Should f1 run coupes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

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

---

Of course it's not for aesthetical reasons.

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

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2347/...b9d890efc2.jpg
http://www.cnet.co.uk/i/c/blg/cat/cartech/f1canopy.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

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

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

---

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

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

I posted this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

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

---

then Arrows posted this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

Could we have a vote on it?

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

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

---

Like this, perhaps?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

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

---

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Like this, perhaps?



:)

---

Don't quote Daniel contradicting his insults.


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

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

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

I strongly favor something like this: Google Images

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

Don't quote Daniel contradicting his insults.

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

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

---

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

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 :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

RIP Dan Wheldon :(

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DexDexter

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DexDexter

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

---

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

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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/Eur...r-flips-05.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

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??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

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......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wedge

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

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.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

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

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

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

RIP Dan Wheldon :(

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

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.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

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: