Should f1 run coupes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Osmosis? :D

---

Well, it worked with Joan Crawford, so it's always a possibility!

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.

---

The racing is slower
Tracks are wider
Cars are safer
Speeds are lower
Drivers are better
Quantity of cars is lower

All the above applies to F1 when comparing to IndyCars, and is justfication I believe for no need for a knee-jerk decision to sort out F1 safety when it is not F1 that has had any problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

I think its worth noting that nowhere in the article does Mark suggest the rear wheels of F1 cars are to be enclosed in his opinion. He supports it in IndyCar because of the style of racing it has (Ovals with tight pack racing) and he makes comparisons between the safety levels of the two.

---

Hallelujah!

Finally an understanding of idiosyncrasies.

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.

---

Watching is one thing, following and knowing about idiosyncrasies is another. Otherwise we have knee jerk reactions like reviving ths thread.

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.

---

Both went airborne but go deeper there's no comparison.

It is very obvious that Webber was too greedy with his slipstream. A stupid error and completely avoidable, just like Hamilton trying to pass Kobayashi at Spa.

Wheldon was almost literally trying to dodge a bullet due to the small margin of error of pack racing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bezza

The racing is slower
Tracks are wider
Cars are safer
Speeds are lower
Drivers are better
Quantity of cars is lower

All the above applies to F1 when comparing to IndyCars, and is justfication I believe for no need for a knee-jerk decision to sort out F1 safety when it is not F1 that has had any problems.

---

Dario Franchitti was involved in two similar massive accidents but is also Indycar champion and well respected within motorsport.

Unlike NASCAR where pack racing usually involves a massive pile up but very rarely in Indycar. They race wheel to wheel, lap after lap, averaging 220mph a lap. The margin for error is very small but big ones have been very very rare since this style of racing was introduced in 1996.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

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.....

---

I'm suspect anyone who witnessed the accident in Vegas is of the same opinion, and Indycar had already addressed this with the 2012 Dallara.

However, with regards to F1 and open wheel racing generally Daniel, it seems you will not rest until the cars become clones of Le Mans Prototypes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

I'm suspect anyone who witnessed the accident in Vegas is of the same opinion, and Indycar had already addressed this with the 2012 Dallara.

However, with regards to F1 and open wheel racing generally Daniel, it seems you will not rest until the cars become clones of Le Mans Prototypes.

---

Whilst personally I'd quite like that, I understand it's not most people's cup of tea. What then is so wrong with that Ferrari concept thing that's been posted early on with some sort of enclosure over the rear wheels? I think the artist has made some shall we say "errors" like putting the driver where the engine should be, but aside from that it's quite aesthetically pleasing and still quite true to the whole open wheel racing philosophy. Yeah I'd love coupes in F1, but I'd settle for a well thought out car in the same shape as a current car, just with an enclosed cockpit and rear whees which are enclosed from the rear. That people feel that a driver being able to have his head taken off by a wheel or spring is somehow part of F1 is a bit silly......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wedge

Both went airborne but go deeper there's no comparison.

It is very obvious that Webber was too greedy with his slipstream. A stupid error and completely avoidable, just like Hamilton trying to pass Kobayashi at Spa.

Wheldon was almost literally trying to dodge a bullet due to the small margin of error of pack racing.

---

I don't quite see why the fact that Mark was greedy and Dan was just unfortunate makes a difference? If Webber's accident had been fatal would he be a different kind of dead to Dan?

As was pointed out in my first post on Monday, it would be silly to ignore the part that the track and the numbers of cars played in the accident, but we could have a similar accident in F1 in the right (wrong) circumstances. Whether it's a pack accident or just two is irrelevant when someone's car is getting grated by the catch fence as SGWilko put it.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

I don't quite see why the fact that Mark was greedy and Dan was just unfortunate makes a difference? If Webber's accident had been fatal would he be a different kind of dead to Dan?

---

How many cars were involved in Webber's accident. How many other cars were in the vicinity?

Closest we'll ever find it in F1 is on the first lap cars jockeying for position but in Indycar racing the majority of laps will be like the first lap therefore such incidents are rare in F1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wedge

How many cars were involved in Webber's accident. How many other cars were in the vicinity?

Closest we'll ever find it in F1 is on the first lap cars jockeying for position but in Indycar racing the majority of laps will be like the first lap therefore such incidents are rare in F1.

