Should f1 run coupes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

I think we're talking vastly different things here tbh. The problem is that it's a safety feature which in itself will cause extreme danger. I mean coming out of an airliner plumeting to the ground is not an ideal situation as you'll probably hit the wing or tailplane and die, you may be too close to the ground for the chute to open, did the person before you tamper with the chute? etc etc etc.

---

You see, flying is not safe, too dangerous. Folk still fly though, eh? They have calculated the risk and make their own decision. A bit like why it is perfectly acceptable to keep F1 as it is.

Future F1 car:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5234/...d91994a83e.jpg




(no "Fred" jokes please :uhoh: )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by schmenke

Future F1 car:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5234/...d91994a83e.jpg



(no "Fred" jokes please :uhoh: )

---

Too dangerous, might run over your own tootsies.......

Lewis might run over his own..........???

:laugh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

You see, flying is not safe, too dangerous. Folk still fly though, eh? They have calculated the risk and make their own decision. A bit like why it is perfectly acceptable to keep F1 as it is.

---

But if there was a way to lessen the risk then people would be happy for steps to be taken :) If we were to start driving those distances or go in ships then there would be more deaths, flying is the safer option.

Don't think that aviation is standing still when it comes to safety either.
Ballistic Recovery Systems - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by schmenke

On the other hand adding a cockpit enclosure that is more than just a wind deflector adds significant mass to the vehicle, particularly affecting the centre of gravity, thus necessitating a complete redesign of the car to the extent that it no longer is a formula one specification.

---

They doubled the size of the fuel bladder, they added KERS and it's still called F1. Why would adding a cockpit enclosure change anything then?
And to keep to not so distant changes: they went from 3.5 V12 to 3.0 V10, then to 2.4 V8s, and from free 22000 rpm to limited 18000 rpm, and from slicks to groves and back, and the list longer then I care to remember.

So why would one safety related change be so bad for F1 when all the crap they put in it since the 22 years that I watched didn't apparently change much?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

But if there was a way to lessen the risk then people would be happy for steps to be taken :) If we were to start driving those distances or go in ships then there would be more deaths, flying is the safer option.

Don't think that aviation is standing still when it comes to safety either.
Ballistic Recovery Systems - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---

Could work in a minority of situations. You are still putting folk up in an environment where they cannot breathe the atmosphere, and rely on pressurisation or, in event of a breach, overhead air supply in the form of a mask which can fail. Why fly when the potential (important word that) for failure is too great. How many lives are lost due to air accidents every year, against how many drivers/spectators in all forms of global open cockpit open wheel motorsports are lost?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

They doubled the size of the fuel bladder, they added KERS and it's still called F1. Why would adding a cockpit enclosure change anything then?
And to keep to not so distant changes: they went from 3.5 V12 to 3.0 V10, then to 2.4 V8s, and from free 22000 rpm to limited 18000 rpm, and from slicks to groves and back, and the list longer then I care to remember.

So why would one safety related change be so bad for F1 when all the crap they put in it since the 22 years that I watched didn't apparently change much?

---

Because F1 is an open-wheeled formula. Stop it being such, and open-wheeled racing is dead. This would be unnecessary.

Should all open top cars be enclosed ?
Should the cabriole/convertible be banned ?
Are they simply not safe ?

Should motorcycles be banned as well ?
They are , after all , open topped as well .

Karts have open wheels . Should we ban them , too ?


If any of those vehicles were following an F1 car , a spring could fly off on the perfect trajectory to hit them on the left side of thier visor .

I'm not in the camp that it would no longer be F1 if the cars looked like the Redbull car, but I would not want to see F1 loose being an open wheel series. Indycar is essentially enclosing the rear wheels to lessen the potential for locking wheels in the next indycar, but they are still openly visible and the front wheels remain open. Putting spats or cycle type fenders over the front wheels issues, and fixed full fenders I don't want to see in F1. There are obviously pros and cons. If a strike such as Massa's accident is the issue, then mandate the return of a clear windscreen taller than the driver's head but still open. Even offshore racing boats have had issues running fully enclosed canopies. F16 canopies are frequently used. You have to run pressurized air and essentially gear up like a fighter pilot. I can tell you first hand, it gets ungodly HOT inside one of those glass bubbles, even if it is tinted, and I doubt they will add air conditioning to an F1 car. It would likely be well over 150F at tracks like Sepang, Bahrain and Abu Dhabi, and probably not far from that in Austin.


I do like the Redbull and Caparo cars, though the Caparo looks like a two seater and comes much closer to being a sports car. The Red bull is what it is, and F1 car with a closed cockpit and enclosed fixed fenders. Not too far from the Delta Wing.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

All that and you still don't seem to say what you feel should be done if there were fatalities in F1 from these sorts of injuries.

---

There is only one way of reducing the risk properly.

Ban motorsport.