposed to a temporary road course.

These are the changes made to a circuit where the race organisers were historically anti-safety change, arguing that drivers should bring a different mentality to Spa so safety changes should not apply.

Alternatively one could look at the changes made to motorbike racing tracks over the same period which are again impressive.

On that scale the TT has done nothing to improve safety, so your original comment about the safety changes at the TT are still wrong.

As for why the TT is relevant, I suggest you read Andrewmcm's posts which I agree with completely.

[Daniel]

This is where I think you show your enthusiasm but lack of knowledge.

Spa used to be about 9 miles long and lined with trees that grew to the circuit edges like the ones that claimed the life of Dick Seaman who wrapped his Mercedes round one. It was made safer after the war with the trees cut down, then they shortened the track to roughly what we have now, then run off areas have been added, gravel initially then tarmac. Finally the circuit has recently become a permanent one as opposed to a temporary road course.


Tell me Malbec, how long is the Mountain Course over which the TT is run? I'm sure you'll apologise once you realise that you're indeed the one who is lacking in knowledge.....

[Malbec]

Tell me Malbec, how long is the Mountain Course over which the TT is run? I'm sure you'll apologise once you realise that you're indeed the one who is lacking in knowledge.....

You're right Daniel, the IoM TT is indeed held over a longer distance than the original Spa course, however I don't see how that changes my point.

I am surprised that you bleat on and on about increasing safety in disciplines where lives are rarely (but tragically) lost but are happy with a few extra crash barriers and red flags at a track where several riders die on an annual basis....

[Daniel]

You're right Daniel, the IoM TT is indeed held over a longer distance than the original Spa course, however I don't see how that changes my point.

You're talking a fundamentally different event when it's held over that sort of length. There's very little you can (practically) do over a 30+ mile public circuit to eliminate as much risk as you can on a smaller circuit which can be contained inside armco with runoff areas and gravel traps. You might as well hold the Dakar in a big stadium and move the dirt around each night. Will make for a much safer event than the actual Dakar of course, but it's not the Dakar then, that's the reason why it's held in wide open spaces.

Again, if you wish to talk about the TT then there is a forum devoted to two wheel motorsport. Anyway, we're straying wildly off topic and not at all discussing how you can prevent the current breed of open wheeled cars from having accidents which make them fly. What do you actually think could be done to open wheel cars in general to lessen the risk of cars hitting each other and flying. I'm not suggesting it will never happen, but why don't we just think of ideas to make it happen less.

[Malbec]

You're talking a fundamentally different event when it's held over that sort of length. There's very little you can (practically) do over a 30+ mile public circuit to eliminate as much risk as you can on a smaller circuit which can be contained inside armco with runoff areas and gravel traps. You might as well hold the Dakar in a big stadium and move the dirt around each night. Will make for a much safer event than the actual Dakar of course, but it's not the Dakar then, that's the reason why it's held in wide open spaces.

Wrong.

The reason I mentioned Spa is because it offers a very clear alternative to carrying on running a race on dangerous roads. I'm sorry that I'm going to have to spell it out for you clearly because you didn't get the comparison.

Safety on the IoM TT could be easily improved vastly overnight.

Cut the length drastically. Introduce proper safety features on whats left with gravel traps, barriers etc etc. Turn the circuit into a permanent facility with the appropriate tarmac etc etc. Do what Spa did, or the Nurburgring later.

That would change the nature of the race but then safety is more important isn't it?


Again, if you wish to talk about the TT then there is a forum devoted to two wheel motorsport. Anyway, we're straying wildly off topic and not at all discussing how you can prevent the current breed of open wheeled cars from having accidents which make them fly. What do you actually think could be done to open wheel cars in general to lessen the risk of cars hitting each other and flying. I'm not suggesting it will never happen, but why don't we just think of ideas to make it happen less.

People have spelt out in many ways for you why the TT is VERY relevant to this debate. I'm sorry if you don't get it for whatever reason.

The TT is about people embracing a level of risk out of choice. Drivers also embrace a level of risk with open wheel racing although its less extreme than the TT. Covering up the wheels completely will change the nature of the sport as both Ben and myself illustrated a few posts above. If they don't want to accept that risk then closed wheel racing is there, or the option of not racing at all.

I don't think I can simplify things any further to assist your understanding.

[Daniel]

I think there are crossed wires here. There are two main instances in which cars may become airborne through contact with another car. The first is interlocking wheels, where the rotation of the wheels on each car forces one to mount the other, resulting in lift off of the affected car (i.e. Kenny Brack and Ryan Briscoe). The second is where the closing rate of the car behind is so great that its chassis makes contact with the car in front, and the rearmost car is launched into the air.

I'm not overly keen on watching replays of Sunday's incident, but I'm fairly sure that Wheldon, Power and Mann were all airborne because they were effectively launched owing to their relatively high rate of closing. Bumpers around the rear wheels may not have helped much in this case. As I said above the best way to avoid mayhem like Sunday is to avoid a rules package that puts the cars in those circumstances in the first place.

I don't get this. You don't want to watch the video (fair enough, I completely understand that, I absolutely can) but then you want to say that it wasn't the energy imparted from the spinning wheel in front that launched Dan's car?

if anyone wants to watch the crash it's quite clear what happens.

Anyway here's a link to Will Power's accident
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1UrfkvAbv0

His nose touches the rear wheel of the car in front and that's it, his nose gets raised and the car is on a one way trip into the barriers. Whilst there is a speed differential, it's not really a massive one that would have launched the car like that. What launched the car was tyre on tyre or bodywork.

[Daniel]

Wrong.

The reason I mentioned Spa is because it offers a very clear alternative to carrying on running a race on dangerous roads. I'm sorry that I'm going to have to spell it out for you clearly because you didn't get the comparison.

Safety on the IoM TT could be easily improved vastly overnight.

Cut the length drastically. Introduce proper safety features on whats left with gravel traps, barriers etc etc. Turn the circuit into a permanent facility with the appropriate tarmac etc etc. Do what Spa did, or the Nurburgring later.

That would change the nature of the race but then safety is more important isn't it?



People have spelt out in many ways for you why the TT is VERY relevant to this debate. I'm sorry if you don't get it for whatever reason.

The TT is about people embracing a level of risk out of choice. Drivers also embrace a level of risk with open wheel racing although its less extreme than the TT. Covering up the wheels completely will change the nature of the sport as both Ben and myself illustrated a few posts above. If they don't want to accept that risk then closed wheel racing is there, or the option of not racing at all.

I don't think I can simplify things any further to assist your understanding.

If you're so passionate about the safety of the riders and spectators in the TT THEN POST IN THAT FORUM!!!!!!!

The only thing that covering the wheels up will do is help reduce the likelihood of a horrible incident like the one we saw on Sunday. If you want to see fatalities then I suggest that your place is not on a motorsport forum. Essentially you're saying "Sure, we could do something about this proble, but we don't want to because it will somehow change the character of the sport" which is completely incomprehensible.

Mark said it best with this post


I will concede the likes of a 'rear bumper' on F1 cars wouldn't be the end of the world!

Perhaps the lack of a 'rear bumper' on the car in front WAS the end of Dan Wheldon's world :( Perhaps it wasn't, but is it not better to look at things and see whether we can make them safer rather than just saying that this is the way it is and always shall be and mindlessly sending another driver every few years onwards to his death which could have been prevented for no cost in terms of racing.

Tradition is a load of crap, traditionally Britain stole black people from Africa and sent them to the America's, traditionally women weren't allowed to vote, traditionally Asian people weren't allowed into Australia. Tradition is almost NEVER a reason to do anything especially when people are at a greater risk of harm. Give the current F1 crop of drivers a car with rear wheels which were covered up and with a bubble canopy (which is designed to counter the issues of heat, dirt, fire etc etc) then you'll happily watch it just like you watched when we went from slicks to grooved tyres and back, from wide rear wings to narrow ones, from cars with winglets to ones without. Hell we even watched throughout the ridiculous period where the cars did a whole race on one set of tyres....

[Malbec]

If you're so passionate about the safety of the riders and spectators in the TT THEN POST IN THAT FORUM!!!!!!!

Calm down.

You missed the point yet again. I really can't simplify my point any further. Either you are being deliberately obtuse or you don't have the capacity to understand what I talked about.

The TT represents freedom of choice. Did you read Andrewmcm's post on that subject?


The only thing that covering the wheels up will do is help reduce the likelihood of a horrible incident like the one we saw on Sunday. If you want to see fatalities then I suggest that your place is not on a motorsport forum. Essentially you're saying "Sure, we could do something about this proble, but we don't want to because it will somehow change the character of the sport" which is completely incomprehensible.

Yet you yourself said that the Dakar rally could be made so much safer if it was held in a stadium although that would change the nature of the rally beyond recognition.

Why is it so important for you to uphold the nature of the Dakar rally but not open wheel racing? Are you at least intellectually capable of accepting your own double standards?


Give the current F1 crop of drivers a car with rear wheels which were covered up and with a bubble canopy (which is designed to counter the issues of heat, dirt, fire etc etc) then you'll happily watch it just like you watched when we went from slicks to grooved tyres and back, from wide rear wings to narrow ones, from cars with winglets to ones without. Hell we even watched throughout the ridiculous period where the cars did a whole race on one set of tyres....

If covering up wheels made drivers feel free to bang wheels with each other a la BTCC it wouldn't interest me at all I'm afraid. Its the skill and finesse required to pull off an overtaking move at high speed whilst avoiding contact that I find so impressive about F1 (amongst other things).

[Daniel]

Calm down.

You missed the point yet again. I really can't simplify my point any further. Either you are being deliberately obtuse or you don't have the capacity to understand what I talked about.

The TT represents freedom of choice. Did you read Andrewmcm's post on that subject?

Yet you yourself said that the Dakar rally could be made so much safer if it was held in a stadium although that would change the nature of the rally beyond recognition.

Why is it so important for you to uphold the nature of the Dakar rally but not open wheel racing? Are you at least intellectually capable of accepting your own double standards?



If covering up wheels made drivers feel free to bang wheels with each other a la BTCC it wouldn't interest me at all I'm afraid. Its the skill and finesse required to pull off an overtaking move at high speed whilst avoiding contact that I find so impressive about F1 (amongst other things).

Do you honestly think that with a rear bumper drivers would just start whacking into each other? Doing so will break your nose and put your into the pits.

I don't read Andrewmcm's post in the same way as yours. You were arguing that the TT should be cut down and he is saying that the nature of it means that you can't ensure that each corner has minimal risk. With IndyCar they have already seen fit to introduce a safety measure to counter the risk of cars being flipped like this. That's the hilarity of this thread, IndyCar see the risk and have done something about it and the FIA see the risk of flying debris and have done some tests to see how well a canopy could work.

I will wet my pants with glee if it some point, the FIA announce that F1 cars are going to get some sort of enclosure at the rear for the tyres and I'll soil myself even further if that comes along with some sort of canopy or higher windscreen.

No one wants BTCC style amateurish intentional ramming into each other but if another driver gets twatted on the helmet by debris, has another car land on his head or we have a Webber v Kovalainen incident which doesn't end nicely then I'm sure views will change. But then again no one is forcing them to do it :dozey:

[Daniel]

Yet you yourself said that the Dakar rally could be made so much safer if it was held in a stadium although that would change the nature of the rally beyond recognition.

Why is it so important for you to uphold the nature of the Dakar rally but not open wheel racing? Are you at least intellectually capable of accepting your own double standards?

That you compare taking an event from being thousands of miles into the wilderness to being in a stadium, to open wheeled cars having a rear bumper on the back is rather funny.

I, like all people who like motorsport want things to stay the same, but in terms of changes, a rear bumper is hardly going to ruin the sport forever......

[Malbec]

Do you honestly think that with a rear bumper drivers would just start whacking into each other? Doing so will break your nose and put your into the pits.

Ok, there's some crossed wires here. I'm not against rear bumpers but I do feel that would be a slippery slope towards covering up the wheels, if not car style then certainly kart style. Its the effect of covering up the wheels completely that I'm worried about.


I don't read Andrewmcm's post in the same way as yours. You were arguing that the TT should be cut down and he is saying that the nature of it means that you can't ensure that each corner has minimal risk.

You misunderstood what I wrote.

You wrote that the TT had done everything it possibly could have done to increase safety. I pointed out that it clearly hadn't for the reasons I described.

Andrewmcm's post however described something completely different, something far more important.

He wrote about the nature of risk and racing and how riders and drivers chose to drive knowing the risks. This is the point you've continually avoided again and again, something you have failed to give a satisfactory answer to.

Anyway this is my last post on this topic. Daniel, the first time I read your posts was on a thread where you wanted to ban chip fryers I think, its pretty clear we'll never agree on individual rights to choose risk taking activities.

[wedge]

Perhaps the lack of a 'rear bumper' on the car in front WAS the end of Dan Wheldon's world :( Perhaps it wasn't, but is it not better to look at things and see whether we can make them safer rather than just saying that this is the way it is and always shall be and mindlessly sending another driver every few years onwards to his death which could have been prevented for no cost in terms of racing.

Well, I'm a purist and wouldn't want to see bumpers in F1 cars as cars going airborne is a rare occurance.

There is sense in why its done in Indycar but it still doesn't solve the main problem since the formation of IRL - spectacle of speed via manufactured pack racing with high downforce cars rev limited cars.

In road course racing things settle down after a lap but not so on some ovals - particularly 1.5 milers.


Tradition is a load of crap..

Stirling Moss competing in historic events wearing a tin hat and no safety belt, what a tool!

Tragedy is part of the sport. Unfortunately racing wouldn't be racing without it. I'm thankful I'm in an era where fatalities are few than in past decades. Element of danger should be part of the sport too.

[airshifter]

Yet I'll happily go out on the moors and drive quickly knowing full well I could fall off the road and that is that. The fact that I gain 0 enjoyment out of dealing with a spider and me gaining plenty of enjoyment out of having what is a pretty sedate drive over the moors by the standards of most will tell you why I'm happy to risk it in my car.

I think there are plenty of ways to still have the thrill of oval racing yet lessen the risk. Less risk is always good IMHO.....

We should start threads about the risk of Fiat 500s and driving in the moors, completely ignoring the risks involved! They should have much less power and speed, strong full roll cages, all wheel drive, and computer control to take over the car in the event someone exceeds 10 mph. The car would not start without properly engaging a 5 point harness, the HANS device lock out would prevent you from moving the car without wearing it, and the entire car (inside and out) would deploy air bags in the event any insects impact the windscreen!



Having said that, the premise behind returning to this thread is in my opinion, classless beyond what even this forum expects. It's a classic example of attempting to say "I told you so" that doesn't relate to this thread or F1 racing, and as usual accuses anyone with an alternate opinion of trolling and cries that a moderator should get involved.

The event that led to the death of a man has already been addressed, as proven by the fact that the prototypes did a demonstration run the day before Wheldon sadly lost his life.

[Daniel]

Stirling Moss competing in historic events wearing a tin hat and no safety belt, what a tool!

Tragedy is part of the sport. Unfortunately racing wouldn't be racing without it. I'm thankful I'm in an era where fatalities are few than in past decades. Element of danger should be part of the sport too.

Did I say that? What would you say if he said we should return to the way things were in his day? He wouldn't say that of course, but if he did?

[Daniel]

Having said that, the premise behind returning to this thread is in my opinion, classless beyond what even this forum expects. It's a classic example of attempting to say "I told you so" that doesn't relate to this thread or F1 racing, and as usual accuses anyone with an alternate opinion of trolling and cries that a moderator should get involved.