---

I think you're missing the point. It only takes two cars to have an incident like that where a car flies. As far as I remember Dan only hit the car in front and then got shot into the air and the rest is history. Yes Dan's accident was part of a 14 car pileup, but it was a 2 car accident that killed him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

That people feel that a driver being able to have his head taken off by a wheel or spring is somehow part of F1 is a bit silly......

---

May I say that is more than silly way of representing some views that have been expressed here. No-one feels that such things are an intrinsic part of the sport in the same way as, for example, Ferrari is, or Monaco, or the tradition of spaying champagne on the podium.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Yes Dan's accident was part of a 14 car pileup, but it was a 2 car accident that killed him.

---

I rather think you may be missing the point. Dan Wheldon's accident was a consequence of a chain reaction caused by 34 cars running flat out on a high speed high banked 1.5mile oval.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

I think you're missing the point. It only takes two cars to have an incident like that where a car flies. As far as I remember Dan only hit the car in front and then got shot into the air and the rest is history. Yes Dan's accident was part of a 14 car pileup, but it was a 2 car accident that killed him.

---

F1 heads can contribute to the debate but not more than those in Indycar.

Of course accidents will happen but if you knew about the problems blatant in Indycar then arguably you can reduce the cause.

Webber's was due to an unforced error.

Wheldon was trying to dodge a pile up. Making the cars safer is one thing but how about if we could string the cars out more on 1.5 miles ovals or even ban going to them ever again and instead continue to run short 1 mile ovals where the speeds are lower and the superspeedways where speeds are very high but less likely to get a massive pile up due to cars being more strung out and therefore more likely to dodge a wreck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

I rather think you may be missing the point. Dan Wheldon's accident was a consequence of a chain reaction caused by 34 cars running flat out on a high speed high banked 1.5mile oval.

---

Of course, but you seem to somehow think that this means that an F1 car could never hit another F1 car and then hit the catch fence. Accidents can happen for a variety of reasons, racing too close on an oval track is merely one of many reasons an accident can happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wedge

F1 heads can contribute to the debate but not more than those in Indycar.

Of course accidents will happen but if you knew about the problems blatant in Indycar then arguably you can reduce the cause.

Webber's was due to an unforced error.

Wheldon was trying to dodge a pile up. Making the cars safer is one thing but how about if we could string the cars out more on 1.5 miles ovals or even ban going to them ever again and instead continue to run short 1 mile ovals where the speeds are lower and the superspeedways where speeds are very high but less likely to get a massive pile up due to cars being more strung out and therefore more likely to dodge a wreck.

---

I say again, if Webber had died in that situation would he be a different sort of dead to Dan?

YES, oval racing is inherently more dangerous than F1 and invites these sort of accidents to happen moreso than F1. But cars fly in F1 just as bad if they hit the wheel of the car in front at speed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Of course, but you seem to somehow think that this means that an F1 car could never hit another F1 car and then hit the catch fence.

---

Not at all. I'm sorry if any of my posts have led you to conclude that because in my years watching F1 I have obviously seen wheel to wheel contact and impacts with catch fencing and armco barriers which have caused serious injury and in some cases a fatality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Accidents can happen for a variety of reasons, racing too close on an oval track is merely one of many reasons an accident can happen.

---

Of course, but pack racing at those speeds on those kind of circuits like we saw in Las Vegas simply does not happen in F1, and yet it appears you're linking Dan Wheldon's death with your apparent wish for F1 to become more like LMP cars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Of course, but you seem to somehow think that this means that an F1 car could never hit another F1 car and then hit the catch fence. Accidents can happen for a variety of reasons, racing too close on an oval track is merely one of many reasons an accident can happen.

---

For that very reason we don't need a kneejerk reaction in F1.

They're banging wheels, carbon fibre; blocking, pushed onto the grass but not a frequency of cars going airborne as in Indycar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wedge

For that very reason we don't need a kneejerk reaction in F1.

They're banging wheels, carbon fibre; blocking, pushed onto the grass but not a frequency of cars going airborne as in Indycar.

---

I don't quite see why what I've said is in itself a reason to not make changes.

I agree that it has to be a well thought out and tested thing, you don't simply want to mandate wheel covers and then find out that they're not fixed on well enough and spectators or marshals get killed. We don't need or want a kneejerk reaction, it has to be well thought out and well designed and specced

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Of course, but you seem to somehow think that this means that an F1 car could never hit another F1 car and then hit the catch fence. Accidents can happen for a variety of reasons, racing too close on an oval track is merely one of many reasons an accident can happen.

