Indeed which is why the likes of changing the points system or offering rewards doesn't make any difference. If you are in a top level series like IndyCar, that's all the motivation you need. And if you don't have it, then get out!
Printable View
Indeed which is why the likes of changing the points system or offering rewards doesn't make any difference. If you are in a top level series like IndyCar, that's all the motivation you need. And if you don't have it, then get out!
I certainly think it was the CEO of IndyCar's attempt to add something to the show.Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
True, but Will Power is alive today. He walked away from the incident having also been launched over the rear wheel of another car. His part in the accident did not result in a fatality or serious injury. The difference in the two outcomes was the fence, not being launched into the air.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
If you believe that then you misunderstand what I, and others have said in response to your thread. Of course we all want drivers safe and alive. However, it is a fundamental fact that motorsport, at whatever level of activity, can be, and will remain, dangerous whatever steps are taken.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
That is not the same as saying that we should simply shrug our shoulders at the loss of a racing driver and carry on as if nothing had happened. No-one is suggesting that, and if you follow Twitter you'll see that Indycar drivers are not doing that either.
Once again no-one is, as you put it, "just accepting that people should die".Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
I think some of us accept that you cannot entirely eliminate risk, injury or death either in motorsport or life and if you try to do so you remove some elements of what life is about.
Did I tell you to, or suggest it might be a good idea? :admiral:Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
It's been argued that racing is too safe these days.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Racing is a dangerous, accidents will happen and fatality will be a by product.
There should be an element of danger, for me, that's part of the appeal of racing.
It's more of an Indycar problem since the creation of IRL. Not just my humble opinion but you only have to go read that forum and the consensus is that pack racing with a thoroughbred race car isn't really a good idea after all. It's fine for NASCAR as they can get away more with the 'big one' (multicar pile up) stock cars are a better car to take that sort of punishment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
The irony is that Dan was caught out in the chain reaction of the initial pile up and was trying to dodge a bullet.
All very well making Indycars safer but Indycars' main problem is how a driver is to avoid a wreck when racing in a pack.
I know what you were saying, what I'm pointing out is that what's happening out in the wild seems to be backing up what I'm saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrewmcm
I actually agree with a lot of what you said in your early posts since Sunday. The cars had so much downforce and were all running really bunched up and any incident with 34 cars all bunched up like that was always going to be a big one. of course the track and the number of cars on it were also a factor. But the reality is that the actual accident that resulted in the fatality was a 2 car accident so I think for people to go on about 34 cars on a small track slightly misses the point. Yes with 34 cars the accident was more likely, but the outcome of that accident was never going to be pretty.
I think you've just somewhat proven my point. Whilst stock cars are probably that little bit stronger, the thing that makes them better in that sort of racing is that because their wheels aren't exposed, they just bounce into each other rather than flying into the catch fence. Cars are made to best withstand impacts when the car is parallel with the ground (ie on the ground) and if you can keep the cars on the ground then you greatly increase the chances of an accident.Quote:
Originally Posted by wedge
You clearly don't watch Indycar at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
Money can be an incentive.
The biggest problem is pack racing.
They don't measure in thousandths of a second, they add an extra zero because since 1996 they have a type of racing manufactured for close racing and close finishes.
I think it's extremely poor of them to try and speculate as to why a dead person did or didn't do. We'll never know for certain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
Well I still want to see Indycars on ovals. A stock car weighs about 1.5 tonnes and even if it was made of carbon fibre the spectacle would be diminished.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
When I've had the chance to watch, I've also loved watching IndyCars on ovals purely because of the speed and the fact that they can overtake anywhere. Heck I'll watch NASCAR if it's on. If we stop IndyCars from flying then it's just that bit safer, an open wheeler with a pointy noise and bits that stick out just isn't really made to crash into a catch fence, not well at least.Quote:
Originally Posted by wedge
I'm not saying they had a death wish but some drivers like Senna and Gilles have died because their emotions just managed to get the better of them. The clues are all too obvious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Definitely. But this wasn't Dan's accident, it just happened in front of him and it would appear that there was little he could do to avoid it in the circumstances. I'm more than happy to have a discussion about the mechanics of the accident and how differences in the cars could have made for a less severe accident, but when it comes to apportioning blame I must say I'm very uncomfortable.Quote:
Originally Posted by wedge
See, that's the main problem. Making the cars safer is arguably band aid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
High downforce thoroughbred race cars racing in a pack, its a recipe for disaster. All very well sticking on a canopy and bumpers but you're still very likely to get a multicar pile up and with carbon fibre flying everywhere and perhaps cars still going airborne because of averaging 220mph laps.
Well I said nothing about a canopy. I think a canopy would have been as useful as a chocolate fireguard against the wall at the angle the impact occured.Quote:
Originally Posted by wedge
Drivers have a choice of a number of other race codes with enclosed cockpits if they want. F1 is F1, not touring cars. Open cockpits remain, thats what helmets are for!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Not if they want to race in F1.Quote:
Originally Posted by 555-04Q2
not sure i can agree with that comment re. Senna (i don't know enough about the circumstances of Gilles death), but Senna died as a result of a probable car failure on a corner that was flat out, hardly a product of red mist or pushing too hard. An emotional person yes, who undoubtedly let his emotions cloud his judgement on occasions, but I really don't think its fair to say thats why he dies. It may have made it more likely he was going to have a big one, but that crash can't be down to those reasons IMOQuote:
Originally Posted by wedge
I'm sorry, but there is some extremely poor logic being applied in here.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
1. Sure Will Power survived his accident but only because he went into the fence with the underneath of the tub (see videos for proof), I never said that everyone who was going to get launched was going to get killed. It's a testament to the safety of the cars that only one person died and no one else appears to have any permanent injuries. Such is the random nature of these sorts of accidents. We've seen some accidents which seem apocalyptically bad at the time like Kubica in Canada or Kenny Brack's impact with a catch fence and the driver is just fine and then some accidents which appear fairly minor in comparison and the driver dies.
2. Again you seem to not get the fact that I'm not saying we're ever going to make motorsport 100% safe, who decided that this point we've reached now is precisely as safe as we need to be? :confused:
3. I never said that IndyCar is doing nothing, in fact rather the opposite. Dan was testing the car which had multiple improvements including enclosed rear wheels which should lessen the chances of the car behind flying. With some of the near misses that we've had in recent years I would have thought it was quite obvious that stopping cars from flying or riding up on other cars would be a good thing.
4. I don't get how you can say that no one is "just accepting that people should die". People are saying stuff like that fatalities will always occur. Are we really so ghoulish that if we went 20 years in motorsport as a whole without a fatality that we would see fit to lower standards so that one was more likely? I think F1 has warped people's perceptions of what motorsport should be. Before tyre rules, KERS and DRS came along we had what was a fairly processional series with very little racing. I'll confess to not having an encyclopaedic knowledge of the BTCC, but to my knowledge there hasn't been a death in the BTCC for quite a long time and yet the BTCC managed to be a really spectacular series with great racing. No carbon fibre monocoques, drivers still sitting on one side of the car rather than in the middle. of course there is always the possibility that there will be a fatality, but it need not be a certainty for people to find the racing exciting.
5. Of course you can't remove risk. But if you add bumpers to an open wheel racing car I don't quite see how you're removing some part of what your life is about. I think such pseudo-emotional language is a very poor excuse for someone needing to die.
That you aren't banned is a miracle, that is all.Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
If they want to race in F1, they race with an open cockpit. If they want a pay cut and a roof over their heads to make them feel secure, they can join NASCAR, Touring Cars, WRC....Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
I think you've missed a few pages. Firstly I'm not suggesting in this case that a canopy would have saved Dan. So referring to close cockpit series' doesn't make sense given the topic of discussion at the moment. Secondly, things change. That the FIA investigated cockpit canopies suggests that they don't believe that having the driver exposed to debris and so on is an intrinsic part of F1. If they put a canopy and a rear bumper on then 99% of the people would still watch and everyone would get used to the changes as well have with all the other changes in the last 15 years or so.Quote:
Originally Posted by 555-04Q2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robinho
In the new Autosport Legends/Senna book-zine Mark Hughes reckons the same thing.Quote:
"No-one other than Ayrton Senna and me know what it was like to drive that car, through that corner, in that race, on that day, on cold tyres."
Hill added: "He was identified with pushing to the limit and beyond.
"He would often prefer to crash into his opponent rather than be defeated.
"It was not the fault of anyone else that he kept his foot flat when he could have lifted," said Hill.
Hill admitted that his views would not go down well with some.
