Should f1 run coupes?

The difference IMHO is that the Kubica incident could not be stopped, save for just not rallying at all. I've never seen an accident like the one Kubica had where something has pieced the bulkhead of the car and then gone through into the passenger cell, it's simply unheard of, but open top cars having their drivers hit by things seems a bit more common. Now I certainly don't think we should stop F1 just because there is the chance of someone getting hit in the head, but giving them a bit more protection seems a good idea IMHO.

Sorry to hear about your friend. Whenever I hear a story like that I think of my friend Grant who lived not far from where I as living back in 2004 (I think it was 2004 anyway?) and I stayed at work a bit late one Friday and on my way back home on his street he glanced a car which was turning right whilst overtaking on his motorbike and he slid along the road and hit a parked van. I came across him a few minutes later and ran to his house to get his housemates. We all stood around not realising just how serious things were and talking about how pissed Grant was going to be when he saw how they'd cut up his leather jacket and how damaged his bike was but sadly Grant died that night. I always think about what would have happened if I'd left work on time that afternoon, I probably would have passed him and we'd have stopped to have a chat and he'd still be alive. Weird....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

The difference IMHO is that the Kubica incident could not be stopped, save for just not rallying at all. I've never seen an accident like the one Kubica had where something has pieced the bulkhead of the car and then gone through into the passenger cell, it's simply unheard of, but open top cars having their drivers hit by things seems a bit more common.

---

I brought this up at the time, and was told there had in fact been at least one similar incident. I forget the details though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I brought this up at the time, and was told there had in fact been at least one similar incident. I forget the details though.

---

Francois Cevert was killed by the armco penetrating his car in the esses at Watkins Glen in 1973

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

I blocked you a few years ago for talking crap and I unblocked you because you started talking sense, now I'm blocking you for being deliberately annoying. Bye

---

How did you know I was talking sense if I was blocked? I am being perhaps a little flippant with the trunk comment due to the fact that an open cockpit car does not, by its very definition, have a roof.

I'm still talking sense, you just don't like my opinion, and having not managed to provoke an argument to your satisfaction, you've gone down the 'I'm done with this guy' route

No need to be rude by the way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

The difference IMHO is that the Kubica incident could not be stopped, save for just not rallying at all.

---

Does this mean that you can now accept that, save for the non freak unstoppable type incidents, F1 cars and their safety features mean that enclosing the wheels and the cockpits is not required, and would anyhow, change the series into something other than F1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

I've tried. The whole thread is about having a roof .

---

It is about whether F1 should run coupes or not. It has been explained that F1 is an open wheel/open cockpit formula for a start. Examples have been given of why, potentially, enclosing the driver could actually add more risk.

You've then gone on to show re the Kubica RallyINGaccident, that sometimes, no matter what safety measures are in place, freak accident can and do happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

I see what you're saying. But there were two bad incidents in the last couple of years which involved things hitting drivers in the head. Surtees and Massa of course. Now there's nothing to stop either of those accidents happening in F1 and IMHO this is no different to the change from having no seatbelts to having seatbelts or aluminium fuel tanks to the safer ones we have today.

i simply don't get what is so bad about the car below or the Caparo T1. The F1 genes are still very much apparent, but you have lessened the risk of wheel to wheel accidents and the risk of Surtees/Massa style incidents. But then I guess as usual someone has to die in F1 for it to want to be safer.....
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog....type-front.jpg

---

An additional problem with the above vehicle is the additional mass that could potentially fly into the crowd if a wheel and fairing assemply broke off......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

The difference IMHO is that the Kubica incident could not be stopped, save for just not rallying at all. I've never seen an accident like the one Kubica had where something has pieced the bulkhead of the car and then gone through into the passenger cell, it's simply unheard of, but open top cars having their drivers hit by things seems a bit more common. Now I certainly don't think we should stop F1 just because there is the chance of someone getting hit in the head, but giving them a bit more protection seems a good idea IMHO.

Sorry to hear about your friend. Whenever I hear a story like that I think of my friend Grant who lived not far from where I as living back in 2004 (I think it was 2004 anyway?) and I stayed at work a bit late one Friday and on my way back home on his street he glanced a car which was turning right whilst overtaking on his motorbike and he slid along the road and hit a parked van. I came across him a few minutes later and ran to his house to get his housemates. We all stood around not realising just how serious things were and talking about how pissed Grant was going to be when he saw how they'd cut up his leather jacket and how damaged his bike was but sadly Grant died that night. I always think about what would have happened if I'd left work on time that afternoon, I probably would have passed him and we'd have stopped to have a chat and he'd still be alive. Weird....

---

The Kubica accident was a result of racing .
Sure , one way to stop him getting hurt would have been to have banned that racing .

But , the biggest issue in the crash was that the guard rails were not up to the standards prescribed .
They are designed in such a way that they will not stab through the car in the way that they did .

You can be sure , although I have not seen the state of the area of the crash , that the barriers have been replaced , and that they will be the way that they should be now .

Very similar barriers in F1 have been altered or replaced as the result of many crashes at speed , and as a result , we have drivers like Robert who survive unimaginable impacts .
Perez was lucky to have those barriers in place , as that crane , or the barriers behind it are both rather hard and unforgiving .

Both disciplines have thier own dangers that need to be mitigated , but , sadly sometimes , those dangers are mitigated reactively instead of proactively .


In the case of my friend's crash , he was caught out by a farmer , who , himself caught out by the weather , was trying to get home after dark , having stayed too long on the field .
He made a choice , to run the road after dark , and my friend died as a result .

There is a law that states he is not allowed on the road after dark , and that law was created as a reaction to the very same situation many years earlier , we can presume . They are not road-going vehicles after dark .
It was reactive , but still didn't stop his death .

And , guard rail design didn't stop Kubica from near death , either , despite being likely the result of many earlier accidental deaths , both in rally , and regular road travel .

Cevert died when he hit a section of guard rail put together backwards .



Even when the safety measures are performed retroactively , it is never a guarantee that they will work .

I think they need to design the cars to improve the vision of the driver .
Whether they mandate a more upright driving position , or move to alter the sidepod in some way to increase the sightlines dosen't matter to me .

Drivers complaining they cannot see the wings is inconceiveable to me .
Whether one could classify this change as reactive or proactive is hard , as the design has evolved to be this way , and for both speed and safety .
Tall , fat sidepod crash structures , while having evolved to protect , get in the way of seeing your opponent .
They've evolved in those LeMans cars , too , and they are no good in tight with other cars .

When Jacques ran those endurance races , having run F1 a lot , he was surprised at how little one could see , in comparison .

Add a cockpit cover , and you add other complications , not just lack of sight .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

The difference IMHO is that the Kubica incident could not be stopped, save for just not rallying at all. I've never seen an accident like the one Kubica had where something has pieced the bulkhead of the car and then gone through into the passenger cell, it's simply unheard of, but open top cars having their drivers hit by things seems a bit more common. Now I certainly don't think we should stop F1 just because there is the chance of someone getting hit in the head, but giving them a bit more protection seems a good idea IMHO.

---

I have to disagree, the accident could have very easily been prevented, one by ensuring the sections of armco were properly secured together so there was no "end" that could become a spike, and also by enhancing the strength and thickness of the bulkhead. Stupid as it sounds, a well placed hay bale probably would have prevented that freak accident too!

With any risk management you have to weigh up a number of things,

The liklihood of the risk occuring, the potential damage caused if the risk occurs and the "cost".

The risks of debris hitting a driver is low, but is real and has happened. Thta risk is lessened by an enclosed cockpit, but not reduced completley. Potentially it actually could increase the amount of debris involved if something breaks up and starts flying round. In terms of "cost" the monetary issue is small as it could be engineered relatively simple, but the cost to the sport?show?hirstory is far more difficult to calculate.

it is obvious that F1 has done a great deal to reduce the risks and to reduce the consequences when they do occur, and i do disagree in general with the idea of a closed cockpit F1, but i also don't think that just because the drivers are willing to put themselves in danger for what they love doing, that they should be left to be in unreasonable danger if a reasonable soultion to reducing or preventing that risk exists. As it is safety can always be improved, but I think F1 is doing a very good job of protecting the driver, despite a couple of recent incidents. In worry more about exposed drivers watching IRL cars flipping over on ovals, but i guess if you take a covered cockpit approach in F1, we should really be talking about mandating for all "open top" series thoughout motorsport

My objection would mainly be due to the "open wheel" aspect.

IF somehow engineers could enclose only the cockpit area of the current spec F1 car and still maintain all the crash worthiness, driver extraction, visibility, cooling comfort ability, and such requirements then I wouldn't really have much of a problem with it. But I suspect even with a fighter plane type bubble which would allow visibility, it would slow the extraction of the driver even if other concerns could be addressed. This is a bad thing in the event of fire, which isn't really all that rare in the world of F1.

Then we would have the issue of how marshalls reach the steering wheel, which would likely cause the windscreen/bubble to be removed and increase time to move a failed car to a safe area.

At the very bare minimum, it would also add weight on the upper limits of the car, something not favorable to F1.



Kubica's accident was a prime example of a freak accident, similar to what happened to Felipe. So there is evidence that no form of racing can be 100% safe. A couple inches of windscreen or a higher impact rating on the helmet visors would have spared Massa his injuries.