Should f1 run coupes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

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/Eur...r-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/Art...-jpg-41042.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

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/Eur...r-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/Art...-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....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

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.

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.

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

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.

...

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

What of it?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrewmcm

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

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..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

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.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

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....