---

The F1 I watch has run off (tarmac and/or gravel), conveyerbelt clad tyre barriers.

The cars do not go around 90 degree corners at similar speeds to those on the straights, and certainly not 2, 3 or even 4 abreast.

Only Velencia has catch fencing that can be likened with that in Indycars, and is not to be mistaken for an oval.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

The F1 I watch has run off (tarmac and/or gravel), conveyorbelt clad tyre barriers.

The cars do not go around 90 degree corners at similar speeds to those on the straights, and certainly not 2, 3 or even 4 abreast.

Only Velencia has catch fencing, and is not to be mistaken for an oval.

---

I didn't say it was an oval? Again you miss the point, a car taking off is NOT a good thing and each time the driver is at a significantly higher risk of death or serious injury than when he's on the ground. 4 or 47 abreast, the accident was for all intents and purposes a 2 car accident. We have more than 1 car racing at a time in F1 don't we?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

Not at all. I'm sorry if any of my posts have led you to conclude that because in my years watching F1 I have obviously seen wheel to wheel contact and impacts with catch fencing and armco barriers which have caused serious injury and in some cases a fatality.


Of course, but pack racing at those speeds on those kind of circuits like we saw in Las Vegas simply does not happen in F1, and yet it appears you're linking Dan Wheldon's death with your apparent wish for F1 to become more like LMP cars.

---

What was going on before Dan's accident is somewhat irrelevant tbh. Any open wheeled car could have an accident like that be it on a corner, on an oval or on a straight. Like you say wheel to wheel contact has in the past resulted in fatal injuries. No doubt F1 is safer now, but perhaps we just need to do away with flying cars? Is it a necessary part of F1?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

I didn't say it was an oval? Again you miss the point, a car taking off is NOT a good thing and each time the driver is at a significantly higher risk of death or serious injury than when he's on the ground. 4 or 47 abreast, the accident was for all intents and purposes a 2 car accident. We have more than 1 car racing at a time in F1 don't we?

---

Q. Why did Dan's car hit another?
A. Because the cars in front were going slower.

Q. Why were the cars in front going slower?
A. Because there was a multicar pileup they were trying to avoid.

Q. Why was there a multicar pileup?
A. Because the cars - 34 of them - were running close together, flat out, on a short oval track.

Now compare this to F1 - no comparison.

You simply are very unlikely (this is a risk factor that has to be considered) to be cornering at max speed in an area on current F1 tracks where there is; catch fencing and banked track that could replicate Dan's accident circumstances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Q. Why did Dan's car hit another?
A. Because the cars in front were going slower.

Q. Why were the cars in front going slower?
A. Because there was a multicar pileup they were trying to avoid.

Q. Why was there a multicar pileup?
A. Because the cars - 34 of them - were running close together, flat out, on a short oval track.

Now compare this to F1 - no comparison.

You simply are very unlikely (this is a risk factor that has to be considered) to be cornering at max speed in an area on current F1 tracks where there is; catch fencing and banked track that could replicate Dan's accident circumstances.

---

A couple of questions for you

Q Could this accident have happened if there were only two cars on the track?
A <Enter your answer in here>

Q Have we ever had accidents in F1 where cars have hit slower cars in front?
A <Enter your answer in here>

By your reasoning, because IndyCar hasn't had any incidents (of late that I'm aware of) where an object like a spring or a wheel hitting a driver in the head that it could never happen in IndyCar. The attitudes of people on here seem a lot like putting your heads in the sand and just blindly hoping that it never happens.

IndyCar was taking precautionary action against to help stop cars from taking off but F1 charges blindly on hoping that no one gets killed during one of these silly flights :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

A couple of questions for you

Q Could this accident have happened if there were only two cars on the track?
A <Enter your answer in here>

Q Have we ever had accidents in F1 where cars have hit slower cars in front?
A <Enter your answer in here>

By your reasoning, because IndyCar hasn't had any incidents (of late that I'm aware of) where an object like a spring or a wheel hitting a driver in the head that it could never happen in IndyCar. The attitudes of people on here seem a lot like putting your heads in the sand and just blindly hoping that it never happens.