The event that led to the death of a man has already been addressed, as proven by the fact that the prototypes did a demonstration run the day before Wheldon sadly lost his life.

I'm sorry, but SGWilko's posts in this thread are merely there for the sole intention of getting a rise out of me. Is that actually OK with people?

You obviously miss the point of the thread which is that there are problems inherent with open wheel open cockpit racing which should be adressed. Formula 2 cars, IndyCars and F1 cars all have the same issue with debris being able to hit drivers and also with wheels touching each other and launching other cars. Now the reason for this thread is that F1 usually leads by example so if F1 has wheel tethers then this filters down.

[Bezza]

The accident and death of Dan Wheldon was incredibly tragic.

However, it has no relevance to F1.

F1 does not race on ovals lined with walls and fencing. Therefore, to use the death of a young driver to bring this back up, Daniel, in a "look what I told you" kind of way, is incredibly self-indulgent and pathetic.

Safety is incredibly good in F1. We have not had a death since 1994.

You will never remove 100% the possibility of a death at a racetrack, and if you go too far in the way of safety then you may as well not bother racing in the first place, as that would be safer!

Coupes / canopies are not what F1 are about. Yes, we need to protect drivers heads from flying wheels etc but there are certain dangers that drivers have to face. Freak accidents can and will occur I am afraid, but in the case of Felipe Massa, the modern helmet was strong and saved his life. You can't ask more than that.

Move on now, please.

[Daniel]

The accident and death of Dan Wheldon was incredibly tragic.

However, it has no relevance to F1.

F1 does not race on ovals lined with walls and fencing. Therefore, to use the death of a young driver to bring this back up, Daniel, in a "look what I told you" kind of way, is incredibly self-indulgent and pathetic.

Safety is incredibly good in F1. We have not had a death since 1994.

You will never remove 100% the possibility of a death at a racetrack, and if you go too far in the way of safety then you may as well not bother racing in the first place, as that would be safer!

Coupes / canopies are not what F1 are about. Yes, we need to protect drivers heads from flying wheels etc but there are certain dangers that drivers have to face. Freak accidents can and will occur I am afraid, but in the case of Felipe Massa, the modern helmet was strong and saved his life. You can't ask more than that.

Move on now, please.

I missed the moment where you became a moderator Bezza :)

[ArrowsFA1]

Agreed, but you must factor in the amount of rookies/inexperienced pilots, the sheer volume of cars on the track, the speeds and the fact that one guy was racing through the pack with the carrot of $5m dangling in front if he won....
I agree with everything but your last point. As Mario Andretti has said (in response to similar suggestions elsewhere):
Dan Wheldon did not take mad risk because he was over-motivated by $5 mil prize. To imply he drove different due to $$, you offend his honor http://twitter.com/#!/MarioAndretti/status/126349225826062336

I think someone said earlier in the thread that Dan Wheldon saw the accident happening ahead and might have seen it as an opportunity to make up places. That might be right, but if it was he wouldn't have been the only one of the drivers to think that way, and the money would have made no difference.

In the fictional film Grand Prix (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060472/) Jean Pierre Sarti said when he saw an accident he put his foot down because others may be lifting.

As for this thread the same arguments that have been repeated over and over again apply. Motorsport is dangerous. Accidents will happen. If we don't want these kind of things to happen then stop racing. The thread had run its course some time ago.

[Daniel]

Ok, there's some crossed wires here. I'm not against rear bumpers but I do feel that would be a slippery slope towards covering up the wheels, if not car style then certainly kart style. Its the effect of covering up the wheels completely that I'm worried about.



You misunderstood what I wrote.

You wrote that the TT had done everything it possibly could have done to increase safety. I pointed out that it clearly hadn't for the reasons I described.

Andrewmcm's post however described something completely different, something far more important.

He wrote about the nature of risk and racing and how riders and drivers chose to drive knowing the risks. This is the point you've continually avoided again and again, something you have failed to give a satisfactory answer to.

Anyway this is my last post on this topic. Daniel, the first time I read your posts was on a thread where you wanted to ban chip fryers I think, its pretty clear we'll never agree on individual rights to choose risk taking activities.

You're almost sounding American there. The fact that chip pans are more or less indigenous to the UK and surprisingly chip pan fires only occur in the UK. The logical thought process is that we don't do things which are risky but have a relatively low reward. There are much better alternatives to chip pans which is why they shouldn't be used any longer. It's a daft situation that falling asleep whilst cooking your dinner should result in you being killed. My mum actually had a chip pan when I was about 2 and guess what, it caught fire and nicely scorched the wall and ceiling of the house we were living in at the time. 1985 Daniel's mum went out and bought herself an electric deep frier which doesn't catch on fire when left for too long. Still, if you want people to have the freedom to die just because they've fallen asleep whilst making chips then I guess that's your thing :)

I didn't ignore what Andrewmcm said, I gave an example in my own life how I happily do something which is more dangerous than something that I refuse to do. There are always some who are more risk averse than some others. That people had reservations about the race says it all.

Why did you not just come out and say "I'm not against covering the wheels up as such, I'm just worried that it'll go further and further" originally? It would have saved a lot of aggravation and time.

[Andrewmcm]

This thread has become like an oval race. Round and round and round and round and round and round until something(one) puts an end to it.

[SGWilko]

But as long as there is racing on a track with open wheeled cars there are always going to be cars flying or riding up over each other unless the rear wheels ar enclosed.

Enclosed wheels will ONLY prevent a car getting airborne as a result of wheel to wheel contact in a certain manner. A car that t-bones another with a defferential in closing speeds will likely result in the approaching car riding up and getting airborne.

[ArrowsFA1]

Alex Lloyd: "Is our job worth the risk? When you think of Dan's wife and children left behind, the answer is simple. No. But coming into this race you could argue that the risks are so remote that it was worth the risk to do what we love. Injury is possible, but we just haven't seen a death in the sport for a long time, and huge safety improvements have been made.
"Sunday we learned the hard truth: that no matter how much we can improve safety and plan for all eventualities, some things are impossible to prepare for. I think over this off-season we will evaluate what went wrong and how we can prevent this from happening again. And mark my words, we will learn from this.
"No one can be blamed for this accident. It is just that, an accident. We will learn and improve, but we will not blame."
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/95517

[SGWilko]

I'm sorry, but SGWilko's posts in this thread are merely there for the sole intention of getting a rise out of me. Is that actually OK with people?

Maybe if you pull the pole out from your keester, you'd spend less time assuming I'm proviking you and realise I am provoking thought as to your stance on what causes, and what will prevent accidents.

For all we know, had Dan's car not got grated on the fencing, he might still be here to tell the tale. If you hit a car with bumpers hard enough, will the bumpers not contact the wheel and be sent flying, possibly into the crowd.

Do as Joe Saward suggests, wait and see what the experts have to say after investigations have been carried out.....

Never mind, as you were......

[SGWilko]

The accident and death of Dan Wheldon was incredibly tragic.

However, it has no relevance to F1.

F1 does not race on ovals lined with walls and fencing. Therefore, to use the death of a young driver to bring this back up, Daniel, in a "look what I told you" kind of way, is incredibly self-indulgent and pathetic.

Safety is incredibly good in F1. We have not had a death since 1994.

You will never remove 100% the possibility of a death at a racetrack, and if you go too far in the way of safety then you may as well not bother racing in the first place, as that would be safer!

Coupes / canopies are not what F1 are about. Yes, we need to protect drivers heads from flying wheels etc but there are certain dangers that drivers have to face. Freak accidents can and will occur I am afraid, but in the case of Felipe Massa, the modern helmet was strong and saved his life. You can't ask more than that.

Move on now, please.

Incidentally, the helmet visers have, as a direct result of the Massa accident, been modified to further protect the driver while not wrapping the cars up in cotton wool.....

[SGWilko]

I agree with everything but your last point. As Mario Andretti has said (in response to similar suggestions elsewhere): http://twitter.com/#!/MarioAndretti/status/126349225826062336

I think someone said earlier in the thread that Dan Wheldon saw the accident happening ahead and might have seen it as an opportunity to make up places. That might be right, but if it was he wouldn't have been the only one of the drivers to think that way, and the money would have made no difference.

In the fictional film Grand Prix (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060472/) Jean Pierre Sarti said when he saw an accident he put his foot down because others may be lifting.

As for this thread the same arguments that have been repeated over and over again apply. Motorsport is dangerous. Accidents will happen. If we don't want these kind of things to happen then stop racing. The thread had run its course some time ago.

Indeed. Why the need for a $5m incentive to win from the back then? Is this just the American mentality of 'spicing up the show'?

[Daniel]

I agree with everything but your last point. As Mario Andretti has said (in response to similar suggestions elsewhere): http://twitter.com/#!/MarioAndretti/status/126349225826062336

I think someone said earlier in the thread that Dan Wheldon saw the accident happening ahead and might have seen it as an opportunity to make up places. That might be right, but if it was he wouldn't have been the only one of the drivers to think that way, and the money would have made no difference.

In the fictional film Grand Prix (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060472/) Jean Pierre Sarti said when he saw an accident he put his foot down because others may be lifting.

As for this thread the same arguments that have been repeated over and over again apply. Motorsport is dangerous. Accidents will happen. If we don't want these kind of things to happen then stop racing. The thread had run its course some time ago.

I think you're missing the point. We will NEVER eliminate all deaths within motorsport, it simply won't happen. But do you honestly think that cars having a higher chance of flying is a GOOD thing?!?!?!?!?!?

So far we've got Mark and Dylan H who say that a rear bumper wouldn't be the end of the world.

Motorsport was always dangerous, but throughout time it's become safer because accidents have been evaluated and near misses have been looked at and where appropriate changes have been made such as stronger helmets after Felipe's incident. Where was your complaint when the FIA chose to make stronger helmets compulsory? :confused:

No one is talking about giving the cars hundreds of metres of runoff area and removing 99% of the risk for drivers, a few of us are just talking about a couple of sensible changes which could stop serious and life threatening accidents from happening in the first place and minimising the risk to drivers in the event of an accidents.

It's funny that the very sorts of people who love Jackie Stewart seem to be the same ones who are against improvements in safety.

the comment below on Joe Saward's blog kind of says it all for me http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2011/07/18/cockpit-research-post-massa/


I don’t know why but the reaction to any new safety in the sport always takes me by surprise even though the reaction is always the same. It is 45 years since Jackie Stewart started his safety campaign and while we now ridicule the response he received, yet again with this article we see the same responses. I will never understand F1 fans. They want innovation provided nothing changes and any change regardless how small means F1 is not F1 any more.


I have seen more than enough drivers die and I have never felt I gained anything by a single death yet still we have people saying that the sport should not be too safe and the powers that be should use their efforts to do something other than improve safety. I would like someone to tell me what I have missed. What should I have gained by watching Senna die? My view is I lost a lot the day he died. I missed watching him race for the next few seasons and what he would have done when he retired. What should I have gained watching Gilles Villeneuve die? I lost the opportunity to see him take the 1982 world title and move to McLaren the following year where he would have been mighty in John Barnard’s TAG engined cars. I really would like someone to explain to me what is so great about watching men die. How many drivers per year should be killed for optimum entertainment?


When I watched Lewis Hamilton make his overtaking move at Copse on a soaking wet track a week ago I was marvelling at his car control and skill not at the level of risk he was taking. Motor racing to me is like any other sport in that the enjoyment comes from admiring the skill not from watching someone risk death. Would David Beckham’s free kicks have been better if he risked death if he missed the goal? Are the achievements of Roger Federer or Tiger Woods somehow less because they were achieved without risking life and limb? Derek Jeter of the New York Yankees just became the 28th player in baseball history to score 3000 base hits. Maybe had pitchers been throwing hand grenades rather than baseballs at him his achievement would have been more worthy and his skills greater?


We have not just had two freak accidents. David Coulthard came very close to decapitating Alex Wurz in Melbourne a couple of years ago. Pedro Diniz came close to very serious injury upside down in a gravel trap in Germany a few years before that. Would Francois Cevert’s accident have proved fatal had proper head protection been fitted to his Tyrrell at Watkins Glen in 1973? There are hundreds of examples of accidents where head injury happened or could have happened. Tom Pryce may not have been killed at Kyalami when he hit the marshal crossing the track for example.


It’s all very well for people to say how much better helmet design is but a helmet is attached to a head which is balanced on a very fragile human spinal column. It takes very little load for the spinal column to suffer serious damage. Helmets should not be designed like crash structures and be expected to handle a particular load. Helmets should be as capable as possible but the aim should always be that nothing goes anywhere near them.

I completely agree with that 100% and I very much suspect that anyone who disagrees probably has issues with me rather than the actual idea I'm advocating.

[Daniel]

Enclosed wheels will ONLY prevent a car getting airborne as a result of wheel to wheel contact in a certain manner. A car that t-bones another with a defferential in closing speeds will likely result in the approaching car riding up and getting airborne.

Thing is, it minimises the risk, where's the harm in that? If you reduce the instances of cars getting launched by 20% then that's still 2 out of 10 flying cars which will stay on the ground.

You seem to think that because it can't solve all instances of flying cars that it's not worth it.

[DexDexter]

Thing is, it minimises the risk, where's the harm in that? If you reduce the instances of cars getting launched by 20% then that's still 2 out of 10 flying cars which will stay on the ground.

You seem to think that because it can't solve all instances of flying cars that it's not worth it.

Since you seem to want to eliminate risks as much as possible, shouldn't we implement a speed limit in F1? Let's say 80km/h on the straights, 60km/h in the corners. That way we could minimize risks and the impact speeds would be much lower. Why risk your life driving at 300km/h? the FIA must do something about it! :rolleyes:

[Daniel]

Maybe if you pull the pole out from your keester, you'd spend less time assuming I'm proviking you and realise I am provoking thought as to your stance on what causes, and what will prevent accidents.

For all we know, had Dan's car not got grated on the fencing, he might still be here to tell the tale. If you hit a car with bumpers hard enough, will the bumpers not contact the wheel and be sent flying, possibly into the crowd.

Do as Joe Saward suggests, wait and see what the experts have to say after investigations have been carried out.....

Never mind, as you were......

So telling me to pull the pole out of my keester isn't rude or inflamatory? :confused:

Of course if Dan's car hadn't hit the fence he'd still be alive, that's the whole point!!!!! If not for his car being sent flying he would most likely still be alive today. If you stop people flying in the first place then the catch fence could be made out of TNT and they could be racing in Baghdad and it would be safer than the race on Sunday.

The thing is the experts have already looked at IndyCar and put the bumpers on? :confused: What is there to wait for? We will never know whether they would have saved him for sure, you just never know do you? But making things safer is always a step in the right direction. That people on here don't want things to be safer and for there to be less chance of death is mindboggling.

[Daniel]

Since you seem to want to eliminate risks as much as possible, shouldn't we implement a speed limit in F1? Let's say 80km/h on the straights, 60km/h in the corners. That way we could minimize risks and the impact speeds would be much lower. Why risk your life driving at 300km/h? the FIA must do something about it! :rolleyes:

The FIA does impose speed limits on motorsport. They do this through track design and in rallying they will cut a stage into two as was done in Finland a few years ago when Petter was a little too fast for the FIA's liking. The FIA have a target average speed through WRC stages is 130kph and when stages go above that average speed then the FIA take action.

