No again :down:Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88
Printable View
No again :down:Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88
They forgot the wipers.....Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88
Rain-X!!
F16's don't need no stinkin wipers! ;)
I'm sorry, but if you make that a clear canopy so the driver can be seen, put them in a fighter jet style helmet and mask, That is just a bad a$$ looking car. I'd watch that :bleep: all day long!Quote:
Originally Posted by 555-04Q2
:erm: ..... no again ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by nigelred5
88.24% agree with you :DQuote:
Originally Posted by 555-04Q2
Mark Webber on the "thrill of danger":
BBC Sport - Mark Webber column
Jackie Stewart - "F1 can't relax on safety":
Jackie Stewart says Wheldon crash shows F1 cannot relax on safety - F1 news - AUTOSPORT.com
I think its fine for Indycar and preserve of oval race.Quote:
Originally Posted by nigelred5
Drivers will need a G-suit and early 2000s CART spec racer to go round Texas.
I can't help but think that a canopy may hinder extraction of an imobile driver in a serious accident.
What if the canopy is jammed and is difficult to be removed?
(...apologies if this has already been mentioned in the previous 37 pages of this thread... :uhoh: )
I don't think it's quite right to say that Stewart 'nervously avoided' danger. Had he done do, he would not have competed at all, after all, rather than having been one of the greatest drivers of all time. His 1968 German GP win hardly constituted a nervous avoidance of danger, I'm sure you'd agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88
Yep, had been discussed previously.Quote:
Originally Posted by schmenke
We all believe that F1 engineers are smart enough to provide a solution.
Also, nowadays they need to remove the headrest to be able to extract the driver, what if it got jammed? And what if the safety belt buckle got jammed?
A long time ago drivers were opposing safety belts because being catapulted out of the car was regarded as being safer, we all know how this own turned out in the end.
Wheel fenders and canopies will come into F1 sooner or later, let's hope it is before other drivers die or get injured.
Sorry to butt in, but dont they use canops in F1 power boats, seem to rember years ago when the raced in Bristol docks.
F1 powerboats do have canopies but this is because of the danger of a boat nosediving into water at high speeds. It is like hitting concrete.
F1 cars don't have this problem as the concrete is concrete and cannot enter the survival cell unless the rollover bar breaks which is practically impossible.
But is it not something to look at, i dont recall problems with extracting drivers in an emergacy. Ive heard people talk about wipers and visabilty, that exsists with other forms of motor racing Le Mans for example.
I think the question should be what sort of problem are we trying to solve by enclosing drivers with a canopy? What is the risk to drivers safety of enclosing them in a shell as opposed to leaving the cockpit open as it is.?Quote:
Originally Posted by big_sw2000
Daniel will argue that it's almost suicide continuing to run as F1 is at the moment but what is the current risk. The only meaningful accident in recent years was the spring striking Massa where the injury in that incident was caused by a helmet failure that has since been rectified. Are we going to change a whole series just for that?
Then we have the potential increased risk of running canopies. There is a enhanced risk that one might jam or even come loose in the event of an accident and cause injury. Can you imagine a canopy spinning off at over 150 mph and striking a Marshall or Spectator. If someone can tell me this is impossible then I challenge them to prove it otherwise it seems to pose as likely a risk as a spring falling off a car and striking a driver.
Then we have the problems associated with reduced visibility and potential fire in a crash, the increase in top-end weight of a car, the problems with rain etc.
All in all, it seems to create more problems than the negligible risk of having an open cockpit.
Motor Racing carries an element of danger but that doesn't mean we should have a gung-ho approach to safety. If Canopies make sense then I cannot see why they shouldn't be introduced but I don't see what benefit they will bring.
It is an argument akin to suggesting that motorcycle racing is too dangerous in its current form, and that the riders need to be enclosed by canopies. After all, that might have saved Simoncelli. No-one in their right mind would consider that train of thought sensible. Why apply it to F1?Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
Because some people don't understand the sport. Some people get more excited over a new winglet or piece of technology rather than the sound and smell or a race track. Some think that statistics are the be all and end all whereas some like to see two drivers going at it hammer and tongs like Hammy and Webbo even though there wasn't a pass.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Each to their own but lets hope the wringing hand brigade don't bugger it up and make it worse.
I hope you knew as you typed those words that I would agree!Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
Unsurprisingly , there are two camps , one against the canopy idea , and one for the canopy idea .
Is there any one of the posters in this thread , now running to 740 posts , who has had a change of heart , and decided to vote differently on this issue ?