IndyCar was taking precautionary action against to help stop cars from taking off but F1 charges blindly on hoping that no one gets killed during one of these silly flights :)

---

Point is, reservations were expressed about the safety of the specific track and the speeds, number of cars etc. It was, in effect, an accident waiting to happen.

It could have happened with only two cars on the track, but what is the likelihood?

Yes, Mark Webber hit the slower Lotus. Also the start fiasco in Spa last century, one of the tail end charlies when full chat into the carnage, but no-one took off.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

IndyCar was taking precautionary action against to help stop cars from taking off but F1 charges blindly on hoping that no one gets killed during one of these silly flights :)

---

And the mentality was that they could go even faster as a result :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

What was going on before Dan's accident is somewhat irrelevant...

---

It is entirely relevant IMHO. You continue to insist that it was a two car accident as if the other 32 cars weren't on the track and played no part. You simply can't isolate one element of such a crash in that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

...perhaps we just need to do away with flying cars? Is it a necessary part of F1?

---

For goodness sake, "flying cars" are not a "part of F1" in the same way that (as we've already discussed) "a driver being able to have his head taken off by a wheel or spring" is not a "part of F1". These are not common occurrences, and they are as likely to happen at, say, Le Mans or along the M4. Should we all stop driving on motorways?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

It is entirely relevant IMHO. You continue to insist that it was a two car accident as if the other 32 cars weren't on the track and played no part. You simply can't isolate one element of such a crash in that way.

For goodness sake, "flying cars" are not a "part of F1" in the same way that (as we've already discussed) "a driver being able to have his head taken off by a wheel or spring" is not a "part of F1". These are not common occurrences, and they are as likely to happen at, say, Le Mans or along the M4. Should we all stop driving on motorways?

---

I'm not saying it played no part. You and your comrades seem to think that it can only happen when there are 34 cars on the track racing together. Mark Webber has shown that you don't need 34 cars on the track for it to happen.

If flying cars and people with serious/fatal head injuries are not intrinsic to F1 then why not minimise the chance of their occurence? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

The F1 I watch has run off (tarmac and/or gravel), conveyerbelt clad tyre barriers.

The cars do not go around 90 degree corners at similar speeds to those on the straights, and certainly not 2, 3 or even 4 abreast.

Only Velencia has catch fencing that can be likened with that in Indycars, and is not to be mistaken for an oval.

---

Actually, it looks like the Korean circuit looks to have concrete walls and catch fencing right on the border of the racing surface for about 1/2 of the course. Singapore, well, I call that catch fencing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

I'm not saying it played no part. You and your comrades seem to think that it can only happen when there are 34 cars on the track racing together. Mark Webber has shown that you don't need 34 cars on the track for it to happen.

If flying cars and people with serious/fatal head injuries are not intrinsic to F1 then why not minimise the chance of their occurence? :confused:

---

How many times does this point need to be repeated. It's an accepted risk in F1 because such incidents are rare.

It's different in Indycar. The problems that it has has been brewing for years.

Webber didn't exactly jump on his soapbox calling for change after his accident.

Not quite the same in Indycars when you're hanging for dear life lap after lap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wedge

Webber didn't exactly jump on his soapbox calling for change after his accident.

---

People have to die in F1 before something changes. Webber didn't die.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

I'm expecting a Star Wars question next just for consistency.

---

It´s raining here, it seems as I´m not that dumb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

People have to die in F1 before something changes. Webber didn't die.

---

That's how motorsport generally works, I'm afraid.

It's a dangerous sport and accidents will happen. Open wheelers racing wheel to wheel is one of the great spectacles in racing. To what extent should this occur is a question for Indycar and definitely not F1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

Thats not strictly true as we've seen systems put in place since Massa's accident, most notably the black reinforced strips drivers now have on their helmets to make the visor area tougher should the driver be hit by a small dense object. The cockpit sides were also raised after Coulthard and Wurz came together a few years ago too. Both accidents could have been fatal and things were done after learning from such incidents. It would be easy to have knee jerk reactions to such incidents like banning circuits, but F1 is top of the game in terms of safety and I think IndyCar can learn alot from it.

---

It works both ways.

CART pioneered the cushion protection around the cockpit and wheel tethers before F1.

When Ralf had his rear end shunt at Indy nearly a decade ago he was out for months, whereas an IRL driver wouldn't have had that problem as IRL cars have gone through rigorous gearbox/rear end crash tests.