"These opinions are sacrilege in the world of driving gods," he said. "Ayrton was a great driver and a man with enormous humanity. He was not a god. He was as frail and vulnerable as you or I."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/3641633.stm
1982 San Marino GP Ferrari gave implicit team orders to their drivers to slow down. Gilles was leading thought it meant hold station/postion but Pironi thought otherwise.
Gilles visibly unhappy on the podium.
http://uk.images.search.yahoo.com/im...mb=hXSDR8.LT94
During quali for the Belgian GP Gilles crashed into the back of Rene Arnoux, going for a gap that closing/wasn't there and the rest is history.
If we knew what was going on in the minds of the drivers in that 5-10 seconds before their accidents then we could say for sure, anything else is just a fairly well educated guess, as is me saying that a bumper could have saved Dan Wheldon.Quote:
Originally Posted by wedge
Senna's case we've seen him let his emotions get the better of him beforeQuote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
from what i've seen on Gilles, I'd probably agree. And as I said, Senna certainly let himself be ruled by his emotions on more than one occasion, but IMO this was not one of them. Damon's testimony does shed some light on the subject that I hadn't read before, but from what I had understodd that corner should have been flat in normal circumstances, but it is true those laps weren't normal after the saftey car and Senna was certainly pushing at that stage in this career to get more from the car. I donät think this was his downfall though, nothing about it seemed like an ordinary driver error or over driven car to meQuote:
Originally Posted by wedge
I have to say I would not be entirely adverse to that being F1, it certainly wouldn't mae me stop watching.Quote:
Originally Posted by kfzmeister
how they are supposed to get in and out in that arrangement puzzles me, especially in an emergency or upside down
I have to say I quite like that. Big wheels or small wheels I think it'd look OK. Have some sort of IndyCar style bumper for the rear and we're set.Quote:
Originally Posted by kfzmeister
The more I look at that the more I like it.
Rather true. I think it's fantastic that someone's taken the time to do a concept. It still looks VERY F1 to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Robinho
Remove the air intake from the top of the car so it's not in the way and just have a latch system like the aerocatch system and we're part way there.
http://www.deftracing.com/aerocatch_...ocatch_all.jpg
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Yes, it would be a good thing, but to ensure that never happens again the only thing to do is stop open-wheeled racing entirely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
But it is an entirely different kind of racing and not everyone wants to compete in or watch the BTCC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
If your seeing things in such narrow terms then no, adding bumpers does not remove part of what life is about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
If it were really a kids radio controlled car from Argos it would have sponsors on it like.Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88
Ay Sir, Moobaaaaahdollar, Interl, Abbey National and so on and it would be a prancing duck or something :p
I imagine that driver has to sit on the engine, or has that moved to the front?Quote:
Originally Posted by kfzmeister
Osmosis? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Robinho
Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88
You forgot this bit
Now Mark Webber, an actual F1 driver and campaigner for safety sees the point. :dozey: I wonder if anyone else will care to admit that enclosing the rear wheels of the cars is not such a bad thing to do now.....Quote:
IndyCar can learn a heavy lesson from Sunday's crash. What organisers certainly have to do is work out how to stop cars leaving the ground and flying into the air in such situations.
It is a sad irony that Dan was the test driver for a new car that officials plan to introduce next year.
It has enclosed rear wheels, which will definitely help because front wheels won't be able to go over rear wheels any more, which is one of the major factors that makes cars take off.
I know, I´m not the most intelligent people in the world. Can you convince me that you arè?
How many of you are there?????Quote:
Originally Posted by Mia 01
I'm just glad that he/she wasn't agreeing with me......Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88
I know. Feels a bit weird being a Kimi Raikkonen fan on this forum lately... :erm:Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
The point I was making was that he was talking about cars flying and made mention of his car flying so there was possibly an implication there even if he didn't explicitly state it. I guess it takes a certain sort of driver who can look at an accident like Webber's and then at Dan's accident and not draw parallel's between the two, to drive in F1 and be fearless. He did say that his accident could have gone one of two ways. Thankfully in F1 the fences are usually at more of an acute angle to the impacts, the impacts are slower and dare I say it, the racing isn't thankfully as close! (I feel rather conflicted when saying that last part) But a flying car vs catch fence fatal accident could still happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88
I think it'll be a Monty Python reference. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition and all......Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88