I still don't like the idea , but I think there is work to be done , and some of it could be to deal with some of the issues that having a canopy would address .
A beginning is to respect yellow flags.
What a silly statement. That would in no way be MotoGP then. It'd be some idiots in bubbles with two wheels sticking out the bottom. You're far more intelligent than this poor attempt at justifying your opinion Ben, far more intelligent than that.....Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Jackie's words are so true and so well thought out. That people haven't taken a step back and said "Perhaps we need to think about things and evaluate the dangers that are inherent to motorsport and eliminate those which needn't be inherent" suggests one of two thingsQuote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
You simply aren't that bothered about drivers getting killed or seriously injured
or
You childishly don't want to side with Ioan and myself because we're not that popular on here.
No one denies that the risks in IndyCar and MotoGP were slim and stepping into an IndyCar or hopping onto a MotoGP bike are still pretty darn safe, but losing Dan and Marco was a Dan and a Marco too much. Whilst there was probably nothing which could have been done to stop Marco's accident, Dan's was possibly preventable and a similar (of course not identical) accident could happen in F1 with the same result.....
People like Knockie will seek to torpedo the idea of any change like a canopy or a bumper without anyone even beginning to develop a solution to the problems he speaks of and will often bring up issues with canopies when it's a bumper that's being talked (irrelevant somewhat???) about so as to steer things off topic and attract some negativity to the collective idea. of making F1 safer. As Ioan says, we've got some really smart and intelligent people in F1. Why not form a group similar to the overtaking group called the safety group and give them a couple of years to come up with some innovative and well thought out ways of packaging a canopy or a rear bumper. If there were two people who could make the changes work in terms of safety and racing then i think having Ross Brawn and Adrian Newey on the case would give us a pretty good chance of coming up with a solution that minimises the risks whilst not creating new ones.
Whether some so called F1 fans on a forum on the internets like the idea the FIA are going to look into things and if Jackie Stewart has twigged to the idea of interlocking tyres being an issue then you can bet that people within the FIA and within the teams have and are looking at ways of making sure we never see an F1 car hit the barriers at speed like Dan's car did. This is all regardless of whether you deliberately poo-poo ideas or justify things in your own heads in a non-sensical manner. Sadly some people on here need to see an actual accident in F1 which kills a driver rather than just seeing an accident which kills a driver which could happen in F1.
That, Daniel, is precisely what some people — myself included — feel about F1 being a coupe formula. It wouldn't be F1. I don't see what is so hard to grasp about that standpoint.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
With all due respect you're merely just resisting change for the sake of it. I do hope that if F1 does adopt a formula where there is a canopy and enclosed rear wheels that you all sod off to some F1 history forum where you can reminisce about the days when the drivers were exposed to needless risks purely for your titilation.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
The talk will go something like this......
Ey oop lad, back in my day it were like this. If something fell off another car and hit you in the head, you either got decapitated and killed, or you was left sooooo traumatised by t'episode that you lost your speed. None of this namby pamby elf n safety crap where your canopy gets hit by something and you drive back to the pits and live to drive another day.
Here we go again with the tiresome and offensive view that those of us who feel that fatalities are, alas, inevitable wish to see them happen. This simply isn't true and you know it. I just don't believe that it is possible or desirable to remove any potential element of risk from any activity, not because those risks are in any way important to me, but because I view them as being impossible to eliminate. You and I are both interested in aviation. Every year a certain number of people are killed demonstrating aircraft at air displays. Do you feel that such displays should be banned? I would rather they be allowed to continue within certain parameters, but without those parameters becoming unduly restrictive. Sadly, even within the (now, in my view, reasonable) parameters a certain number of accidents are to be expected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
My thoughts turn to my old job working for an MP, and the letters we used to get from constituents about what they saw as dangerous road junctions. We would write letters on their behalf to the police and the local council, who would invariably write back saying they could not do anything, the safety record of said junction did not merit action, and so on. Equally invariably the constituent would be outraged, saying something along the lines of: 'Do they have to wait for someone to die before doing anything?' Not only do I think that is an entirely sensible position, but it may not follow even from one death caused by that junction being dangerous that action is necessary, on the grounds that the majority of people are not killed while negotiating it. Or, I think of the bloke injured in the 7 July 2005 terror attacks in London whose bloodied, bandaged face was plastered all over the front of the Sun in support of its backing for draconian new anti-terror laws. Surely, they felt, it followed that anyone who survived the attacks must want all possible measures to be enacted to prevent the same happening to even one other innocent person? As it happened, he didn't, and he objected mightily to his photo being used to those ends. Yes, draconian measures may save one life, but does this mean they should always be supported for that reason? Not to me.