So, off topic of course. But are we all still happy with our personal definitions of acceptable risk after the events of this weekend past?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kfzmeister

http://www.iacoski.com/wp-content/th...300&zc=1&q=100

---

Ah hell no!!!!! :down:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wedge

When Ralf had his rear end shunt at Indy nearly a decade ago he was out for months, whereas an IRL driver wouldn't have had that problem as IRL cars have gone through rigorous gearbox/rear end crash tests.

---

Ralf's rear end structures didn't fail. He had an undisplaced vertebral body fracture purely due to the huge forces involved in the accident, an injury which apart from being painful wasn't a problem except if he had a second high energy impact while it healed. The fact that he was out for several months wasn't directly due to the severity of his injuries therefore.

Also rear end impact testing was a part of F1 at the time of his accident, IIRC it was side impact testing that was only just being introduced at the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrewmcm

So, off topic of course. But are we all still happy with our personal definitions of acceptable risk after the events of this weekend past?

---

I think it would be helpful if Daniel defined the level of risk he is prepared to accept because I don't think its very clear in many of his posts. The rest of us seem to be singing from the same hymn sheet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrewmcm

So, off topic of course. But are we all still happy with our personal definitions of acceptable risk after the events of this weekend past?

---

Those participating in motor sport are aware of the risks and choose to accept them. Those risks always have been, and always will be, there.

Sadly, events of recent days remind us there are consequences for some who choose to accept the risks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

Ralf's rear end structures didn't fail. He had an undisplaced vertebral body fracture purely due to the huge forces involved in the accident, an injury which apart from being painful wasn't a problem except if he had a second high energy impact while it healed. The fact that he was out for several months wasn't directly due to the severity of his injuries therefore.

Also rear end impact testing was a part of F1 at the time of his accident, IIRC it was side impact testing that was only just being introduced at the time.

---

Never said it did fail. I was arguing that IRL's requrements would be the 'better' car in a rear end shunt due to the nature of oval racing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wedge

Never said it did fail. I was arguing that IRL's requrements would be the 'better' car in a rear end shunt due to the nature of oval racing.

---

Sorry, but I fail to see how Ralf would have done any better in an Indy car.

His injuries were the result of the sheer speed he was going at prior to his accident, if anything on the oval Indy track the speeds would have been even higher and the potential for injury even greater. Remember that the car he was in didn't fail, the safety cell was entirely intact and there wasn't any intrusion into the cockpit.

What that accident did show was that regardless of how well the safety equipment on these cars works there is a limit to how much energy the body can dissipate in an accident. IMO had he gone nose first into the wall the deceleration would have been sufficient to rupture his aorta, yet again I would have expected the cockpit to have been entirely intact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

Those participating in motor sport are aware of the risks and choose to accept them. Those risks always have been, and always will be, there.

Sadly, events of recent days remind us there are consequences for some who choose to accept the risks.

---

Correct :up:

We also need to remember that if the unthinkable does happen, at least it is while they are doing what they love, not being taken out by a bus while crossing the street.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrewmcm

So, off topic of course. But are we all still happy with our personal definitions of acceptable risk after the events of this weekend past?

---

Very much comfortable with it, yes. How do you make motorcycle racing safer - one at a time on a time trial basis?

Why do folk climb rocks, ski off piste/Break land speed records etc? Because a) it is difficult, and b) because of the risk. Risk gives reward.

So long as you are aware of the risk, then fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

Sorry, but I fail to see how Ralf would have done any better in an Indy car.

His injuries were the result of the sheer speed he was going at prior to his accident, if anything on the oval Indy track the speeds would have been even higher and the potential for injury even greater. Remember that the car he was in didn't fail, the safety cell was entirely intact and there wasn't any intrusion into the cockpit.

What that accident did show was that regardless of how well the safety equipment on these cars works there is a limit to how much energy the body can dissipate in an accident. IMO had he gone nose first into the wall the deceleration would have been sufficient to rupture his aorta, yet again I would have expected the cockpit to have been entirely intact.

---

Therein lies the reason why we need to do our best to stop as many serious accidents happening as is possible without turning the sport into a time trial with acres and acres of runoff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Very much comfortable with it, yes. How do you make motorcycle racing safer - one at a time on a time trial basis?

Why do folk climb rocks, ski off piste/Break land speed records etc? Because a) it is difficult, and b) because of the risk. Risk gives reward.

So long as you are aware of the risk, then fine.

---

Well said :up: