Should f1 run coupes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

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

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!

---

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....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

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......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wedge

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

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....

---

I agree with everything but your last point. As Mario Andretti has said (in response to similar suggestions elsewhere):

Quote:

---

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/...49225826062336

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 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

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......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

I agree with everything but your last point. As Mario Andretti has said (in response to similar suggestions elsewhere): http://twitter.com/#!/MarioAndretti/...49225826062336

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 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'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

I agree with everything but your last point. As Mario Andretti has said (in response to similar suggestions elsewhere): http://twitter.com/#!/MarioAndretti/...49225826062336

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 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/...ch-post-massa/

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DexDexter

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

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

---

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyL

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

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/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

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/...ch-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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bezza

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.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wedge

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrewmcm

'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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bezza

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/Eur...r-flips-05.jpg
It doesn't need to be a high speed impact either.
http://answers.bettor.com/images/Art...-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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

I agree with everything but your last point. As Mario Andretti has said (in response to similar suggestions elsewhere): http://twitter.com/#!/MarioAndretti/...49225826062336

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.