With respect, that's utter nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Again you go with the crap. Where have I ever said that we need to remove all danger from F1 or said that it's even possible? What benefit is there to someone dying on TV in front of us anyway? I accept that it can and will happen, but we should always take all reasonable steps to ensure that it doesn't happen. Dan's accident didn't need to happen, it didn't enrich anyone's experience of that race and future (preventable) accidents also need not happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
You like F1 how it is, that's understandable, but that's no reason for F1 to simply stand still.
Fact of the matter is that Jackie Stewart agrees that interlocking wheels in this day and age are an issue. But of course you and the other flat earthers on here know more about safety than Jackie :) People on here happily dig out Jackie's past as proof when it comes to other subjects but for some reason they choose to wilfully ignore it now.
Read this thread. It's full of people who seem to feel that a minor incident like Felipe's should be allowed to happen and are happy with the rather severe consequences for someone who was 100% blameless. It's full of people who seem to think that because Dan Wheldon was driving an IndyCar that a similar accident couldn't happen in F1. You've got Knockie who seems to thing that the revised helmets will now keep everything out of the cockpit, even catchfences :dozey:Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Sometimes it takes someone looking from the outside to see the problems. How many of the drivers in IndyCar refused to race in Las Vegas on a track which wasn't all that safe at the speeds they were doing with so many cars tightly bunched together? Drivers by necessity have to disregard the danger, be it acceptable risk or as we saw in Las Vegas the other week, rather unacceptable risk. That's why they're F1 drivers and we're not.Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88
If F1 drivers pondered every possible danger to themselves then they would cease to become F1 drivers. Therefore whilst F1 drivers should definitely have input when it comes to safety, they shouldn't be the sole barometer as to whether something is too dangerous or not.
Seeing as you continue to correlate the death of Dan Wheldon to similar risks in F1, I'd put forward now the notion that dangerous tracks (Imola being a good example) be dropped, rather than knee jerk changes to mitigate miniscule risks (such as the Massa incident) which, incidentally, has led to a change in helmet design.
F1 safety is not standing still, and no-one on here, except for yourself, is suggesting it should.
To the point about enclosing the motorcyclist - how else could you prevent a reoccurance of Simoncelli's accident? And that is exactly the point that has been made, inter alia, about Massa's accident and - although not F1 - Surtees accident.
Freak accidents, one that led to a loss of life, one that did not.
Wheldon's accident owed more to the track, number of cars and the speeds involved.
Why do you willfully ignore what I've actually said? Show me where I've said "Dan's life would have been saved by a canopy"??????Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88
Fact is I DID NOT SAY THAT! I said that Dan's life could have been saved if the wheels of the car in front were enclosed. If you have to resort to lies to make my argument out to be wrong.............
How am I suggesting that F1 safety standing still? Oh wait you're just trolling again innit? :wave:Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
The fact is that these accidents need not happen again, the racing will be no less ferocious and close if drivers don't need to worry about something coming off another car and hitting them in the head or hitting the car in front and being sent flying into the air/fence/wall/ground/whatever.
If F1 were to cease to be an open-wheel formula, watch driving standards deteriorate and touring car-style contact become the order of the day when cars are engaged in a close battle. Remove one potential danger and another one is created in its place. Mark my words, it would happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
So? You're bringing up oranges when we're talking about apples. Oh crap, I just said apple, this must be an Anti-Apple post! :rotflmao:Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88
You seem to have joined the club (other members Bolton Midnight and Bob Riebe) whose response to someone disagreeing with you is to accuse them of trolling. Excellent company to keep. In my view, there is nothing remotely approaching trolling in what SGWilko posted on this occasion, whether one agrees with it or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
There are other reasons. It's not all to do with their ability to cope with risk and danger, surely?Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Oh come on Ben, he is saying that I suggest that safety in F1 should stand still and not advance even though the sole purpose of this thread is the advancement of safety in F1? I'm sure you can see that this is not the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
It's obvious that what he said is completely untrue and it is so obviously untrue that the only reasonable conclusion is that he is trolling. If he wants to come out and apologise or clarify his position then fine, I'm a forgiving person. But surely you must admit that what he's saying is completely untrue.
Perhaps I should have said "that's one of the many reasons why they're F1 drivers and we're not".....Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
No, on this occasion I don't. Time to cease the posturing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Maybe I should add that the quality of debate on the IndyCar forums on this very topic — even involving some members with whom I, for one, normally disagree vehemently on other subjects — is a damn sight higher than is to be found in this thread.