Should f1 run coupes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

But with faired wheels you would have bumpers to a certain extent. Watch Le Mans and you'll see that LMP's are far more resistent to damage than F1 cars are by nature of being a bit meatier.

Saying to someone that if they don't like the danger in F1 that they should watch snooker (the 2nd most boring sport known to man after darts) is a silly statement.

With regards to visibility I agree with you, but with a roof over his head the driver could sit a little higher (this would of course need to be stipulated in the rules :) ) and this would somewhat solve this problem.

I enjoy when people make a proper argument out of it by bringing things like visibility (already bad in F1 to be fair) and the ability of a driver to escape after a roll - into the mix, but to simply say "it's the way now so it should stay that way" is rather silly don't you think? In the past we didn't have the crash barrier that almost certainly saved Perez's life in Monaco the other week, should things have simply stayed the same way as they were before? I've really enjoyed the valid reasons some people have made for NOT having a coupe body shape, maintaining the status quo is however not a valid reason.

---

I enjoy the precision required to navigate those machines knowing that a slight touch puts you and likely your opponent out .

The most impressive of them all is the driver that sends it around the track on the edge of disaster .
That's on the edge , not over .

The "old days" were dangerous , and that was part of the draw for the crowd .
They cried real tears for heros , and dreamed of taking over thier position .

Today , when the modern F1 driver sits in one of those cars from an earlier era , they often shudder to think what it was really like to drive in those races .
In part , it's that past that still draws the crowd , not the present .

One of the only items that has stayed even remotely similar to those old days is the concept of open wheels , even though F1 has seen fenders in the really early days .

Simply put , having the wheels uncovered makes it more demanding , and more necessary to be precise .
This has always been true , but the safety aspect has improved so much that the really dangerous elements are now harder to find .

So the "status quo" is not really that at all . They are safe because they are designed to be so , within the formula .
They are designed to keep the driver safe , and work well doing that , in an open wheel configuration .
It's not "status quo" when they are constantly evolving , for both speed , and safety at speed .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hornet

A closed cockpit is no guarantee of survival, it just presents different issues. A cockpit may well have saved Henry Surtees, but I could post links to accidents such as Mark Porter and Ashley Cooper to show a roof and doors are go guarantee. How many iterations of your argument are you prepared to make? If drivers are still killed in closed cockpit series, your logic dictates there's something fundamentally unsafe about those series as well.

---

If there'd been some sort of plexi cover in front of Aryton Senna, then it's possible that the suspension pieces wouldn't have pierced his face.
http://www.benchapman.com/project/image51.jpg

If there'd been some sort of plexi cover in front of Felipe Massa, then it's highly likely that the errant suspension spring from Barichello's Brawn would have been deflected. Massa now has a titanium plate in his skull because of the inherent design flaw of F1 cars.

Obviously a closed cockpit is no guarantee of survival but it is safer. Doesn't it make more sense to aim for a higher standard than to settle for a worse one? If Formula One is supposed to be the pinnacle of motorsport, then why shouldn't it also lead the way in terms of safety development?

Why don't we just give them all bicycles with shin pads, knee pads, elbow pads, helmets, ankle boots, a tampon and a normal salary. That would be safer wouldn't it :crazy:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

May be, still Daniel is right. Why do fans want to keep a sport dangerous just because it appeals more to them?!

Some people should go watch some Hollywood block buster if it's stupid danger that you want to watch, instead of telling people to watch snooker just because they care more for the drivers lives.

---

Ok, using your logic, football is the first to go, there have been some serious injuries so let's ban contact altogether and don't let them run since somebody might have a heart attack. Rugby is too dangerous as well, some serious injuries have occurred so let's end the whole sport. Golf too, a golf ball is very dangerous if it hits somebody in the head. Why do people want to keep golf dangerous, shouldn't they use a soft ball? In football the players should not kick the ball at full force since it might hit someone's head. Why do the spectators want to keep it dangerous and don't demand the players play safe? :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

If there'd been some sort of plexi cover in front of Aryton Senna, then it's possible that the suspension pieces wouldn't have pierced his face.
http://www.benchapman.com/project/image51.jpg

If there'd been some sort of plexi cover in front of Felipe Massa, then it's highly likely that the errant suspension spring from Barichello's Brawn would have been deflected. Massa now has a titanium plate in his skull because of the inherent design flaw of F1 cars.

Obviously a closed cockpit is no guarantee of survival but it is safer. Doesn't it make more sense to aim for a higher standard than to settle for a worse one? If Formula One is supposed to be the pinnacle of motorsport, then why shouldn't it also lead the way in terms of safety development?

---

Formula cars have an open cockpit, that's why. It's the essential part of the sport. Why do you want F1 to be safer than our normal lives?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 555-04Q2

Why don't we just give them all bicycles with shin pads, knee pads, elbow pads, helmets, ankle boots, a tampon and a normal salary. That would be safer wouldn't it :crazy:

---

Tampon :eek: and risk anahalactic shock or toxic whatsitsname syndrome? No, I'd give them all liners, you know, the Red Bull ones (gives you wings). If we're gona do safety, we'd best get it right..... :dozey:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DexDexter

Ok, using your logic, football is the first to go, there have been some serious injuries so let's ban contact altogether and don't let them run since somebody might have a heart attack. Rugby is too dangerous as well, some serious injuries have occurred so let's end the whole sport. Golf too, a golf ball is very dangerous if it hits somebody in the head. Why do people want to keep golf dangerous, shouldn't they use a soft ball? In football the players should not kick the ball at full force since it might hit someone's head. Why do the spectators want to keep it dangerous and don't demand the players play safe? :rolleyes:

---

In fact, the FIA should, in cahoots with all governments, mandate that we should all stay in our homes and never go out, just in case, because no-one has yet invented the 'personal body safety encapsulation device' and we are thus not doing enough to be safe....... :crazy:

You wanna be safe? Carry a gun :p :

Checkpoint 10: A case for the closed cockpit (updated)

Quote:

---

The following deaths might have been prevented if the drivers were protected by some kind of canopy:

•Helmuth Koinigg died at the 1974 United States Grand Prix when his head struck the top of an armco barrier as his car slid underneath.
•Tom Pryce was struck by a fire extinguisher after colliding with a marshal at the 1977 South African Grand Prix.
•Markus Hoettinger was killed in a Formula 2 race in 1980 when he was struck by a tire that fell off another car.
•In 1994, Ayrton Senna died when he was struck by tire and suspension part at the San Marino Grand Prix.
•In 1995, Marco Campos died when he hit his head on the concrete wall as his car overturned during an F3000 race at Magny-Cours.
•At the 1996 Molson Indy Toronto, Jeff Krosnoff died when he struck a tree in an accident on the back straightaway.

And here are some near-misses:

•During the 1972 French Grand Prix, Helmut Marko was struck in the eye by a stone thrown by another car. This accident left him partially blind and ended his career.
•At the 1994 Brazilian Grand Prix, Martin Brundle was hit in the head by Jos Verstappen's flying Benetton, miraculously without serious injury.
•Cristiano da Matta suffered a head injury after hitting a deer during a Champ Car test at Road America in 2006.
•Formula 1 drivers were lucky not to die at the 2003 British Grand Prix, when a demonstrator ran onto the racing circuit and narrowly missed several cars traveling at high speed.
•Kimi Raikkonen was fortunate that his car's wheel tether worked during his spectacular crash at the 2005 European Grand Prix.
•Again, Kimi Raikkonen had a close call with both his own tire and the tire barrier during a crash at Monza in 2007.
•At Melbourne 2007, David Coulthard almost hit Alex Wurz after an ill-judged overtaking move sent Coulthard's Red Bull sailing over Wurz's car.

---

Or drivers could just not race in F1 or any other open wheel formula. They know the hazards of racing in an open wheel formula, they accept it and they get paid big bucks for it. If it was really a concern, they would not be in F1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 555-04Q2

Or drivers could just not race in F1 or any other open wheel formula. They know the hazards of racing in an open wheel formula, they accept it and they get paid big bucks for it. If it was really a concern, they would not be in F1.

---

So why were Jackie Stewart in Formula 1 when he was obviously concerned about safety then?