So whilst the idea of F1 cars only going at 80kph is just stupid, the FIA do already take action when they consider that cars are going too quickly.

[Daniel]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/95517


Alex Lloyd: "Is our job worth the risk? When you think of Dan's wife and children left behind, the answer is simple. No. But coming into this race you could argue that the risks are so remote that it was worth the risk to do what we love. Injury is possible, but we just haven't seen a death in the sport for a long time, and huge safety improvements have been made.
"Sunday we learned the hard truth: that no matter how much we can improve safety and plan for all eventualities, some things are impossible to prepare for. I think over this off-season we will evaluate what went wrong and how we can prevent this from happening again. And mark my words, we will learn from this.
"No one can be blamed for this accident. It is just that, an accident. We will learn and improve, but we will not blame."

I missed the bit where he said nothing should be improved and that Dan's death was an acceptable byproduct of racing and nothing should be done to stop it happening again.

I'm being painted as someone who wants to eliminate every single danger that exists in motorsport, I'm just saying that we should react to the accidents that do happen and try and minimise the risk that we have.

Do you honestly have issues with minimising risks and keeping drivers safe and alive?

[AndyL]

Alex Lloyd: "Is our job worth the risk? When you think of Dan's wife and children left behind, the answer is simple. No.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/95517

If he thinks of it as a job, it's definitely not worth the risk.

[Daniel]

If he thinks of it as a job, it's definitely not worth the risk.

I don't have a problem with that tbh. I doubt that any person in high level motorsport thinks of it as a job in the same sense that you or I think of our jobs. At the end of it all he gets paid for it or it's how he is famous and hence earns money through endorsements so it's his job.

[Andrewmcm]

I'm being painted as someone who wants to eliminate every single danger that exists in motorsport, I'm just saying that we should react to the accidents that do happen and try and minimise the risk that we have.


'We' of course being the racing experts (actual ones, not armchair experts), designers, engineers, series organisers and drivers, not the collective bunch of ignoramuses on internet forums that we undoubtedly are. 'We' are also not the likes of Legard and Allen, who saw a bandwagon passing and jumped on it both feet first.

The collective bunch of ignoramuses that 'we' forumers are can pontificate about what should and shouldn't be done until the cows come home. It doesn't mean that most or any of it is either a) sensible or b) able to be adopted.

This thread is descending into this. http://xkcd.com/386/

[Bezza]

Of course if Dan's car hadn't hit the fence he'd still be alive, that's the whole point!!!!! If not for his car being sent flying he would most likely still be alive today. If you stop people flying in the first place then the catch fence could be made out of TNT and they could be racing in Baghdad and it would be safer than the race on Sunday.


This is the F1 forum Daniel.

In F1 they would not be racing on ovals, not doing 200mph, not going to hit a fence and wall. Even they did go flying through the air at 200mph, the likelihood is on the high-speed tracks, they would spectacularly fly through the air, barrel roll and come to stop in a mess, but the safety of the driver has been achieved.

It angers me that you are relating F1 to IndyCars. The series are not similar in any respect.

If anything the current F1 standards of safety are impeccable and should be looked at by the likes of IndyCars, rather than F1 trying to learn from accidents outside of the sport. It is ridiculous.

You can get a nasty head injury playing football - it happened the other day to a League Two player in England. Should all footballers wear helmets just in case? Or play non-contact football?

[wedge]

It's funny that the very sorts of people who love Jackie Stewart seem to be the same ones who are against improvements in safety.

the comment below on Joe Saward's blog kind of says it all for me http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2011/07/18/cockpit-research-post-massa/

I completely agree with that 100% and I very much suspect that anyone who disagrees probably has issues with me rather than the actual idea I'm advocating.

Perhaps we've reached a plateau.

I think, and perhaps others as well, find that a death every few years is an acceptable statistic and put it down to freak accidents unlike JYS day with deaths left, right and centre.

It took years for JYS to change attitudes of many people within the motorsport fraternity but we live in the mass media, health & safety era and judging by the consensus we've reached the plateau or perhaps it will take - and no disrespect to Dan Wheldon - a truly great driver of iconic status/universal appeal to change attitudes as with Senna and Dale Earnhardt.

[Daniel]

This is the F1 forum Daniel.

In F1 they would not be racing on ovals, not doing 200mph, not going to hit a fence and wall. Even they did go flying through the air at 200mph, the likelihood is on the high-speed tracks, they would spectacularly fly through the air, barrel roll and come to stop in a mess, but the safety of the driver has been achieved.

It angers me that you are relating F1 to IndyCars. The series are not similar in any respect.

If anything the current F1 standards of safety are impeccable and should be looked at by the likes of IndyCars, rather than F1 trying to learn from accidents outside of the sport. It is ridiculous.

You can get a nasty head injury playing football - it happened the other day to a League Two player in England. Should all footballers wear helmets just in case? Or play non-contact football?
I see, so it's impossibly for an F1 car to come together with anther car and fly into a wall or into the scenery......

Well I take back what I said then.....

[Daniel]

Perhaps we've reached a plateau.

I think, and perhaps others as well, find that a death every few years is an acceptable statistic and put it down to freak accidents unlike JYS day with deaths left, right and centre.

It took years for JYS to change attitudes of many people within the motorsport fraternity but we live in the mass media, health & safety era and judging by the consensus we've reached the plateau or perhaps it will take - and no disrespect to Dan Wheldon - a truly great driver of iconic status/universal appeal to change attitudes as with Senna and Dale Earnhardt.

Why should we stop here though? No one wants to ruin the racing and slow the cars down to motorway speeds or anything but do we really want to look back at the death of a driver in the future and say that we could have prevented it fairly easily, but chose not to because we thought we'd reached the plateau?

[Daniel]

'We' of course being the racing experts (actual ones, not armchair experts), designers, engineers, series organisers and drivers, not the collective bunch of ignoramuses on internet forums that we undoubtedly are. 'We' are also not the likes of Legard and Allen, who saw a bandwagon passing and jumped on it both feet first.

The collective bunch of ignoramuses that 'we' forumers are can pontificate about what should and shouldn't be done until the cows come home. It doesn't mean that most or any of it is either a) sensible or b) able to be adopted.

This thread is descending into this. http://xkcd.com/386/

The thing is the racing experts have decided that there is too much of a risk of these sorts of accidents and investigations are ongoing into canopies (in F1) and IndyCar have enclosed rear wheels to help stop cars flying into the barriers and as SGWilko pointed out "grating themselves" to bits against the catch fence. So it's not just an "armchair expert" like myself as you seem to suggest. It is funny that you'd make such a clearly misguided statement when what's actually going on in the real world suggests that some forms of high level motorsport are looking into these safety features and evaluating their feasability and in some cases implementing actual changes on cars next year.

A few people on here clearly don't like me or perhaps just my views, but the truth is that the actual racing world seems to have seen the same dangers and is thankfully looking into it rather than just accepting that people should die.

[Bezza]

I see, so it's impossibly for an F1 car to come together with anther car and fly into a wall or into the scenery......

Well I take back what I said then.....

You must be a nightmare for your partner, because you never listen! You have taken the bits you want out of my statement there.

You ignored the 200mph on an oval bit - just the flying through the air.

In most tracks, there is significant run-off to slow the cars down and allow big accidents to lose energy.

On tighter tracks, there is generally less speed involved - such as Monaco.

You really cannot compare the two.

[Daniel]

You must be a nightmare for your partner, because you never listen! You have taken the bits you want out of my statement there.

You ignored the 200mph on an oval bit - just the flying through the air.

In most tracks, there is significant run-off to slow the cars down and allow big accidents to lose energy.

On tighter tracks, there is generally less speed involved - such as Monaco.

You really cannot compare the two.

Of course there is less chance of this happening in F1. But as we've seen in countless incidents F1 cars will ride over each other.

I'm not saying there is a risk of an F1 car crashing on an oval because that simply doesn't happen, the point is that F1 cars can ride over each other too and once a car gets up in the air there's no telling what will happen.

On street circuits like Valencia or Singapore, with the closing speeds the cars sometimes have, there is a very real chance of one car flying and being chucked into a catch fence, of course on an F1 track that angle is usually going to be a bit more acute (which is safer) than the oblique angle that cars on an oval track tend to hit the catch fence at, but it's still a danger, and one that could be eliminated with very little impact upon the sport.

http://www.ausmotive.com/F1/2010/European-GP-Webber-flips-05.jpg
It doesn't need to be a high speed impact either.
http://answers.bettor.com/images/Articles/thumbs/extralarge/2010_11_14-2010_11_14_12_56_6-jpg-41042.jpg

It seems like it'll take a death in F1 to make people see that this danger is inherent in all forms of open wheel motorsport, not just on ovals.

[Andrewmcm]

The thing is the racing experts have decided that there is too much of a risk of these sorts of accidents and investigations are ongoing into canopies (in F1) and IndyCar have enclosed rear wheels to help stop cars flying into the barriers and as SGWilko pointed out "grating themselves" to bits against the catch fence. So it's not just an "armchair expert" like myself as you seem to suggest. It is funny that you'd make such a clearly misguided statement when what's actually going on in the real world suggests that some forms of high level motorsport are looking into these safety features and evaluating their feasability and in some cases implementing actual changes on cars next year.

A few people on here clearly don't like me or perhaps just my views, but the truth is that the actual racing world seems to have seen the same dangers and is thankfully looking into it rather than just accepting that people should die.

I said 'we' referring to the collective 'we', not 'we' as in 'you, Daniel'. Glance back through the posts since Sunday - I have also stated that something should be done regarding the specific set of circumstances which surrounded what happened on Sunday.

[Dave B]

I agree with everything but your last point. As Mario Andretti has said (in response to similar suggestions elsewhere): http://twitter.com/#!/MarioAndretti/status/126349225826062336

I think someone said earlier in the thread that Dan Wheldon saw the accident happening ahead and might have seen it as an opportunity to make up places. That might be right, but if it was he wouldn't have been the only one of the drivers to think that way, and the money would have made no difference.

I agree. There was a pretty vile article in one of the papers this week (which I shan't give the dignity of a link) speculating whether the prize on offer was a contributory cause in the crash - needless to say some of the comments were quite ignorant.

From my dealings with racing drivers in many different catagories, the moment the helment goes on your motivation is beating the guy in front. Not the prize money, not the trophy, not the championship, not your team. Just winning.

[Mark]

Indeed which is why the likes of changing the points system or offering rewards doesn't make any difference. If you are in a top level series like IndyCar, that's all the motivation you need. And if you don't have it, then get out!

[ArrowsFA1]

Why the need for a $5m incentive to win from the back then? Is this just the American mentality of 'spicing up the show'?
I certainly think it was the CEO of IndyCar's attempt to add something to the show.


If not for his car being sent flying he would most likely still be alive today.
True, but Will Power is alive today. He walked away from the incident having also been launched over the rear wheel of another car. His part in the accident did not result in a fatality or serious injury. The difference in the two outcomes was the fence, not being launched into the air.

I'm just saying that we should react to the accidents that do happen and try and minimise the risk that we have.

Do you honestly have issues with minimising risks and keeping drivers safe and alive?
If you believe that then you misunderstand what I, and others have said in response to your thread. Of course we all want drivers safe and alive. However, it is a fundamental fact that motorsport, at whatever level of activity, can be, and will remain, dangerous whatever steps are taken.

That is not the same as saying that we should simply shrug our shoulders at the loss of a racing driver and carry on as if nothing had happened. No-one is suggesting that, and if you follow Twitter you'll see that Indycar drivers are not doing that either.


...the truth is that the actual racing world seems to have seen the same dangers and is thankfully looking into it rather than just accepting that people should die.
Once again no-one is, as you put it, "just accepting that people should die".

I think some of us accept that you cannot entirely eliminate risk, injury or death either in motorsport or life and if you try to do so you remove some elements of what life is about.

[SGWilko]

So telling me to pull the pole out of my keester isn't rude or inflamatory? :confused:


Did I tell you to, or suggest it might be a good idea? :admiral:

[wedge]

Why should we stop here though?

It's been argued that racing is too safe these days.

Racing is a dangerous, accidents will happen and fatality will be a by product.

There should be an element of danger, for me, that's part of the appeal of racing.


I agree. There was a pretty vile article in one of the papers this week (which I shan't give the dignity of a link) speculating whether the prize on offer was a contributory cause in the crash - needless to say some of the comments were quite ignorant.

From my dealings with racing drivers in many different catagories, the moment the helment goes on your motivation is beating the guy in front. Not the prize money, not the trophy, not the championship, not your team. Just winning.

It's more of an Indycar problem since the creation of IRL. Not just my humble opinion but you only have to go read that forum and the consensus is that pack racing with a thoroughbred race car isn't really a good idea after all. It's fine for NASCAR as they can get away more with the 'big one' (multicar pile up) stock cars are a better car to take that sort of punishment.

The irony is that Dan was caught out in the chain reaction of the initial pile up and was trying to dodge a bullet.

All very well making Indycars safer but Indycars' main problem is how a driver is to avoid a wreck when racing in a pack.

[Daniel]

I said 'we' referring to the collective 'we', not 'we' as in 'you, Daniel'. Glance back through the posts since Sunday - I have also stated that something should be done regarding the specific set of circumstances which surrounded what happened on Sunday.

I know what you were saying, what I'm pointing out is that what's happening out in the wild seems to be backing up what I'm saying.

I actually agree with a lot of what you said in your early posts since Sunday. The cars had so much downforce and were all running really bunched up and any incident with 34 cars all bunched up like that was always going to be a big one. of course the track and the number of cars on it were also a factor. But the reality is that the actual accident that resulted in the fatality was a 2 car accident so I think for people to go on about 34 cars on a small track slightly misses the point. Yes with 34 cars the accident was more likely, but the outcome of that accident was never going to be pretty.

[Daniel]

It's been argued that racing is too safe these days.

Racing is a dangerous, accidents will happen and fatality will be a by product.

There should be an element of danger, for me, that's part of the appeal of racing.



It's more of an Indycar problem since the creation of IRL. Not just my humble opinion but you only have to go read that forum and the consensus is that pack racing with a thoroughbred race car isn't really a good idea after all. It's fine for NASCAR as they can get away more with the 'big one' (multicar pile up) stock cars are a better car to take that sort of punishment.

The irony is that Dan was caught out in the chain reaction of the initial pile up and was trying to dodge a bullet.

All very well making Indycars safer but Indycars' main problem is how a driver is to avoid a wreck when racing in a pack.

I think you've just somewhat proven my point. Whilst stock cars are probably that little bit stronger, the thing that makes them better in that sort of racing is that because their wheels aren't exposed, they just bounce into each other rather than flying into the catch fence. Cars are made to best withstand impacts when the car is parallel with the ground (ie on the ground) and if you can keep the cars on the ground then you greatly increase the chances of an accident.

[wedge]

Indeed. Why the need for a $5m incentive to win from the back then? Is this just the American mentality of 'spicing up the show'?

You clearly don't watch Indycar at all.

Money can be an incentive.

The biggest problem is pack racing.

They don't measure in thousandths of a second, they add an extra zero because since 1996 they have a type of racing manufactured for close racing and close finishes.

[Daniel]

I agree. There was a pretty vile article in one of the papers this week (which I shan't give the dignity of a link) speculating whether the prize on offer was a contributory cause in the crash - needless to say some of the comments were quite ignorant.

From my dealings with racing drivers in many different catagories, the moment the helment goes on your motivation is beating the guy in front. Not the prize money, not the trophy, not the championship, not your team. Just winning.

I think it's extremely poor of them to try and speculate as to why a dead person did or didn't do. We'll never know for certain.

[wedge]

I think you've just somewhat proven my point. Whilst stock cars are probably that little bit stronger, the thing that makes them better in that sort of racing is that because their wheels aren't exposed, they just bounce into each other rather than flying into the catch fence. Cars are made to best withstand impacts when the car is parallel with the ground (ie on the ground) and if you can keep the cars on the ground then you greatly increase the chances of an accident.

Well I still want to see Indycars on ovals. A stock car weighs about 1.5 tonnes and even if it was made of carbon fibre the spectacle would be diminished.

[Daniel]

Well I still want to see Indycars on ovals. A stock car weighs about 1.5 tonnes and even if it was made of carbon fibre the spectacle would be diminished.

When I've had the chance to watch, I've also loved watching IndyCars on ovals purely because of the speed and the fact that they can overtake anywhere. Heck I'll watch NASCAR if it's on. If we stop IndyCars from flying then it's just that bit safer, an open wheeler with a pointy noise and bits that stick out just isn't really made to crash into a catch fence, not well at least.

[wedge]

I think it's extremely poor of them to try and speculate as to why a dead person did or didn't do. We'll never know for certain.

I'm not saying they had a death wish but some drivers like Senna and Gilles have died because their emotions just managed to get the better of them. The clues are all too obvious.

[Daniel]

I'm not saying they had a death wish but some drivers like Senna and Gilles have died because their emotions just managed to get the better of them. The clues are all too obvious.

Definitely. But this wasn't Dan's accident, it just happened in front of him and it would appear that there was little he could do to avoid it in the circumstances. I'm more than happy to have a discussion about the mechanics of the accident and how differences in the cars could have made for a less severe accident, but when it comes to apportioning blame I must say I'm very uncomfortable.

[wedge]

When I've had the chance to watch, I've also loved watching IndyCars on ovals purely because of the speed and the fact that they can overtake anywhere.

See, that's the main problem. Making the cars safer is arguably band aid.

High downforce thoroughbred race cars racing in a pack, its a recipe for disaster. All very well sticking on a canopy and bumpers but you're still very likely to get a multicar pile up and with carbon fibre flying everywhere and perhaps cars still going airborne because of averaging 220mph laps.

[Daniel]

See, that's the main problem. Making the cars safer is arguably band aid.

High downforce thoroughbred race cars racing in a pack, its a recipe for disaster. All very well sticking on a canopy and bumpers but you're still very likely to get a multicar pile up and with carbon fibre flying everywhere and perhaps cars still going airborne because of averaging 220mph laps.

Well I said nothing about a canopy. I think a canopy would have been as useful as a chocolate fireguard against the wall at the angle the impact occured.

[555-04Q2]

Of course there is less chance of this happening in F1. But as we've seen in countless incidents F1 cars will ride over each other.

I'm not saying there is a risk of an F1 car crashing on an oval because that simply doesn't happen, the point is that F1 cars can ride over each other too and once a car gets up in the air there's no telling what will happen.

On street circuits like Valencia or Singapore, with the closing speeds the cars sometimes have, there is a very real chance of one car flying and being chucked into a catch fence, of course on an F1 track that angle is usually going to be a bit more acute (which is safer) than the oblique angle that cars on an oval track tend to hit the catch fence at, but it's still a danger, and one that could be eliminated with very little impact upon the sport.

http://www.ausmotive.com/F1/2010/European-GP-Webber-flips-05.jpg
It doesn't need to be a high speed impact either.
http://answers.bettor.com/images/Articles/thumbs/extralarge/2010_11_14-2010_11_14_12_56_6-jpg-41042.jpg

It seems like it'll take a death in F1 to make people see that this danger is inherent in all forms of open wheel motorsport, not just on ovals.

Drivers have a choice of a number of other race codes with enclosed cockpits if they want. F1 is F1, not touring cars. Open cockpits remain, thats what helmets are for!!!!!

[Daniel]

Drivers have a choice of a number of other race codes with enclosed cockpits if they want. F1 is F1, not touring cars. Open cockpits remain, thats what helmets are for!!!!!

Not if they want to race in F1.

[Robinho]

I'm not saying they had a death wish but some drivers like Senna and Gilles have died because their emotions just managed to get the better of them. The clues are all too obvious.

not sure i can agree with that comment re. Senna (i don't know enough about the circumstances of Gilles death), but Senna died as a result of a probable car failure on a corner that was flat out, hardly a product of red mist or pushing too hard. An emotional person yes, who undoubtedly let his emotions cloud his judgement on occasions, but I really don't think its fair to say thats why he dies. It may have made it more likely he was going to have a big one, but that crash can't be down to those reasons IMO

[Daniel]

True, but Will Power is alive today. He walked away from the incident having also been launched over the rear wheel of another car. His part in the accident did not result in a fatality or serious injury. The difference in the two outcomes was the fence, not being launched into the air.

If you believe that then you misunderstand what I, and others have said in response to your thread. Of course we all want drivers safe and alive. However, it is a fundamental fact that motorsport, at whatever level of activity, can be, and will remain, dangerous whatever steps are taken.

That is not the same as saying that we should simply shrug our shoulders at the loss of a racing driver and carry on as if nothing had happened. No-one is suggesting that, and if you follow Twitter you'll see that Indycar drivers are not doing that either.


Once again no-one is, as you put it, "just accepting that people should die".

I think some of us accept that you cannot entirely eliminate risk, injury or death either in motorsport or life and if you try to do so you remove some elements of what life is about.

I'm sorry, but there is some extremely poor logic being applied in here.

1. Sure Will Power survived his accident but only because he went into the fence with the underneath of the tub (see videos for proof), I never said that everyone who was going to get launched was going to get killed. It's a testament to the safety of the cars that only one person died and no one else appears to have any permanent injuries. Such is the random nature of these sorts of accidents. We've seen some accidents which seem apocalyptically bad at the time like Kubica in Canada or Kenny Brack's impact with a catch fence and the driver is just fine and then some accidents which appear fairly minor in comparison and the driver dies.

2. Again you seem to not get the fact that I'm not saying we're ever going to make motorsport 100% safe, who decided that this point we've reached now is precisely as safe as we need to be? :confused:

3. I never said that IndyCar is doing nothing, in fact rather the opposite. Dan was testing the car which had multiple improvements including enclosed rear wheels which should lessen the chances of the car behind flying. With some of the near misses that we've had in recent years I would have thought it was quite obvious that stopping cars from flying or riding up on other cars would be a good thing.

4. I don't get how you can say that no one is "just accepting that people should die". People are saying stuff like that fatalities will always occur. Are we really so ghoulish that if we went 20 years in motorsport as a whole without a fatality that we would see fit to lower standards so that one was more likely? I think F1 has warped people's perceptions of what motorsport should be. Before tyre rules, KERS and DRS came along we had what was a fairly processional series with very little racing. I'll confess to not having an encyclopaedic knowledge of the BTCC, but to my knowledge there hasn't been a death in the BTCC for quite a long time and yet the BTCC managed to be a really spectacular series with great racing. No carbon fibre monocoques, drivers still sitting on one side of the car rather than in the middle. of course there is always the possibility that there will be a fatality, but it need not be a certainty for people to find the racing exciting.

5. Of course you can't remove risk. But if you add bumpers to an open wheel racing car I don't quite see how you're removing some part of what your life is about. I think such pseudo-emotional language is a very poor excuse for someone needing to die.

[Daniel]

Did I tell you to, or suggest it might be a good idea? :admiral:

That you aren't banned is a miracle, that is all.

[555-04Q2]

Not if they want to race in F1.

If they want to race in F1, they race with an open cockpit. If they want a pay cut and a roof over their heads to make them feel secure, they can join NASCAR, Touring Cars, WRC....

[Daniel]

If they want to race in F1, they race with an open cockpit. If they want a pay cut and a roof over their heads to make them feel secure, they can join NASCAR, Touring Cars, WRC....

I think you've missed a few pages. Firstly I'm not suggesting in this case that a canopy would have saved Dan. So referring to close cockpit series' doesn't make sense given the topic of discussion at the moment. Secondly, things change. That the FIA investigated cockpit canopies suggests that they don't believe that having the driver exposed to debris and so on is an intrinsic part of F1. If they put a canopy and a rear bumper on then 99% of the people would still watch and everyone would get used to the changes as well have with all the other changes in the last 15 years or so.

[wedge]

not sure i can agree with that comment re. Senna (i don't know enough about the circumstances of Gilles death), but Senna died as a result of a probable car failure on a corner that was flat out, hardly a product of red mist or pushing too hard. An emotional person yes, who undoubtedly let his emotions cloud his judgement on occasions, but I really don't think its fair to say thats why he dies. It may have made it more likely he was going to have a big one, but that crash can't be down to those reasons IMO




"No-one other than Ayrton Senna and me know what it was like to drive that car, through that corner, in that race, on that day, on cold tyres."

Hill added: "He was identified with pushing to the limit and beyond.

"He would often prefer to crash into his opponent rather than be defeated.

"It was not the fault of anyone else that he kept his foot flat when he could have lifted," said Hill.

Hill admitted that his views would not go down well with some.

"These opinions are sacrilege in the world of driving gods," he said. "Ayrton was a great driver and a man with enormous humanity. He was not a god. He was as frail and vulnerable as you or I."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/3641633.stm

In the new Autosport Legends/Senna book-zine Mark Hughes reckons the same thing.

1982 San Marino GP Ferrari gave implicit team orders to their drivers to slow down. Gilles was leading thought it meant hold station/postion but Pironi thought otherwise.

Gilles visibly unhappy on the podium.

http://uk.images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=A0PDodlU5p5OuFcAao9NBQx.;_ylu=X3oDMTBlMT Q4cGxyBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDaW1n?back=http%3A%2F%2Fuk.im ages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3D1982 %2Bsan%2Bmarino%2Bgrand%2Bprix%26fr2%3Dpiv-web%26b%3D1%26tab%3Dorganic&w=470&h=265&imgurl=www.auto123.com%2FArtImages%2F134574%2F8.jp g&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.auto123.com%2Fen%2Fracing-news%2Fother%2Ftop-10-last-lap-victories-in-formula-1%3Fartid%3D134574%26amp%3Bpg%3D3&size=168.2+KB&name=san+marino+grand+prix+1982+yes+the+infamous+b attle+between+ferrari+...&p=1982+san+marino+grand+prix&oid=636668ac0713ddd973782188e69ae2a0&fr2=piv-web&fr=&tt=san+marino+grand+prix+1982+yes+the+infamous+bat tle+between+ferrari+...&b=0&ni=21&no=26&tab=organic&ts=&sigr=1385jv2tr&sigb=1381j77c0&sigi=116d5882t&.crumb=hXSDR8.LT94

During quali for the Belgian GP Gilles crashed into the back of Rene Arnoux, going for a gap that closing/wasn't there and the rest is history.

[Daniel]

In the new Autosport Legends/Senna book-zine Mark Hughes reckons the same thing.

1982 San Marino GP Ferrari gave implicit team orders to their drivers to slow down. Gilles was leading thought it meant hold station/postion but Pironi thought otherwise.

Gilles visibly unhappy on the podium.

http://uk.images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=A0PDodlU5p5OuFcAao9NBQx.;_ylu=X3oDMTBlMT Q4cGxyBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDaW1n?back=http%3A%2F%2Fuk.im ages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3D1982 %2Bsan%2Bmarino%2Bgrand%2Bprix%26fr2%3Dpiv-web%26b%3D1%26tab%3Dorganic&w=470&h=265&imgurl=www.auto123.com%2FArtImages%2F134574%2F8.jp g&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.auto123.com%2Fen%2Fracing-news%2Fother%2Ftop-10-last-lap-victories-in-formula-1%3Fartid%3D134574%26amp%3Bpg%3D3&size=168.2+KB&name=san+marino+grand+prix+1982+yes+the+infamous+b attle+between+ferrari+...&p=1982+san+marino+grand+prix&oid=636668ac0713ddd973782188e69ae2a0&fr2=piv-web&fr=&tt=san+marino+grand+prix+1982+yes+the+infamous+bat tle+between+ferrari+...&b=0&ni=21&no=26&tab=organic&ts=&sigr=1385jv2tr&sigb=1381j77c0&sigi=116d5882t&.crumb=hXSDR8.LT94

During quali for the Belgian GP Gilles crashed into the back of Rene Arnoux, going for a gap that closing/wasn't there and the rest is history.

If we knew what was going on in the minds of the drivers in that 5-10 seconds before their accidents then we could say for sure, anything else is just a fairly well educated guess, as is me saying that a bumper could have saved Dan Wheldon.

[wedge]

If we knew what was going on in the minds of the drivers in that 5-10 seconds before their accidents then we could say for sure, anything else is just a fairly well educated guess, as is me saying that a bumper could have saved Dan Wheldon.

Senna's case we've seen him let his emotions get the better of him before

[kfzmeister]

http://www.iacoski.com/wp-content/themes/folioway/core/thumb.php?src=http://www.iacoski.com/wp-content/uploads/iacoski_ferrari_FX-i1_concept_KUB_640px_featured.jpg&w=640&h=300&zc=1&q=100

[Robinho]

In the new Autosport Legends/Senna book-zine Mark Hughes reckons the same thing.

1982 San Marino GP Ferrari gave implicit team orders to their drivers to slow down. Gilles was leading thought it meant hold station/postion but Pironi thought otherwise.

Gilles visibly unhappy on the podium.

http://uk.images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=A0PDodlU5p5OuFcAao9NBQx.;_ylu=X3oDMTBlMT Q4cGxyBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDaW1n?back=http%3A%2F%2Fuk.im ages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3D1982 %2Bsan%2Bmarino%2Bgrand%2Bprix%26fr2%3Dpiv-web%26b%3D1%26tab%3Dorganic&w=470&h=265&imgurl=www.auto123.com%2FArtImages%2F134574%2F8.jp g&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.auto123.com%2Fen%2Fracing-news%2Fother%2Ftop-10-last-lap-victories-in-formula-1%3Fartid%3D134574%26amp%3Bpg%3D3&size=168.2+KB&name=san+marino+grand+prix+1982+yes+the+infamous+b attle+between+ferrari+...&p=1982+san+marino+grand+prix&oid=636668ac0713ddd973782188e69ae2a0&fr2=piv-web&fr=&tt=san+marino+grand+prix+1982+yes+the+infamous+bat tle+between+ferrari+...&b=0&ni=21&no=26&tab=organic&ts=&sigr=1385jv2tr&sigb=1381j77c0&sigi=116d5882t&.crumb=hXSDR8.LT94

During quali for the Belgian GP Gilles crashed into the back of Rene Arnoux, going for a gap that closing/wasn't there and the rest is history.

from what i've seen on Gilles, I'd probably agree. And as I said, Senna certainly let himself be ruled by his emotions on more than one occasion, but IMO this was not one of them. Damon's testimony does shed some light on the subject that I hadn't read before, but from what I had understodd that corner should have been flat in normal circumstances, but it is true those laps weren't normal after the saftey car and Senna was certainly pushing at that stage in this career to get more from the car. I donät think this was his downfall though, nothing about it seemed like an ordinary driver error or over driven car to me

[Robinho]

http://www.iacoski.com/wp-content/themes/folioway/core/thumb.php?src=http://www.iacoski.com/wp-content/uploads/iacoski_ferrari_FX-i1_concept_KUB_640px_featured.jpg&w=640&h=300&zc=1&q=100

I have to say I would not be entirely adverse to that being F1, it certainly wouldn't mae me stop watching.

how they are supposed to get in and out in that arrangement puzzles me, especially in an emergency or upside down

[Daniel]

http://www.iacoski.com/wp-content/themes/folioway/core/thumb.php?src=http://www.iacoski.com/wp-content/uploads/iacoski_ferrari_FX-i1_concept_KUB_640px_featured.jpg&w=640&h=300&zc=1&q=100

I have to say I quite like that. Big wheels or small wheels I think it'd look OK. Have some sort of IndyCar style bumper for the rear and we're set.

The more I look at that the more I like it.

[Daniel]

I have to say I would not be entirely adverse to that being F1, it certainly wouldn't mae me stop watching.

how they are supposed to get in and out in that arrangement puzzles me, especially in an emergency or upside down

Rather true. I think it's fantastic that someone's taken the time to do a concept. It still looks VERY F1 to me.

Remove the air intake from the top of the car so it's not in the way and just have a latch system like the aerocatch system and we're part way there.

http://www.deftracing.com/aerocatch_hood_pins/images/aerocatch_all.jpg

[ArrowsFA1]

Such is the random nature of these sorts of accidents.
Exactly.


I would have thought it was quite obvious that stopping cars from flying or riding up on other cars would be a good thing.
Yes, it would be a good thing, but to ensure that never happens again the only thing to do is stop open-wheeled racing entirely.


...to my knowledge there hasn't been a death in the BTCC for quite a long time and yet the BTCC managed to be a really spectacular series with great racing.
But it is an entirely different kind of racing and not everyone wants to compete in or watch the BTCC.


Of course you can't remove risk. But if you add bumpers to an open wheel racing car I don't quite see how you're removing some part of what your life is about. I think such pseudo-emotional language is a very poor excuse for someone needing to die.
If your seeing things in such narrow terms then no, adding bumpers does not remove part of what life is about.

[Daniel]

Pretty much sums up how I percieve the sport and the danger it carries.


Oh dear no thanks, looks like a kids radio controlled car from Argos on first thoughts.

If it were really a kids radio controlled car from Argos it would have sponsors on it like.

Ay Sir, Moobaaaaahdollar, Interl, Abbey National and so on and it would be a prancing duck or something :p

[SGWilko]

http://www.iacoski.com/wp-content/themes/folioway/core/thumb.php?src=http://www.iacoski.com/wp-content/uploads/iacoski_ferrari_FX-i1_concept_KUB_640px_featured.jpg&w=640&h=300&zc=1&q=100

I imagine that driver has to sit on the engine, or has that moved to the front?

[SGWilko]

how they are supposed to get in and out in that arrangement puzzles me, especially in an emergency or upside down

Osmosis? :D

[Daniel]

A good article by Mark Webber and his opinions on the danger of the sport and how to deal with it mentally.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/formula_one/15376777.stm


You forgot this bit


IndyCar can learn a heavy lesson from Sunday's crash. What organisers certainly have to do is work out how to stop cars leaving the ground and flying into the air in such situations.

It is a sad irony that Dan was the test driver for a new car that officials plan to introduce next year.

It has enclosed rear wheels, which will definitely help because front wheels won't be able to go over rear wheels any more, which is one of the major factors that makes cars take off.

Now Mark Webber, an actual F1 driver and campaigner for safety sees the point. :dozey: I wonder if anyone else will care to admit that enclosing the rear wheels of the cars is not such a bad thing to do now.....

[Mia 01]

I know, I´m not the most intelligent people in the world. Can you convince me that you arè?

[SGWilko]

I know, I´m not the most intelligent people in the world. Can you convince me that you arè?

How many of you are there?????

[Daniel]

You want me to convince you that I'm the most intelligent person in the world? :eek:

I can tell you right now I'm not, but what has that got to do with the price of fish Mia?

I'm just glad that he/she wasn't agreeing with me......

[CaptainRaiden]

I'm just glad that he/she wasn't agreeing with me......

I know. Feels a bit weird being a Kimi Raikkonen fan on this forum lately... :erm:

[Daniel]

I didn't forget it at all, I provided the link to the article and you as much as anyone on here should know the rules concerning quoting whole articles. I thought I would provide the article as it was related to the thread regardless of whether I agree with everything Webber says or not.

I think its worth noting that nowhere in the article does Mark suggest the rear wheels of F1 cars are to be enclosed in his opinion. He supports it in IndyCar because of the style of racing it has (Ovals with tight pack racing) and he makes comparisons between the safety levels of the two.

The point I was making was that he was talking about cars flying and made mention of his car flying so there was possibly an implication there even if he didn't explicitly state it. I guess it takes a certain sort of driver who can look at an accident like Webber's and then at Dan's accident and not draw parallel's between the two, to drive in F1 and be fearless. He did say that his accident could have gone one of two ways. Thankfully in F1 the fences are usually at more of an acute angle to the impacts, the impacts are slower and dare I say it, the racing isn't thankfully as close! (I feel rather conflicted when saying that last part) But a flying car vs catch fence fatal accident could still happen.

[Daniel]

I'm expecting a Star Wars question next just for consistency.

I think it'll be a Monty Python reference. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition and all......

[Triumph]

Osmosis? :D

Well, it worked with Joan Crawford, so it's always a possibility!

[Bezza]

The point I was making was that he was talking about cars flying and made mention of his car flying so there was possibly an implication there even if he didn't explicitly state it. I guess it takes a certain sort of driver who can look at an accident like Webber's and then at Dan's accident and not draw parallel's between the two, to drive in F1 and be fearless. He did say that his accident could have gone one of two ways. Thankfully in F1 the fences are usually at more of an acute angle to the impacts, the impacts are slower and dare I say it, the racing isn't thankfully as close! (I feel rather conflicted when saying that last part) But a flying car vs catch fence fatal accident could still happen.

The racing is slower
Tracks are wider
Cars are safer
Speeds are lower
Drivers are better
Quantity of cars is lower

All the above applies to F1 when comparing to IndyCars, and is justfication I believe for no need for a knee-jerk decision to sort out F1 safety when it is not F1 that has had any problems.

[wedge]

I think its worth noting that nowhere in the article does Mark suggest the rear wheels of F1 cars are to be enclosed in his opinion. He supports it in IndyCar because of the style of racing it has (Ovals with tight pack racing) and he makes comparisons between the safety levels of the two.

Hallelujah!

Finally an understanding of idiosyncrasies.


When I've had the chance to watch, I've also loved watching IndyCars on ovals purely because of the speed and the fact that they can overtake anywhere. Heck I'll watch NASCAR if it's on. If we stop IndyCars from flying then it's just that bit safer, an open wheeler with a pointy noise and bits that stick out just isn't really made to crash into a catch fence, not well at least.

Watching is one thing, following and knowing about idiosyncrasies is another. Otherwise we have knee jerk reactions like reviving ths thread.


The point I was making was that he was talking about cars flying and made mention of his car flying so there was possibly an implication there even if he didn't explicitly state it. I guess it takes a certain sort of driver who can look at an accident like Webber's and then at Dan's accident and not draw parallel's between the two, to drive in F1 and be fearless. He did say that his accident could have gone one of two ways. Thankfully in F1 the fences are usually at more of an acute angle to the impacts, the impacts are slower and dare I say it, the racing isn't thankfully as close! (I feel rather conflicted when saying that last part) But a flying car vs catch fence fatal accident could still happen.

Both went airborne but go deeper there's no comparison.

It is very obvious that Webber was too greedy with his slipstream. A stupid error and completely avoidable, just like Hamilton trying to pass Kobayashi at Spa.

Wheldon was almost literally trying to dodge a bullet due to the small margin of error of pack racing.


The racing is slower
Tracks are wider
Cars are safer
Speeds are lower
Drivers are better
Quantity of cars is lower

All the above applies to F1 when comparing to IndyCars, and is justfication I believe for no need for a knee-jerk decision to sort out F1 safety when it is not F1 that has had any problems.

Dario Franchitti was involved in two similar massive accidents but is also Indycar champion and well respected within motorsport.

Unlike NASCAR where pack racing usually involves a massive pile up but very rarely in Indycar. They race wheel to wheel, lap after lap, averaging 220mph a lap. The margin for error is very small but big ones have been very very rare since this style of racing was introduced in 1996.

[ArrowsFA1]

I wonder if anyone else will care to admit that enclosing the rear wheels of the cars is not such a bad thing to do now.....
I'm suspect anyone who witnessed the accident in Vegas is of the same opinion, and Indycar had already addressed this with the 2012 Dallara.

However, with regards to F1 and open wheel racing generally Daniel, it seems you will not rest until the cars become clones of Le Mans Prototypes.

[Daniel]

I'm suspect anyone who witnessed the accident in Vegas is of the same opinion, and Indycar had already addressed this with the 2012 Dallara.

However, with regards to F1 and open wheel racing generally Daniel, it seems you will not rest until the cars become clones of Le Mans Prototypes.

Whilst personally I'd quite like that, I understand it's not most people's cup of tea. What then is so wrong with that Ferrari concept thing that's been posted early on with some sort of enclosure over the rear wheels? I think the artist has made some shall we say "errors" like putting the driver where the engine should be, but aside from that it's quite aesthetically pleasing and still quite true to the whole open wheel racing philosophy. Yeah I'd love coupes in F1, but I'd settle for a well thought out car in the same shape as a current car, just with an enclosed cockpit and rear whees which are enclosed from the rear. That people feel that a driver being able to have his head taken off by a wheel or spring is somehow part of F1 is a bit silly......

[Daniel]

Both went airborne but go deeper there's no comparison.

It is very obvious that Webber was too greedy with his slipstream. A stupid error and completely avoidable, just like Hamilton trying to pass Kobayashi at Spa.

Wheldon was almost literally trying to dodge a bullet due to the small margin of error of pack racing.

I don't quite see why the fact that Mark was greedy and Dan was just unfortunate makes a difference? If Webber's accident had been fatal would he be a different kind of dead to Dan?

As was pointed out in my first post on Monday, it would be silly to ignore the part that the track and the numbers of cars played in the accident, but we could have a similar accident in F1 in the right (wrong) circumstances. Whether it's a pack accident or just two is irrelevant when someone's car is getting grated by the catch fence as SGWilko put it.....

[wedge]

I don't quite see why the fact that Mark was greedy and Dan was just unfortunate makes a difference? If Webber's accident had been fatal would he be a different kind of dead to Dan?

How many cars were involved in Webber's accident. How many other cars were in the vicinity?

Closest we'll ever find it in F1 is on the first lap cars jockeying for position but in Indycar racing the majority of laps will be like the first lap therefore such incidents are rare in F1.

[Daniel]

How many cars were involved in Webber's accident. How many other cars were in the vicinity?

Closest we'll ever find it in F1 is on the first lap cars jockeying for position but in Indycar racing the majority of laps will be like the first lap therefore such incidents are rare in F1.

I think you're missing the point. It only takes two cars to have an incident like that where a car flies. As far as I remember Dan only hit the car in front and then got shot into the air and the rest is history. Yes Dan's accident was part of a 14 car pileup, but it was a 2 car accident that killed him.

[ArrowsFA1]

That people feel that a driver being able to have his head taken off by a wheel or spring is somehow part of F1 is a bit silly......
May I say that is more than silly way of representing some views that have been expressed here. No-one feels that such things are an intrinsic part of the sport in the same way as, for example, Ferrari is, or Monaco, or the tradition of spaying champagne on the podium.


Yes Dan's accident was part of a 14 car pileup, but it was a 2 car accident that killed him.
I rather think you may be missing the point. Dan Wheldon's accident was a consequence of a chain reaction caused by 34 cars running flat out on a high speed high banked 1.5mile oval.

[wedge]

I think you're missing the point. It only takes two cars to have an incident like that where a car flies. As far as I remember Dan only hit the car in front and then got shot into the air and the rest is history. Yes Dan's accident was part of a 14 car pileup, but it was a 2 car accident that killed him.

F1 heads can contribute to the debate but not more than those in Indycar.

Of course accidents will happen but if you knew about the problems blatant in Indycar then arguably you can reduce the cause.

Webber's was due to an unforced error.

Wheldon was trying to dodge a pile up. Making the cars safer is one thing but how about if we could string the cars out more on 1.5 miles ovals or even ban going to them ever again and instead continue to run short 1 mile ovals where the speeds are lower and the superspeedways where speeds are very high but less likely to get a massive pile up due to cars being more strung out and therefore more likely to dodge a wreck.

[Daniel]

I rather think you may be missing the point. Dan Wheldon's accident was a consequence of a chain reaction caused by 34 cars running flat out on a high speed high banked 1.5mile oval.

Of course, but you seem to somehow think that this means that an F1 car could never hit another F1 car and then hit the catch fence. Accidents can happen for a variety of reasons, racing too close on an oval track is merely one of many reasons an accident can happen.

[Daniel]

F1 heads can contribute to the debate but not more than those in Indycar.

Of course accidents will happen but if you knew about the problems blatant in Indycar then arguably you can reduce the cause.

Webber's was due to an unforced error.

Wheldon was trying to dodge a pile up. Making the cars safer is one thing but how about if we could string the cars out more on 1.5 miles ovals or even ban going to them ever again and instead continue to run short 1 mile ovals where the speeds are lower and the superspeedways where speeds are very high but less likely to get a massive pile up due to cars being more strung out and therefore more likely to dodge a wreck.

I say again, if Webber had died in that situation would he be a different sort of dead to Dan?

YES, oval racing is inherently more dangerous than F1 and invites these sort of accidents to happen moreso than F1. But cars fly in F1 just as bad if they hit the wheel of the car in front at speed.

[ArrowsFA1]

Of course, but you seem to somehow think that this means that an F1 car could never hit another F1 car and then hit the catch fence.
Not at all. I'm sorry if any of my posts have led you to conclude that because in my years watching F1 I have obviously seen wheel to wheel contact and impacts with catch fencing and armco barriers which have caused serious injury and in some cases a fatality.


Accidents can happen for a variety of reasons, racing too close on an oval track is merely one of many reasons an accident can happen.
Of course, but pack racing at those speeds on those kind of circuits like we saw in Las Vegas simply does not happen in F1, and yet it appears you're linking Dan Wheldon's death with your apparent wish for F1 to become more like LMP cars.

[wedge]

Of course, but you seem to somehow think that this means that an F1 car could never hit another F1 car and then hit the catch fence. Accidents can happen for a variety of reasons, racing too close on an oval track is merely one of many reasons an accident can happen.

For that very reason we don't need a kneejerk reaction in F1.

They're banging wheels, carbon fibre; blocking, pushed onto the grass but not a frequency of cars going airborne as in Indycar.

[Daniel]

For that very reason we don't need a kneejerk reaction in F1.

They're banging wheels, carbon fibre; blocking, pushed onto the grass but not a frequency of cars going airborne as in Indycar.

I don't quite see why what I've said is in itself a reason to not make changes.

I agree that it has to be a well thought out and tested thing, you don't simply want to mandate wheel covers and then find out that they're not fixed on well enough and spectators or marshals get killed. We don't need or want a kneejerk reaction, it has to be well thought out and well designed and specced

[SGWilko]

Of course, but you seem to somehow think that this means that an F1 car could never hit another F1 car and then hit the catch fence. Accidents can happen for a variety of reasons, racing too close on an oval track is merely one of many reasons an accident can happen.

The F1 I watch has run off (tarmac and/or gravel), conveyerbelt clad tyre barriers.

The cars do not go around 90 degree corners at similar speeds to those on the straights, and certainly not 2, 3 or even 4 abreast.

Only Velencia has catch fencing that can be likened with that in Indycars, and is not to be mistaken for an oval.

[Daniel]

The F1 I watch has run off (tarmac and/or gravel), conveyorbelt clad tyre barriers.

The cars do not go around 90 degree corners at similar speeds to those on the straights, and certainly not 2, 3 or even 4 abreast.

Only Velencia has catch fencing, and is not to be mistaken for an oval.

I didn't say it was an oval? Again you miss the point, a car taking off is NOT a good thing and each time the driver is at a significantly higher risk of death or serious injury than when he's on the ground. 4 or 47 abreast, the accident was for all intents and purposes a 2 car accident. We have more than 1 car racing at a time in F1 don't we?

[Daniel]

Not at all. I'm sorry if any of my posts have led you to conclude that because in my years watching F1 I have obviously seen wheel to wheel contact and impacts with catch fencing and armco barriers which have caused serious injury and in some cases a fatality.


Of course, but pack racing at those speeds on those kind of circuits like we saw in Las Vegas simply does not happen in F1, and yet it appears you're linking Dan Wheldon's death with your apparent wish for F1 to become more like LMP cars.

What was going on before Dan's accident is somewhat irrelevant tbh. Any open wheeled car could have an accident like that be it on a corner, on an oval or on a straight. Like you say wheel to wheel contact has in the past resulted in fatal injuries. No doubt F1 is safer now, but perhaps we just need to do away with flying cars? Is it a necessary part of F1?

[SGWilko]

I didn't say it was an oval? Again you miss the point, a car taking off is NOT a good thing and each time the driver is at a significantly higher risk of death or serious injury than when he's on the ground. 4 or 47 abreast, the accident was for all intents and purposes a 2 car accident. We have more than 1 car racing at a time in F1 don't we?

Q. Why did Dan's car hit another?
A. Because the cars in front were going slower.

Q. Why were the cars in front going slower?
A. Because there was a multicar pileup they were trying to avoid.

Q. Why was there a multicar pileup?
A. Because the cars - 34 of them - were running close together, flat out, on a short oval track.

Now compare this to F1 - no comparison.

You simply are very unlikely (this is a risk factor that has to be considered) to be cornering at max speed in an area on current F1 tracks where there is; catch fencing and banked track that could replicate Dan's accident circumstances.

[Daniel]

Q. Why did Dan's car hit another?
A. Because the cars in front were going slower.

Q. Why were the cars in front going slower?
A. Because there was a multicar pileup they were trying to avoid.

Q. Why was there a multicar pileup?
A. Because the cars - 34 of them - were running close together, flat out, on a short oval track.

Now compare this to F1 - no comparison.

You simply are very unlikely (this is a risk factor that has to be considered) to be cornering at max speed in an area on current F1 tracks where there is; catch fencing and banked track that could replicate Dan's accident circumstances.
A couple of questions for you

Q Could this accident have happened if there were only two cars on the track?
A <Enter your answer in here>

Q Have we ever had accidents in F1 where cars have hit slower cars in front?
A <Enter your answer in here>

By your reasoning, because IndyCar hasn't had any incidents (of late that I'm aware of) where an object like a spring or a wheel hitting a driver in the head that it could never happen in IndyCar. The attitudes of people on here seem a lot like putting your heads in the sand and just blindly hoping that it never happens.

IndyCar was taking precautionary action against to help stop cars from taking off but F1 charges blindly on hoping that no one gets killed during one of these silly flights :)

[SGWilko]

A couple of questions for you

Q Could this accident have happened if there were only two cars on the track?
A <Enter your answer in here>

Q Have we ever had accidents in F1 where cars have hit slower cars in front?
A <Enter your answer in here>

By your reasoning, because IndyCar hasn't had any incidents (of late that I'm aware of) where an object like a spring or a wheel hitting a driver in the head that it could never happen in IndyCar. The attitudes of people on here seem a lot like putting your heads in the sand and just blindly hoping that it never happens.

IndyCar was taking precautionary action against to help stop cars from taking off but F1 charges blindly on hoping that no one gets killed during one of these silly flights :)

Point is, reservations were expressed about the safety of the specific track and the speeds, number of cars etc. It was, in effect, an accident waiting to happen.

It could have happened with only two cars on the track, but what is the likelihood?

Yes, Mark Webber hit the slower Lotus. Also the start fiasco in Spa last century, one of the tail end charlies when full chat into the carnage, but no-one took off.....

[SGWilko]

IndyCar was taking precautionary action against to help stop cars from taking off but F1 charges blindly on hoping that no one gets killed during one of these silly flights :)

And the mentality was that they could go even faster as a result :eek:

[ArrowsFA1]

What was going on before Dan's accident is somewhat irrelevant...
It is entirely relevant IMHO. You continue to insist that it was a two car accident as if the other 32 cars weren't on the track and played no part. You simply can't isolate one element of such a crash in that way.

...perhaps we just need to do away with flying cars? Is it a necessary part of F1?
For goodness sake, "flying cars" are not a "part of F1" in the same way that (as we've already discussed) "a driver being able to have his head taken off by a wheel or spring" is not a "part of F1". These are not common occurrences, and they are as likely to happen at, say, Le Mans or along the M4. Should we all stop driving on motorways?

[Daniel]

It is entirely relevant IMHO. You continue to insist that it was a two car accident as if the other 32 cars weren't on the track and played no part. You simply can't isolate one element of such a crash in that way.

For goodness sake, "flying cars" are not a "part of F1" in the same way that (as we've already discussed) "a driver being able to have his head taken off by a wheel or spring" is not a "part of F1". These are not common occurrences, and they are as likely to happen at, say, Le Mans or along the M4. Should we all stop driving on motorways?

I'm not saying it played no part. You and your comrades seem to think that it can only happen when there are 34 cars on the track racing together. Mark Webber has shown that you don't need 34 cars on the track for it to happen.

If flying cars and people with serious/fatal head injuries are not intrinsic to F1 then why not minimise the chance of their occurence? :confused:

[nigelred5]

The F1 I watch has run off (tarmac and/or gravel), conveyerbelt clad tyre barriers.

The cars do not go around 90 degree corners at similar speeds to those on the straights, and certainly not 2, 3 or even 4 abreast.

Only Velencia has catch fencing that can be likened with that in Indycars, and is not to be mistaken for an oval.

Actually, it looks like the Korean circuit looks to have concrete walls and catch fencing right on the border of the racing surface for about 1/2 of the course. Singapore, well, I call that catch fencing.

[wedge]

I'm not saying it played no part. You and your comrades seem to think that it can only happen when there are 34 cars on the track racing together. Mark Webber has shown that you don't need 34 cars on the track for it to happen.

If flying cars and people with serious/fatal head injuries are not intrinsic to F1 then why not minimise the chance of their occurence? :confused:

How many times does this point need to be repeated. It's an accepted risk in F1 because such incidents are rare.

It's different in Indycar. The problems that it has has been brewing for years.

Webber didn't exactly jump on his soapbox calling for change after his accident.

Not quite the same in Indycars when you're hanging for dear life lap after lap.

[Rollo]

Webber didn't exactly jump on his soapbox calling for change after his accident.


People have to die in F1 before something changes. Webber didn't die.

[Mia 01]

I'm expecting a Star Wars question next just for consistency.

It´s raining here, it seems as I´m not that dumb.

[wedge]

People have to die in F1 before something changes. Webber didn't die.

That's how motorsport generally works, I'm afraid.

It's a dangerous sport and accidents will happen. Open wheelers racing wheel to wheel is one of the great spectacles in racing. To what extent should this occur is a question for Indycar and definitely not F1.


Thats not strictly true as we've seen systems put in place since Massa's accident, most notably the black reinforced strips drivers now have on their helmets to make the visor area tougher should the driver be hit by a small dense object. The cockpit sides were also raised after Coulthard and Wurz came together a few years ago too. Both accidents could have been fatal and things were done after learning from such incidents. It would be easy to have knee jerk reactions to such incidents like banning circuits, but F1 is top of the game in terms of safety and I think IndyCar can learn alot from it.

It works both ways.

CART pioneered the cushion protection around the cockpit and wheel tethers before F1.

When Ralf had his rear end shunt at Indy nearly a decade ago he was out for months, whereas an IRL driver wouldn't have had that problem as IRL cars have gone through rigorous gearbox/rear end crash tests.

[Andrewmcm]

So, off topic of course. But are we all still happy with our personal definitions of acceptable risk after the events of this weekend past?

[555-04Q2]

http://www.iacoski.com/wp-content/themes/folioway/core/thumb.php?src=http://www.iacoski.com/wp-content/uploads/iacoski_ferrari_FX-i1_concept_KUB_640px_featured.jpg&w=640&h=300&zc=1&q=100

Ah hell no!!!!! :down:

[Malbec]

When Ralf had his rear end shunt at Indy nearly a decade ago he was out for months, whereas an IRL driver wouldn't have had that problem as IRL cars have gone through rigorous gearbox/rear end crash tests.

Ralf's rear end structures didn't fail. He had an undisplaced vertebral body fracture purely due to the huge forces involved in the accident, an injury which apart from being painful wasn't a problem except if he had a second high energy impact while it healed. The fact that he was out for several months wasn't directly due to the severity of his injuries therefore.

Also rear end impact testing was a part of F1 at the time of his accident, IIRC it was side impact testing that was only just being introduced at the time.

[Malbec]

So, off topic of course. But are we all still happy with our personal definitions of acceptable risk after the events of this weekend past?

I think it would be helpful if Daniel defined the level of risk he is prepared to accept because I don't think its very clear in many of his posts. The rest of us seem to be singing from the same hymn sheet.

[ArrowsFA1]

So, off topic of course. But are we all still happy with our personal definitions of acceptable risk after the events of this weekend past?
Those participating in motor sport are aware of the risks and choose to accept them. Those risks always have been, and always will be, there.

Sadly, events of recent days remind us there are consequences for some who choose to accept the risks.

[wedge]

Ralf's rear end structures didn't fail. He had an undisplaced vertebral body fracture purely due to the huge forces involved in the accident, an injury which apart from being painful wasn't a problem except if he had a second high energy impact while it healed. The fact that he was out for several months wasn't directly due to the severity of his injuries therefore.

Also rear end impact testing was a part of F1 at the time of his accident, IIRC it was side impact testing that was only just being introduced at the time.

Never said it did fail. I was arguing that IRL's requrements would be the 'better' car in a rear end shunt due to the nature of oval racing.

[Malbec]

Never said it did fail. I was arguing that IRL's requrements would be the 'better' car in a rear end shunt due to the nature of oval racing.

Sorry, but I fail to see how Ralf would have done any better in an Indy car.

His injuries were the result of the sheer speed he was going at prior to his accident, if anything on the oval Indy track the speeds would have been even higher and the potential for injury even greater. Remember that the car he was in didn't fail, the safety cell was entirely intact and there wasn't any intrusion into the cockpit.

What that accident did show was that regardless of how well the safety equipment on these cars works there is a limit to how much energy the body can dissipate in an accident. IMO had he gone nose first into the wall the deceleration would have been sufficient to rupture his aorta, yet again I would have expected the cockpit to have been entirely intact.

[555-04Q2]

Those participating in motor sport are aware of the risks and choose to accept them. Those risks always have been, and always will be, there.

Sadly, events of recent days remind us there are consequences for some who choose to accept the risks.

Correct :up:

We also need to remember that if the unthinkable does happen, at least it is while they are doing what they love, not being taken out by a bus while crossing the street.

[SGWilko]

So, off topic of course. But are we all still happy with our personal definitions of acceptable risk after the events of this weekend past?

Very much comfortable with it, yes. How do you make motorcycle racing safer - one at a time on a time trial basis?

Why do folk climb rocks, ski off piste/Break land speed records etc? Because a) it is difficult, and b) because of the risk. Risk gives reward.

So long as you are aware of the risk, then fine.

[Daniel]

Sorry, but I fail to see how Ralf would have done any better in an Indy car.

His injuries were the result of the sheer speed he was going at prior to his accident, if anything on the oval Indy track the speeds would have been even higher and the potential for injury even greater. Remember that the car he was in didn't fail, the safety cell was entirely intact and there wasn't any intrusion into the cockpit.

What that accident did show was that regardless of how well the safety equipment on these cars works there is a limit to how much energy the body can dissipate in an accident. IMO had he gone nose first into the wall the deceleration would have been sufficient to rupture his aorta, yet again I would have expected the cockpit to have been entirely intact.

Therein lies the reason why we need to do our best to stop as many serious accidents happening as is possible without turning the sport into a time trial with acres and acres of runoff.

[555-04Q2]

Very much comfortable with it, yes. How do you make motorcycle racing safer - one at a time on a time trial basis?

Why do folk climb rocks, ski off piste/Break land speed records etc? Because a) it is difficult, and b) because of the risk. Risk gives reward.

So long as you are aware of the risk, then fine.

Well said :up:

[555-04Q2]

Spotted this on the IndyCar canopy thread:

No again :down:

[SGWilko]

Spotted this on the IndyCar canopy thread:

They forgot the wipers.....

[nigelred5]

Rain-X!!

F16's don't need no stinkin wipers! ;)

[nigelred5]

No again :down:

I'm sorry, but if you make that a clear canopy so the driver can be seen, put them in a fighter jet style helmet and mask, That is just a bad a$$ looking car. I'd watch that :bleep: all day long!

[555-04Q2]

I'm sorry, but if you make that a clear canopy so the driver can be seen, put them in a fighter jet style helmet and mask, That is just a bad a$$ looking car. I'd watch that :bleep: all day long!

:erm: ..... no again ;)

[ArrowsFA1]

:erm: ..... no again ;)
88.24% agree with you :D

[ArrowsFA1]

Mark Webber on the "thrill of danger":
BBC Sport - Mark Webber column (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/formula_one/15443585.stm)

Jackie Stewart - "F1 can't relax on safety":
Jackie Stewart says Wheldon crash shows F1 cannot relax on safety - F1 news - AUTOSPORT.com (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/95686)

[wedge]

I'm sorry, but if you make that a clear canopy so the driver can be seen, put them in a fighter jet style helmet and mask, That is just a bad a$$ looking car. I'd watch that :bleep: all day long!

I think its fine for Indycar and preserve of oval race.

Drivers will need a G-suit and early 2000s CART spec racer to go round Texas.

[schmenke]

I can't help but think that a canopy may hinder extraction of an imobile driver in a serious accident.
What if the canopy is jammed and is difficult to be removed?

(...apologies if this has already been mentioned in the previous 37 pages of this thread... :uhoh: )

[BDunnell]

I think Mark puts across very well the views of a modern day racer in that article. Stewart is very sensitive when it comes to safety and for good reason. Many of his friends died on track and he's been a pioneer for making the sport safer, but I do think he applies the same logic now, as he did in the early 70's. I know Stirling Moss has locked horns with him over this topic in the past, and considering both men raced in the most dangerous od era's, they have very different views on what racing is all about. Moss admits alot of the attraction for him when he raced was the danger and knowing it might have been the last time he got into a car. He thrived on it, whereas Jackie nervously avoided it I would imagine. Nobody wants to see people killed on the track, but as Webber says its a slim risk and one they are willing to accept. I agree with him. :)

I don't think it's quite right to say that Stewart 'nervously avoided' danger. Had he done do, he would not have competed at all, after all, rather than having been one of the greatest drivers of all time. His 1968 German GP win hardly constituted a nervous avoidance of danger, I'm sure you'd agree.

[ioan]

I can't help but think that a canopy may hinder extraction of an imobile driver in a serious accident.
What if the canopy is jammed and is difficult to be removed?

(...apologies if this has already been mentioned in the previous 37 pages of this thread... :uhoh: )

Yep, had been discussed previously.
We all believe that F1 engineers are smart enough to provide a solution.

Also, nowadays they need to remove the headrest to be able to extract the driver, what if it got jammed? And what if the safety belt buckle got jammed?
A long time ago drivers were opposing safety belts because being catapulted out of the car was regarded as being safer, we all know how this own turned out in the end.

Wheel fenders and canopies will come into F1 sooner or later, let's hope it is before other drivers die or get injured.

[big_sw2000]

Sorry to butt in, but dont they use canops in F1 power boats, seem to rember years ago when the raced in Bristol docks.

[Knock-on]

F1 powerboats do have canopies but this is because of the danger of a boat nosediving into water at high speeds. It is like hitting concrete.

F1 cars don't have this problem as the concrete is concrete and cannot enter the survival cell unless the rollover bar breaks which is practically impossible.

[big_sw2000]

But is it not something to look at, i dont recall problems with extracting drivers in an emergacy. Ive heard people talk about wipers and visabilty, that exsists with other forms of motor racing Le Mans for example.

[Knock-on]

But is it not something to look at, i dont recall problems with extracting drivers in an emergency. Ive heard people talk about wipers and visibility, that exists with other forms of motor racing Le Mans for example.

I think the question should be what sort of problem are we trying to solve by enclosing drivers with a canopy? What is the risk to drivers safety of enclosing them in a shell as opposed to leaving the cockpit open as it is.?

Daniel will argue that it's almost suicide continuing to run as F1 is at the moment but what is the current risk. The only meaningful accident in recent years was the spring striking Massa where the injury in that incident was caused by a helmet failure that has since been rectified. Are we going to change a whole series just for that?

Then we have the potential increased risk of running canopies. There is a enhanced risk that one might jam or even come loose in the event of an accident and cause injury. Can you imagine a canopy spinning off at over 150 mph and striking a Marshall or Spectator. If someone can tell me this is impossible then I challenge them to prove it otherwise it seems to pose as likely a risk as a spring falling off a car and striking a driver.

Then we have the problems associated with reduced visibility and potential fire in a crash, the increase in top-end weight of a car, the problems with rain etc.

All in all, it seems to create more problems than the negligible risk of having an open cockpit.

Motor Racing carries an element of danger but that doesn't mean we should have a gung-ho approach to safety. If Canopies make sense then I cannot see why they shouldn't be introduced but I don't see what benefit they will bring.

[BDunnell]

Daniel will argue that it's almost suicide continuing to run as F1 is at the moment but what is the current risk. The only meaningful accident in recent years was the spring striking Massa where the injury in that incident was caused by a helmet failure that has since been rectified. Are we going to change a whole series just for that?

It is an argument akin to suggesting that motorcycle racing is too dangerous in its current form, and that the riders need to be enclosed by canopies. After all, that might have saved Simoncelli. No-one in their right mind would consider that train of thought sensible. Why apply it to F1?

[Knock-on]

It is an argument akin to suggesting that motorcycle racing is too dangerous in its current form, and that the riders need to be enclosed by canopies. After all, that might have saved Simoncelli. No-one in their right mind would consider that train of thought sensible. Why apply it to F1?

Because some people don't understand the sport. Some people get more excited over a new winglet or piece of technology rather than the sound and smell or a race track. Some think that statistics are the be all and end all whereas some like to see two drivers going at it hammer and tongs like Hammy and Webbo even though there wasn't a pass.

Each to their own but lets hope the wringing hand brigade don't bugger it up and make it worse.

[BDunnell]

Because some people don't understand the sport. Some people get more excited over a new winglet or piece of technology rather than the sound and smell or a race track. Some think that statistics are the be all and end all whereas some like to see two drivers going at it hammer and tongs like Hammy and Webbo even though there wasn't a pass.

Each to their own but lets hope the wringing hand brigade don't bugger it up and make it worse.

I hope you knew as you typed those words that I would agree!

[Bagwan]

Unsurprisingly , there are two camps , one against the canopy idea , and one for the canopy idea .

Is there any one of the posters in this thread , now running to 740 posts , who has had a change of heart , and decided to vote differently on this issue ?

I still don't like the idea , but I think there is work to be done , and some of it could be to deal with some of the issues that having a canopy would address .

[Mia 01]

A beginning is to respect yellow flags.

[Daniel]

It is an argument akin to suggesting that motorcycle racing is too dangerous in its current form, and that the riders need to be enclosed by canopies. After all, that might have saved Simoncelli. No-one in their right mind would consider that train of thought sensible. Why apply it to F1?

What a silly statement. That would in no way be MotoGP then. It'd be some idiots in bubbles with two wheels sticking out the bottom. You're far more intelligent than this poor attempt at justifying your opinion Ben, far more intelligent than that.....

[Daniel]

Jackie Stewart - "F1 can't relax on safety":
Jackie Stewart says Wheldon crash shows F1 cannot relax on safety - F1 news - AUTOSPORT.com (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/95686)

Jackie's words are so true and so well thought out. That people haven't taken a step back and said "Perhaps we need to think about things and evaluate the dangers that are inherent to motorsport and eliminate those which needn't be inherent" suggests one of two things

You simply aren't that bothered about drivers getting killed or seriously injured

or

You childishly don't want to side with Ioan and myself because we're not that popular on here.

No one denies that the risks in IndyCar and MotoGP were slim and stepping into an IndyCar or hopping onto a MotoGP bike are still pretty darn safe, but losing Dan and Marco was a Dan and a Marco too much. Whilst there was probably nothing which could have been done to stop Marco's accident, Dan's was possibly preventable and a similar (of course not identical) accident could happen in F1 with the same result.....

People like Knockie will seek to torpedo the idea of any change like a canopy or a bumper without anyone even beginning to develop a solution to the problems he speaks of and will often bring up issues with canopies when it's a bumper that's being talked (irrelevant somewhat???) about so as to steer things off topic and attract some negativity to the collective idea. of making F1 safer. As Ioan says, we've got some really smart and intelligent people in F1. Why not form a group similar to the overtaking group called the safety group and give them a couple of years to come up with some innovative and well thought out ways of packaging a canopy or a rear bumper. If there were two people who could make the changes work in terms of safety and racing then i think having Ross Brawn and Adrian Newey on the case would give us a pretty good chance of coming up with a solution that minimises the risks whilst not creating new ones.

Whether some so called F1 fans on a forum on the internets like the idea the FIA are going to look into things and if Jackie Stewart has twigged to the idea of interlocking tyres being an issue then you can bet that people within the FIA and within the teams have and are looking at ways of making sure we never see an F1 car hit the barriers at speed like Dan's car did. This is all regardless of whether you deliberately poo-poo ideas or justify things in your own heads in a non-sensical manner. Sadly some people on here need to see an actual accident in F1 which kills a driver rather than just seeing an accident which kills a driver which could happen in F1.

[BDunnell]

What a silly statement. That would in no way be MotoGP then.

That, Daniel, is precisely what some people — myself included — feel about F1 being a coupe formula. It wouldn't be F1. I don't see what is so hard to grasp about that standpoint.

[Daniel]

That, Daniel, is precisely what some people — myself included — feel about F1 being a coupe formula. It wouldn't be F1. I don't see what is so hard to grasp about that standpoint.

With all due respect you're merely just resisting change for the sake of it. I do hope that if F1 does adopt a formula where there is a canopy and enclosed rear wheels that you all sod off to some F1 history forum where you can reminisce about the days when the drivers were exposed to needless risks purely for your titilation.

The talk will go something like this......

Ey oop lad, back in my day it were like this. If something fell off another car and hit you in the head, you either got decapitated and killed, or you was left sooooo traumatised by t'episode that you lost your speed. None of this namby pamby elf n safety crap where your canopy gets hit by something and you drive back to the pits and live to drive another day.

[BDunnell]

Jackie's words are so true and so well thought out. That people haven't taken a step back and said "Perhaps we need to think about things and evaluate the dangers that are inherent to motorsport and eliminate those which needn't be inherent" suggests one of two things

You simply aren't that bothered about drivers getting killed or seriously injured

or

You childishly don't want to side with Ioan and myself because we're not that popular on here.

No one denies that the risks in IndyCar and MotoGP were slim and stepping into an IndyCar or hopping onto a MotoGP bike are still pretty darn safe, but losing Dan and Marco was a Dan and a Marco too much. Whilst there was probably nothing which could have been done to stop Marco's accident, Dan's was possibly preventable and a similar (of course not identical) accident could happen in F1 with the same result.....

People like Knockie will seek to torpedo the idea of any change like a canopy or a bumper without anyone even beginning to develop a solution to the problems he speaks of and will often bring up issues with canopies when it's a bumper that's being talked (irrelevant somewhat???) about so as to steer things off topic and attract some negativity to the collective idea. of making F1 safer. As Ioan says, we've got some really smart and intelligent people in F1. Why not form a group similar to the overtaking group called the safety group and give them a couple of years to come up with some innovative and well thought out ways of packaging a canopy or a rear bumper. If there were two people who could make the changes work in terms of safety and racing then i think having Ross Brawn and Adrian Newey on the case would give us a pretty good chance of coming up with a solution that minimises the risks whilst not creating new ones.

Whether some so called F1 fans on a forum on the internets like the idea the FIA are going to look into things and if Jackie Stewart has twigged to the idea of interlocking tyres being an issue then you can bet that people within the FIA and within the teams have and are looking at ways of making sure we never see an F1 car hit the barriers at speed like Dan's car did. This is all regardless of whether you deliberately poo-poo ideas or justify things in your own heads in a non-sensical manner. Sadly some people on here need to see an actual accident in F1 which kills a driver rather than just seeing an accident which kills a driver which could happen in F1.

Here we go again with the tiresome and offensive view that those of us who feel that fatalities are, alas, inevitable wish to see them happen. This simply isn't true and you know it. I just don't believe that it is possible or desirable to remove any potential element of risk from any activity, not because those risks are in any way important to me, but because I view them as being impossible to eliminate. You and I are both interested in aviation. Every year a certain number of people are killed demonstrating aircraft at air displays. Do you feel that such displays should be banned? I would rather they be allowed to continue within certain parameters, but without those parameters becoming unduly restrictive. Sadly, even within the (now, in my view, reasonable) parameters a certain number of accidents are to be expected.

My thoughts turn to my old job working for an MP, and the letters we used to get from constituents about what they saw as dangerous road junctions. We would write letters on their behalf to the police and the local council, who would invariably write back saying they could not do anything, the safety record of said junction did not merit action, and so on. Equally invariably the constituent would be outraged, saying something along the lines of: 'Do they have to wait for someone to die before doing anything?' Not only do I think that is an entirely sensible position, but it may not follow even from one death caused by that junction being dangerous that action is necessary, on the grounds that the majority of people are not killed while negotiating it. Or, I think of the bloke injured in the 7 July 2005 terror attacks in London whose bloodied, bandaged face was plastered all over the front of the Sun in support of its backing for draconian new anti-terror laws. Surely, they felt, it followed that anyone who survived the attacks must want all possible measures to be enacted to prevent the same happening to even one other innocent person? As it happened, he didn't, and he objected mightily to his photo being used to those ends. Yes, draconian measures may save one life, but does this mean they should always be supported for that reason? Not to me.

[BDunnell]

With all due respect you're merely just resisting change for the sake of it. I do hope that if F1 does adopt a formula where there is a canopy and enclosed rear wheels that you all sod off to some F1 history forum where you can reminisce about the days when the drivers were exposed to needless risks purely for your titilation.

The talk will go something like this......

Ey oop lad, back in my day it were like this. If something fell off another car and hit you in the head, you either got decapitated and killed, or you was left sooooo traumatised by t'episode that you lost your speed. None of this namby pamby elf n safety crap where your canopy gets hit by something and you drive back to the pits and live to drive another day.

With respect, that's utter nonsense.

[Daniel]

Here we go again with the tiresome and offensive view that those of us who feel that fatalities are, alas, inevitable wish to see them happen. This simply isn't true and you know it. I just don't believe that it is possible or desirable to remove any potential element of risk from any activity, not because those risks are in any way important to me, but because I view them as being impossible to eliminate. You and I are both interested in aviation. Every year a certain number of people are killed demonstrating aircraft at air displays. Do you feel that such displays should be banned? I would rather they be allowed to continue within certain parameters, but without those parameters becoming unduly restrictive. Sadly, even within the (now, in my view, reasonable) parameters a certain number of accidents are to be expected.

My thoughts turn to my old job working for an MP, and the letters we used to get from constituents about what they saw as dangerous road junctions. We would write letters on their behalf to the police and the local council, who would invariably write back saying they could not do anything, the safety record of said junction did not merit action, and so on. Equally invariably the constituent would be outraged, saying something along the lines of: 'Do they have to wait for someone to die before doing anything?' Not only do I think that is an entirely sensible position, but it may not follow even from one death caused by that junction being dangerous that action is necessary, on the grounds that the majority of people are not killed while negotiating it. Or, I think of the bloke injured in the 7 July 2005 terror attacks in London whose bloodied, bandaged face was plastered all over the front of the Sun in support of its backing for draconian new anti-terror laws. Surely, they felt, it followed that anyone who survived the attacks must want all possible measures to be enacted to prevent the same happening to even one other innocent person? As it happened, he didn't, and he objected mightily to his photo being used to those ends. Yes, draconian measures may save one life, but does this mean they should always be supported for that reason? Not to me.

Again you go with the crap. Where have I ever said that we need to remove all danger from F1 or said that it's even possible? What benefit is there to someone dying on TV in front of us anyway? I accept that it can and will happen, but we should always take all reasonable steps to ensure that it doesn't happen. Dan's accident didn't need to happen, it didn't enrich anyone's experience of that race and future (preventable) accidents also need not happen.

You like F1 how it is, that's understandable, but that's no reason for F1 to simply stand still.

Fact of the matter is that Jackie Stewart agrees that interlocking wheels in this day and age are an issue. But of course you and the other flat earthers on here know more about safety than Jackie :) People on here happily dig out Jackie's past as proof when it comes to other subjects but for some reason they choose to wilfully ignore it now.

[Daniel]

With respect, that's utter nonsense.

Read this thread. It's full of people who seem to feel that a minor incident like Felipe's should be allowed to happen and are happy with the rather severe consequences for someone who was 100% blameless. It's full of people who seem to think that because Dan Wheldon was driving an IndyCar that a similar accident couldn't happen in F1. You've got Knockie who seems to thing that the revised helmets will now keep everything out of the cockpit, even catchfences :dozey:

[Daniel]

Much like you and Jackie know much more about the dangers of modern F1 than Mark Webber. :)

Sometimes it takes someone looking from the outside to see the problems. How many of the drivers in IndyCar refused to race in Las Vegas on a track which wasn't all that safe at the speeds they were doing with so many cars tightly bunched together? Drivers by necessity have to disregard the danger, be it acceptable risk or as we saw in Las Vegas the other week, rather unacceptable risk. That's why they're F1 drivers and we're not.

If F1 drivers pondered every possible danger to themselves then they would cease to become F1 drivers. Therefore whilst F1 drivers should definitely have input when it comes to safety, they shouldn't be the sole barometer as to whether something is too dangerous or not.

[SGWilko]

Seeing as you continue to correlate the death of Dan Wheldon to similar risks in F1, I'd put forward now the notion that dangerous tracks (Imola being a good example) be dropped, rather than knee jerk changes to mitigate miniscule risks (such as the Massa incident) which, incidentally, has led to a change in helmet design.

F1 safety is not standing still, and no-one on here, except for yourself, is suggesting it should.

To the point about enclosing the motorcyclist - how else could you prevent a reoccurance of Simoncelli's accident? And that is exactly the point that has been made, inter alia, about Massa's accident and - although not F1 - Surtees accident.

Freak accidents, one that led to a loss of life, one that did not.

Wheldon's accident owed more to the track, number of cars and the speeds involved.

[Daniel]

Its also been stated that Dan Wheldon may have died whether he had a canopy on his car or not due to the sheer force of the impact. The roll hoop of his car which is tested under many tonnes, was ripped off the car.

Why do you willfully ignore what I've actually said? Show me where I've said "Dan's life would have been saved by a canopy"??????

Fact is I DID NOT SAY THAT! I said that Dan's life could have been saved if the wheels of the car in front were enclosed. If you have to resort to lies to make my argument out to be wrong.............

[Daniel]

Seeing as you continue to correlate the death of Dan Wheldon to similar risks in F1, I'd put forward now the notion that dangerous tracks (Imola being a good example) be dropped, rather than knee jerk changes to mitigate miniscule risks (such as the Massa incident) which, incidentally, has led to a change in helmet design.

F1 safety is not standing still, and no-one on here, except for yourself, is suggesting it should.

To the point about enclosing the motorcyclist - how else could you prevent a reoccurance of Simoncelli's accident? And that is exactly the point that has been made, inter alia, about Massa's accident and - although not F1 - Surtees accident.

Freak accidents, one that led to a loss of life, one that did not.

Wheldon's accident owed more to the track, number of cars and the speeds involved.

How am I suggesting that F1 safety standing still? Oh wait you're just trolling again innit? :wave:

The fact is that these accidents need not happen again, the racing will be no less ferocious and close if drivers don't need to worry about something coming off another car and hitting them in the head or hitting the car in front and being sent flying into the air/fence/wall/ground/whatever.

[BDunnell]

Fact of the matter is that Jackie Stewart agrees that interlocking wheels in this day and age are an issue.

If F1 were to cease to be an open-wheel formula, watch driving standards deteriorate and touring car-style contact become the order of the day when cars are engaged in a close battle. Remove one potential danger and another one is created in its place. Mark my words, it would happen.

[Daniel]

I didn't quote you and my post wasn't in direct response to anything you have said..... CALM DOWN.

See Wilko's post above mine.

So? You're bringing up oranges when we're talking about apples. Oh crap, I just said apple, this must be an Anti-Apple post! :rotflmao:

[BDunnell]

How am I suggesting that F1 safety standing still? Oh wait you're just trolling again innit? :wave:

You seem to have joined the club (other members Bolton Midnight and Bob Riebe) whose response to someone disagreeing with you is to accuse them of trolling. Excellent company to keep. In my view, there is nothing remotely approaching trolling in what SGWilko posted on this occasion, whether one agrees with it or not.

[BDunnell]

Sometimes it takes someone looking from the outside to see the problems. How many of the drivers in IndyCar refused to race in Las Vegas on a track which wasn't all that safe at the speeds they were doing with so many cars tightly bunched together? Drivers by necessity have to disregard the danger, be it acceptable risk or as we saw in Las Vegas the other week, rather unacceptable risk. That's why they're F1 drivers and we're not.

There are other reasons. It's not all to do with their ability to cope with risk and danger, surely?

[Daniel]

You seem to have joined the club (other members Bolton Midnight and Bob Riebe) whose response to someone disagreeing with you is to accuse them of trolling. Excellent company to keep. In my view, there is nothing remotely approaching trolling in what SGWilko posted on this occasion, whether one agrees with it or not.

Oh come on Ben, he is saying that I suggest that safety in F1 should stand still and not advance even though the sole purpose of this thread is the advancement of safety in F1? I'm sure you can see that this is not the case.

It's obvious that what he said is completely untrue and it is so obviously untrue that the only reasonable conclusion is that he is trolling. If he wants to come out and apologise or clarify his position then fine, I'm a forgiving person. But surely you must admit that what he's saying is completely untrue.

[Daniel]

There are other reasons. It's not all to do with their ability to cope with risk and danger, surely?

Perhaps I should have said "that's one of the many reasons why they're F1 drivers and we're not".....

[BDunnell]

Oh come on Ben, he is saying that I suggest that safety in F1 should stand still and not advance even though the sole purpose of this thread is the advancement of safety in F1? I'm sure you can see that this is not the case.

It's obvious that what he said is completely untrue and it is so obviously untrue that the only reasonable conclusion is that he is trolling. If he wants to come out and apologise or clarify his position then fine, I'm a forgiving person. But surely you must admit that what he's saying is completely untrue.

No, on this occasion I don't. Time to cease the posturing.

[BDunnell]

Maybe I should add that the quality of debate on the IndyCar forums on this very topic — even involving some members with whom I, for one, normally disagree vehemently on other subjects — is a damn sight higher than is to be found in this thread.

[Daniel]

No, on this occasion I don't. Time to cease the posturing.

So do you agree with him that I am suggesting that F1 stand still in terms of safety? Do you think it's quite clear that I want safety in F1 to go even further?

[Daniel]

You're no saint in your latest posts mate, having a dig at Knock-on, Wilko and myself and trying to stoke the fire.

You've confused a reference to knock on with an insult. Should I have said "there's a rugby loving person on this forum who seems to think that the revised helmets will now keep everything out of the cockpit, even catchfences :dozey: " :confused: I'm having a dig at what Knockie has said, not Knockie himself. Attack the post, not the poster and all of that :)

[Mia 01]

As a starter, respect rules.

[airshifter]

You're no saint in your latest posts mate, having a dig at Knock-on, Wilko and myself and trying to stoke the fire.

I can't agree with that Henners. Daniel has made sure to insult anyone and everyone that doesn't agree with his opinions by posting things such as:


Jackie's words are so true and so well thought out. That people haven't taken a step back and said "Perhaps we need to think about things and evaluate the dangers that are inherent to motorsport and eliminate those which needn't be inherent" suggests one of two things

You simply aren't that bothered about drivers getting killed or seriously injured

or

You childishly don't want to side with Ioan and myself because we're not that popular on here.


So apparently we are all childish and/or not bothered by the death of a driver in Daniels view. And I find it no surprise that the "trolling" card is being played, as that is standard procedure now when Daniel plays the victim.

Had anyone else started this thread and acted in such a way, it would probably have been closed long ago. But instead we continue the trend of Daniel getting a free pass to insult others and degrade the discussion in the forum, insulting others at will yet crying when an oposing opinion exists.

I'm starting to think that the standards of fairness used by the stewards at the F1 races are far more logical and fair handed than the standards enforced on this forum. And that's really a shame because at most times in the past the forum was kept under control.

[Daniel]

So apparently we are all childish and/or not bothered by the death of a driver in Daniels view. And I find it no surprise that the "trolling" card is being played, as that is standard procedure now when Daniel plays the victim.

Had anyone else started this thread and acted in such a way, it would probably have been closed long ago. But instead we continue the trend of Daniel getting a free pass to insult others and degrade the discussion in the forum, insulting others at will yet crying when an oposing opinion exists.

I'm starting to think that the standards of fairness used by the stewards at the F1 races are far more logical and fair handed than the standards enforced on this forum. And that's really a shame because at most times in the past the forum was kept under control.

Ben has refused to answer my question, maybe you will. Have I actually (as SGWilko said) suggested that safety in F1 should stand still? The fact that i've started this thread with the view that safety in F1 could be better and detailing the ways in which I think it could be made better should suggest otherwise. If someone is guilty of such a blatant lie as this would it not be fair to say that they're trolling for a reaction?

[Daniel]

F1 safety is not standing still, and no-one on here, except for yourself, is suggesting it should.

Henners, I'm not quite sure how else to interpret this.

I got accused in an Apple thread before Steve Jobs died, of not putting my point across well, of being a bit ambiguous.

Now SGWilko comes here and says something that is quite frankly preposterous and in no way trye and no one says "Jeez mate, you could have said that better" or anything to that effect.

If you don't want to admit what he's said then the only person you're cheating is yourself.

Disagree with me as to whether measures need to be taken to improve safety in F1 in the ways I've mentioned, reasonable people can do that. But don't simply allow someone to troll because you agree with his opinion on the subject.

[ioan]

F1 powerboats do have canopies but this is because of the danger of a boat nosediving into water at high speeds. It is like hitting concrete.

F1 cars don't have this problem as the concrete is concrete and cannot enter the survival cell unless the rollover bar breaks which is practically impossible.

Unless due to what some might call a strange occurrence the concrete (or for that matter suspension spring, or wheel or bird or stray dog hit the driver in the head, where it is not protected by anything but a helmet.

[ioan]

Because some people don't understand the sport. Some people get more excited over a new winglet or piece of technology rather than the sound and smell or a race track.

Get of the high horse.
Your knowledge of the sport and of the technology would make a frog look savant, yet the beer gives you lots of courage to trash those who use reasoned arguments to support safety improvements in a sport they appreciate for what it is.

[ioan]

Disagree with me as to whether measures need to be taken to improve safety in F1 in the ways I've mentioned, reasonable people can do that. But don't simply allow someone to troll because you agree with his opinion on the subject.

Welcome to the wold of the forum gangs!
They might not be fair and smart but there are many of them who gang up to have a laugh behind you.

[Dave B]

Welcome to the wold of the forum gangs!
They might not be fair and smart but there are many of them who gang up to have a laugh behind you.
A paragraph which would suggest that you are well and truly against personal attacks. Well done. And yet...


Get of the high horse.
Your knowledge of the sport and of the technology would make a frog look savant, yet the beer gives you lots of courage to trash those who use reasoned arguments to support safety improvements in a sport they appreciate for what it is.
That sounds to me like a direct personal attack.

Which is it?

[ioan]

A paragraph which would suggest that you are well and truly against personal attacks. Well done. And yet...


That sounds to me like a direct personal attack.

Which is it?

Why do you insist getting into a fight that you have nothing to do with? Is it the gang psychology? Looks like it to me.
Anyway I've been around enough to know whom will jump in to support the usual suspects around here to be surprised by your move.

[Malbec]

You seem to have joined the club (other members Bolton Midnight and Bob Riebe) whose response to someone disagreeing with you is to accuse them of trolling.

Who also don't or can't understand the points other people are making, let alone formulate a consistent argument against them.

I find it futile discussing things with such people although I admit to trying in the past.

Best walk away and save your time for the more productive and enjoyable things in life.

[BDunnell]

Who also don't or can't understand the points other people are making, let alone formulate a consistent argument against them.

I find it futile discussing things with such people although I admit to trying in the past.

Best walk away and save your time for the more productive and enjoyable things in life.

I agree with you completely. Sadly, it increasingly seems as though, with a few exceptions, discussions on these forums have increasingly been taken over by idiots. I say that not because I disagree with them, but am referring to people who are unable to engage in debate.

[Daniel]

Who also don't or can't understand the points other people are making, let alone formulate a consistent argument against them.

The sole argument for open wheen open cockpit racing seems to be that this was the way it was in the past. What if all those years ago they had been racing cars with a roof and with enclosed wheels? if there was an argument against having an enclosed cockpit (lets say drivers were getting burnt to death) then the same people would be arguing against open cockpit racing purely on the basis that F1 is a closed cockpit formula.

It gets to the point where people aren't even talking about the safety or the spectacle, but merely wanting things to stay the same because that's how things were in the past.

[Malbec]

The sole argument for open wheen open cockpit racing seems to be that this was the way it was in the past. What if all those years ago they had been racing cars with a roof and with enclosed wheels?

If you think thats the sole point for open wheel/cockpit racing levelled in this thread then you clearly haven't bothered to take on board the multiple, complex and often well put together arguments aimed in your direction, and have also illustrated that further discussion with you is futile.

Thank you for demonstrating that my post you quoted is indeed true.

[Daniel]

A paragraph which would suggest that you are well and truly against personal attacks. Well done. And yet...


That sounds to me like a direct personal attack.

Which is it?

The difference between me and some of the people on here is that for instance when Ioan agrees with me and makes a personal attack I have the balls to actually tell him that he's done wrong and stop it. I'm not going to lie and say I'm perfect, I'm not, but it would be at least nice if people did the decent thing and came down on people merely spoiling for a fight even if they do agree with the viewpoint of the troublemaker.

That Ben STILL hasn't come out and admitted that SGWilko was trolling (Henners seems to have mumbled something about it to his credit) does Ben a great disservice. Ben and Dylan are two people I used to have a lot of respect for, two people who are usually the voice of reason yet they'll happily sit by while someone like SGWilko deliberately tries to provoke. People wonder why i'm somewhat "unhappy" in this thread when this sort of behaviour is more or less encouraged :dozey:

[Daniel]

If you think thats the sole point for open wheel/cockpit racing levelled in this thread then you clearly haven't bothered to take on board the multiple, complex and often well put together arguments aimed in your direction, and have also illustrated that further discussion with you is futile.

Thank you for demonstrating that my post you quoted is indeed true.

OK perhaps that was a poor way of saying it. What I meant was that the crux of the argument seems to be history. I understand the concerns regarding the extraction of a driver and so on, but the FIA are just at the stage where they've fired a tyre at a canopy. No one is suggesting that the cars simply have canopies put on them now without thought of any other risks or the design of such a system so as to result in a net reduction in risk. There seems to be a quickness to poo poo the idea based on perceived and unquantified risks rather than seeing what people like Ross Brawn or Adrian Newey could do.

[Knock-on]

Dan. Forget about the 'he said this, she said that' nonsense nd get back to the thread.

Please QUANTIFY the risk of open cockpits at the moment. What has actually happened in the past 20 years to necessitate a change to canopies and what is the potential risk as you perceive it.

Then we might be able to have a sensible discussion on the actual risk of continuing as we are and the potential risk that would be introduced by using a canopy.

It's not about ganging up and having a go at you and ioan because of who you are, but about the risk of having and not having canopies. It may be that 90% of the forum is wrong on this matter but I still haven't seen you or ioan quantify the risk as you see it.

[Daniel]

Dan. Forget about the 'he said this, she said that' nonsense nd get back to the thread.

Please QUANTIFY the risk of open cockpits at the moment. What has actually happened in the past 20 years to necessitate a change to canopies and what is the potential risk as you perceive it.

Then we might be able to have a sensible discussion on the actual risk of continuing as we are and the potential risk that would be introduced by using a canopy.

It's not about ganging up and having a go at you and ioan because of who you are, but about the risk of having and not having canopies. It may be that 90% of the forum is wrong on this matter but I still haven't seen you or ioan quantify the risk as you see it.

So are you saying that i shouldn't be unhappy or complain about someone trolling? :confused: