Should f1 run coupes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 555-04Q2

Its more dangerous to cross a quiet suburban road than it is to drive an F1 car at 350 km/h.

---

What a silly statement. You will point to the fact that no one has died in F1 since 1994 and point to the people who die crossing roads.....

But you seem to forget the fact that billions of people cross the road every year and people do billions of miles on suburban roads every year. Are you trying to say that if everyone crossed the road at 350kph that we'd be safer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

What a silly statement. You will point to the fact that no one has died in F1 since 1994 and point to the people who die crossing roads.....

But you seem to forget the fact that billions of people cross the road every year and people do billions of miles on suburban roads every year. Are you trying to say that if everyone crossed the road at 350kph that we'd be safer?

---

Well now. From an early age, children are taught not to cross the road on their own, Green Cross Code etc, we have Pedestrian crossings, speed limits ya da ya da.

I don't think my little legs will take me to 350kph TBH.......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

What a silly statement. You will point to the fact that no one has died in F1 since 1994 and point to the people who die crossing roads.....

But you seem to forget the fact that billions of people cross the road every year and people do billions of miles on suburban roads every year. Are you trying to say that if everyone crossed the road at 350kph that we'd be safer?

---

:erm: ..... :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

What a silly statement. You will point to the fact that no one has died in F1 since 1994 and point to the people who die crossing roads.....

But you seem to forget the fact that billions of people cross the road every year and people do billions of miles on suburban roads every year. Are you trying to say that if everyone crossed the road at 350kph that we'd be safer?

---

Still, you and I drive cars that are a lot less safe than open cockpit F1 cars. How is that acceptable? Shouldn't car manufacturers make cars safe as possible? Let's ban normal cars until car manufacturers make them as safe as they can, currently they are not doing that. It's really trivial to worry about 24 highly paid drivers in open cockpits when the average Joe is driving cars that aren't as safe as they could be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DexDexter

Still, you and I drive cars that are a lot less safe than open cockpit F1 cars. How is that acceptable? Shouldn't car manufacturers make cars safe as possible? Let's ban normal cars until car manufacturers make them as safe as they can, currently they are not doing that. It's really trivial to worry about 24 highly paid drivers in open cockpits when the average Joe is driving cars that aren't as safe as they could be.

---

Of course our cars are a lot less safe. We don't wear helmets, HANS devices or fireproof clothing. Our cars cost a tiny fraction of what an F1 car costs to build....... if you want road cars to be safer then start a thread in chit chat......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DexDexter

Still, you and I drive cars that are a lot less safe than open cockpit F1 cars. How is that acceptable?

---

Maybe because we do not race our cars (at least those with a bit of brains don't), do not drive at 350 km/h. And BTW we do not pay millions of € for a car.
And if you don't buy crap cars you get very safe road cars nowadays for the buck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

F1 racing with closed cockpits and covered wheels? :o hplease:

No thanks, try watching snooker. Its safer. :)

---

Excellent advice. If no one sees the accident that kills someone then no one dies. Fantastic! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

Its why I admire Stirling Moss. Part of the attraction is the risk, always has been always will be. If you remove the danger (or supposed danger) from the driver, you are likely to get more dangerous racing in terms of unreasonable risks. Open wheel Grand Prix racing is what it says on the tin and for anyone who thinks its too dangerous can watch Le Mans or rally where there is danger but the driver sits in a bubble. So no thanks to changing F1.. :)

---

Seriously, if you don't know that the sport is called rallyING then there's little hope for you.

As has been mentioned, the FIA technical regulations stipulate an open cockpit design and exposed wheels.

For those that wish to see enclosed cockpits and fendered wheels, there are other forms of motorposrt available.

Why the need for this thread? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Seriously, if you don't know that the sport is called rallyING then there's little hope for you.

---

It is difficult to debate with you , Daniel , when you make aggressive posts such as this .

And this : "Excellent advice. If no one sees the accident that kills someone then no one dies. Fantastic!"

To go to such extremes simply weakens your stance .


Nobody here has suggested that safety should not be a centre of concern .

At one time , it was thought by the experts that it was safer to be thrown from the car in the case of an accident .
In a way , it was the right thinking at the time because the fuel handling made for many huge fireballs on impact .

We've come a long way .

Think of HANS as an example .
Many people , not just the Intimidator died without it .

The Earnhart death , though , brought in a device already invented , but shunned by motorsport in general beforehand .
All of sudden , the idea had legs , because a fan favourite had died .

And , to the point , it wasn't a driver in this series of F1 , but a series very distant from F1 in almost every way but for the number of wheels .

The FIA quickly adopted it , even though many drivers weren't happy .


For the drivers , it seems there's the same attraction to the danger involved that there always has been .


In my opinion , you dont need fenders or covered cockpits to be safe .

The much bigger issue today , as I see it , is the sightlines . Drivers sit so low they cannot see anything coming up the side until it is breaks the line ahead of the sidepod .

Add fenders and a covered cockpit and you would just add more obstructions to the vision .
You'd need bumpers , too .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

It is difficult to debate with you , Daniel , when you make aggressive posts such as this .

And this : "Excellent advice. If no one sees the accident that kills someone then no one dies. Fantastic!"

To go to such extremes simply weakens your stance .


Nobody here has suggested that safety should not be a centre of concern .

At one time , it was thought by the experts that it was safer to be thrown from the car in the case of an accident .
In a way , it was the right thinking at the time because the fuel handling made for many huge fireballs on impact .

We've come a long way .

Think of HANS as an example .
Many people , not just the Intimidator died without it .

The Earnhart death , though , brought in a device already invented , but shunned by motorsport in general beforehand .
All of sudden , the idea had legs , because a fan favourite had died .

And , to the point , it wasn't a driver in this series of F1 , but a series very distant from F1 in almost every way but for the number of wheels .

The FIA quickly adopted it , even though many drivers weren't happy .


For the drivers , it seems there's the same attraction to the danger involved that there always has been .


In my opinion , you dont need fenders or covered cockpits to be safe .

The much bigger issue today , as I see it , is the sightlines . Drivers sit so low they cannot see anything coming up the side until it is breaks the line ahead of the sidepod .

Add fenders and a covered cockpit and you would just add more obstructions to the vision .
You'd need bumpers , too .

---

But with faired wheels you would have bumpers to a certain extent. Watch Le Mans and you'll see that LMP's are far more resistent to damage than F1 cars are by nature of being a bit meatier.

Saying to someone that if they don't like the danger in F1 that they should watch snooker (the 2nd most boring sport known to man after darts) is a silly statement.

With regards to visibility I agree with you, but with a roof over his head the driver could sit a little higher (this would of course need to be stipulated in the rules :) ) and this would somewhat solve this problem.

I enjoy when people make a proper argument out of it by bringing things like visibility (already bad in F1 to be fair) and the ability of a driver to escape after a roll - into the mix, but to simply say "it's the way now so it should stay that way" is rather silly don't you think? In the past we didn't have the crash barrier that almost certainly saved Perez's life in Monaco the other week, should things have simply stayed the same way as they were before? I've really enjoyed the valid reasons some people have made for NOT having a coupe body shape, maintaining the status quo is however not a valid reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

LMP's are far more resistent to damage than F1 cars.

---

An F1 car is desiged to disintegrate in an impact because it dissipates the energy, the only part remaining intact being the survival cell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

An F1 car is desiged to disintegrate in an impact because it dissipates the energy, the only part remaining intact being the survival cell.

---

I mean in terms of things which are going to break off and mean that the car loses significant aerodynamic efficiency and handling, as you well know, LMP's will break apart in a proper accident too :) I would love to be able to see F1 cars racing closely and having a little touch without one or more cars involved having to go back to the pits :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

So basically because a few people have accidents and survive, we need not improve F1 safety. Do I need to post youtube links to the Massa and Surtees (fatality) incidents?

---

A closed cockpit is no guarantee of survival, it just presents different issues. A cockpit may well have saved Henry Surtees, but I could post links to accidents such as Mark Porter and Ashley Cooper to show a roof and doors are go guarantee. How many iterations of your argument are you prepared to make? If drivers are still killed in closed cockpit series, your logic dictates there's something fundamentally unsafe about those series as well.

FIA Technical Regulations - published on 08.03.2011

Article 13.1.3:
"The driver must be able to enter and get out of the cockpit without it being necessary to open a door or
remove any part of the car other than the steering wheel. ..."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

It is difficult to debate with you , Daniel , when you make aggressive posts such as this .

And this : "Excellent advice. If no one sees the accident that kills someone then no one dies. Fantastic!"

To go to such extremes simply weakens your stance .

---

May be, still Daniel is right. Why do fans want to keep a sport dangerous just because it appeals more to them?!

Some people should go watch some Hollywood block buster if it's stupid danger that you want to watch, instead of telling people to watch snooker just because they care more for the drivers lives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by schmenke

FIA Technical Regulations - published on 08.03.2011

Article 13.1.3:
"The driver must be able to enter and get out of the cockpit without it being necessary to open a door or
remove any part of the car other than the steering wheel. ..."

---

They already need to remove their head protection to get in and out of the car. Looks like no one applies the rules nowadays.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

An F1 car is desiged to disintegrate in an impact because it dissipates the energy, the only part remaining intact being the survival cell.

---

It's exactly the same for LMP cars. Heck it's the same for modern road cars also.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hornet

A closed cockpit is no guarantee of survival, it just presents different issues. A cockpit may well have saved Henry Surtees, but I could post links to accidents such as Mark Porter and Ashley Cooper to show a roof and doors are go guarantee. How many iterations of your argument are you prepared to make? If drivers are still killed in closed cockpit series, your logic dictates there's something fundamentally unsafe about those series as well.

---

And nothing would save a driver if a nuclear bomb explodes on top of his car. So why not send them out to race in tinfoil cars? Just asking!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hornet

A closed cockpit is no guarantee of survival, it just presents different issues. A cockpit may well have saved Henry Surtees, but I could post links to accidents such as Mark Porter and Ashley Cooper to show a roof and doors are go guarantee. How many iterations of your argument are you prepared to make? If drivers are still killed in closed cockpit series, your logic dictates there's something fundamentally unsafe about those series as well.

---

of course, but in those situations we're talking about cars which "only" have a roll cage and are built out of steel and not carbon fibre.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

But with faired wheels you would have bumpers to a certain extent. Watch Le Mans and you'll see that LMP's are far more resistent to damage than F1 cars are by nature of being a bit meatier.

Saying to someone that if they don't like the danger in F1 that they should watch snooker (the 2nd most boring sport known to man after darts) is a silly statement.

With regards to visibility I agree with you, but with a roof over his head the driver could sit a little higher (this would of course need to be stipulated in the rules :) ) and this would somewhat solve this problem.

I enjoy when people make a proper argument out of it by bringing things like visibility (already bad in F1 to be fair) and the ability of a driver to escape after a roll - into the mix, but to simply say "it's the way now so it should stay that way" is rather silly don't you think? In the past we didn't have the crash barrier that almost certainly saved Perez's life in Monaco the other week, should things have simply stayed the same way as they were before? I've really enjoyed the valid reasons some people have made for NOT having a coupe body shape, maintaining the status quo is however not a valid reason.

---

I enjoy the precision required to navigate those machines knowing that a slight touch puts you and likely your opponent out .

The most impressive of them all is the driver that sends it around the track on the edge of disaster .
That's on the edge , not over .

The "old days" were dangerous , and that was part of the draw for the crowd .
They cried real tears for heros , and dreamed of taking over thier position .

Today , when the modern F1 driver sits in one of those cars from an earlier era , they often shudder to think what it was really like to drive in those races .
In part , it's that past that still draws the crowd , not the present .

One of the only items that has stayed even remotely similar to those old days is the concept of open wheels , even though F1 has seen fenders in the really early days .

Simply put , having the wheels uncovered makes it more demanding , and more necessary to be precise .
This has always been true , but the safety aspect has improved so much that the really dangerous elements are now harder to find .

So the "status quo" is not really that at all . They are safe because they are designed to be so , within the formula .
They are designed to keep the driver safe , and work well doing that , in an open wheel configuration .
It's not "status quo" when they are constantly evolving , for both speed , and safety at speed .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hornet

A closed cockpit is no guarantee of survival, it just presents different issues. A cockpit may well have saved Henry Surtees, but I could post links to accidents such as Mark Porter and Ashley Cooper to show a roof and doors are go guarantee. How many iterations of your argument are you prepared to make? If drivers are still killed in closed cockpit series, your logic dictates there's something fundamentally unsafe about those series as well.

---

If there'd been some sort of plexi cover in front of Aryton Senna, then it's possible that the suspension pieces wouldn't have pierced his face.
http://www.benchapman.com/project/image51.jpg

If there'd been some sort of plexi cover in front of Felipe Massa, then it's highly likely that the errant suspension spring from Barichello's Brawn would have been deflected. Massa now has a titanium plate in his skull because of the inherent design flaw of F1 cars.

Obviously a closed cockpit is no guarantee of survival but it is safer. Doesn't it make more sense to aim for a higher standard than to settle for a worse one? If Formula One is supposed to be the pinnacle of motorsport, then why shouldn't it also lead the way in terms of safety development?

Why don't we just give them all bicycles with shin pads, knee pads, elbow pads, helmets, ankle boots, a tampon and a normal salary. That would be safer wouldn't it :crazy:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

May be, still Daniel is right. Why do fans want to keep a sport dangerous just because it appeals more to them?!

Some people should go watch some Hollywood block buster if it's stupid danger that you want to watch, instead of telling people to watch snooker just because they care more for the drivers lives.

---

Ok, using your logic, football is the first to go, there have been some serious injuries so let's ban contact altogether and don't let them run since somebody might have a heart attack. Rugby is too dangerous as well, some serious injuries have occurred so let's end the whole sport. Golf too, a golf ball is very dangerous if it hits somebody in the head. Why do people want to keep golf dangerous, shouldn't they use a soft ball? In football the players should not kick the ball at full force since it might hit someone's head. Why do the spectators want to keep it dangerous and don't demand the players play safe? :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

If there'd been some sort of plexi cover in front of Aryton Senna, then it's possible that the suspension pieces wouldn't have pierced his face.
http://www.benchapman.com/project/image51.jpg

If there'd been some sort of plexi cover in front of Felipe Massa, then it's highly likely that the errant suspension spring from Barichello's Brawn would have been deflected. Massa now has a titanium plate in his skull because of the inherent design flaw of F1 cars.

Obviously a closed cockpit is no guarantee of survival but it is safer. Doesn't it make more sense to aim for a higher standard than to settle for a worse one? If Formula One is supposed to be the pinnacle of motorsport, then why shouldn't it also lead the way in terms of safety development?

---

Formula cars have an open cockpit, that's why. It's the essential part of the sport. Why do you want F1 to be safer than our normal lives?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 555-04Q2

Why don't we just give them all bicycles with shin pads, knee pads, elbow pads, helmets, ankle boots, a tampon and a normal salary. That would be safer wouldn't it :crazy:

---

Tampon :eek: and risk anahalactic shock or toxic whatsitsname syndrome? No, I'd give them all liners, you know, the Red Bull ones (gives you wings). If we're gona do safety, we'd best get it right..... :dozey:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DexDexter

Ok, using your logic, football is the first to go, there have been some serious injuries so let's ban contact altogether and don't let them run since somebody might have a heart attack. Rugby is too dangerous as well, some serious injuries have occurred so let's end the whole sport. Golf too, a golf ball is very dangerous if it hits somebody in the head. Why do people want to keep golf dangerous, shouldn't they use a soft ball? In football the players should not kick the ball at full force since it might hit someone's head. Why do the spectators want to keep it dangerous and don't demand the players play safe? :rolleyes:

---

In fact, the FIA should, in cahoots with all governments, mandate that we should all stay in our homes and never go out, just in case, because no-one has yet invented the 'personal body safety encapsulation device' and we are thus not doing enough to be safe....... :crazy:

You wanna be safe? Carry a gun :p :

Checkpoint 10: A case for the closed cockpit (updated)

Quote:

---

The following deaths might have been prevented if the drivers were protected by some kind of canopy:

•Helmuth Koinigg died at the 1974 United States Grand Prix when his head struck the top of an armco barrier as his car slid underneath.
•Tom Pryce was struck by a fire extinguisher after colliding with a marshal at the 1977 South African Grand Prix.
•Markus Hoettinger was killed in a Formula 2 race in 1980 when he was struck by a tire that fell off another car.
•In 1994, Ayrton Senna died when he was struck by tire and suspension part at the San Marino Grand Prix.
•In 1995, Marco Campos died when he hit his head on the concrete wall as his car overturned during an F3000 race at Magny-Cours.
•At the 1996 Molson Indy Toronto, Jeff Krosnoff died when he struck a tree in an accident on the back straightaway.

And here are some near-misses:

•During the 1972 French Grand Prix, Helmut Marko was struck in the eye by a stone thrown by another car. This accident left him partially blind and ended his career.
•At the 1994 Brazilian Grand Prix, Martin Brundle was hit in the head by Jos Verstappen's flying Benetton, miraculously without serious injury.
•Cristiano da Matta suffered a head injury after hitting a deer during a Champ Car test at Road America in 2006.
•Formula 1 drivers were lucky not to die at the 2003 British Grand Prix, when a demonstrator ran onto the racing circuit and narrowly missed several cars traveling at high speed.
•Kimi Raikkonen was fortunate that his car's wheel tether worked during his spectacular crash at the 2005 European Grand Prix.
•Again, Kimi Raikkonen had a close call with both his own tire and the tire barrier during a crash at Monza in 2007.
•At Melbourne 2007, David Coulthard almost hit Alex Wurz after an ill-judged overtaking move sent Coulthard's Red Bull sailing over Wurz's car.

---

Or drivers could just not race in F1 or any other open wheel formula. They know the hazards of racing in an open wheel formula, they accept it and they get paid big bucks for it. If it was really a concern, they would not be in F1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 555-04Q2

Or drivers could just not race in F1 or any other open wheel formula. They know the hazards of racing in an open wheel formula, they accept it and they get paid big bucks for it. If it was really a concern, they would not be in F1.

---

So why were Jackie Stewart in Formula 1 when he was obviously concerned about safety then?

You want to quote from the biggest moaner in the history of F1? :s hock: He didn't moan about the millions he made now did he ;)

If drivers really though that F1 was so dangerous, they would find something else to do.

"Danger is the most important thing, like salt is to cooking" - Stirling Moss

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

If there'd been some sort of plexi cover in front of Aryton Senna, then it's possible that the suspension pieces wouldn't have pierced his face.
http://www.benchapman.com/project/image51.jpg

If there'd been some sort of plexi cover in front of Felipe Massa, then it's highly likely that the errant suspension spring from Barichello's Brawn would have been deflected. Massa now has a titanium plate in his skull because of the inherent design flaw of F1 cars.

Obviously a closed cockpit is no guarantee of survival but it is safer. Doesn't it make more sense to aim for a higher standard than to settle for a worse one? If Formula One is supposed to be the pinnacle of motorsport, then why shouldn't it also lead the way in terms of safety development?

---

Er, that's why F1 cars now have high cockpit sides, to prevent wheels encroaching on the driver's helmet. Look how far the tubs (didn't) rise up alongside the drivers in 1994 and compare them to where they are now. I wouldn't call open cockpits a design flaw either. They are designed to be that way.

Enclosing the driver in F1 requires a radical redesign of the machines. You can't just put something over their heads and enclose them. I'm also quite sure that F1 drivers can get out of the modern cars without having to take off the headrests if they're in a hurry.

I'll point you to Simona de Silvestro's accident at Indy this year - car on fire upside down, and she manages to get herself out. Extracting oneself from a gull-wing car upside down and on fire is quite a different kettle of fish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 555-04Q2

Or drivers could just not race in F1 or any other open wheel formula. They know the hazards of racing in an open wheel formula, they accept it and they get paid big bucks for it. If it was really a concern, they would not be in F1.

---

That's exactly what I was thinking, they know what their doing, hell, they would probably argue against people trying to make it closed roof. It's their risk that they choose to make, just like saying a soldier shouldn't be sent to war because he might be shot at, he knew what he was doing when he signed up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrewmcm

Er, that's why F1 cars now have high cockpit sides, to prevent wheels encroaching on the driver's helmet. Look how far the tubs (didn't) rise up alongside the drivers in 1994 and compare them to where they are now. I wouldn't call open cockpits a design flaw either. They are designed to be that way.

Enclosing the driver in F1 requires a radical redesign of the machines. You can't just put something over their heads and enclose them. I'm also quite sure that F1 drivers can get out of the modern cars without having to take off the headrests if they're in a hurry.

I'll point you to Simona de Silvestro's accident at Indy this year - car on fire upside down, and she manages to get herself out. Extracting oneself from a gull-wing car upside down and on fire is quite a different kettle of fish.

---

F1 cars don't catastrophically catch fire all that often though?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Berwickk

That's exactly what I was thinking, they know what their doing, hell, they would probably argue against people trying to make it closed roof. It's their risk that they choose to make, just like saying a soldier shouldn't be sent to war because he might be shot at, he knew what he was doing when he signed up.

---

Yes, but if reasonable steps can be taken to make that soldier safer then they should be...... the soldier expects to have body armour, helmets and so on....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Berwickk

That's exactly what I was thinking, they know what their doing, hell, they would probably argue against people trying to make it closed roof. It's their risk that they choose to make, just like saying a soldier shouldn't be sent to war because he might be shot at, he knew what he was doing when he signed up.

---

Welcome to the forum :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Yes, but if reasonable steps can be taken to make that soldier safer then they should be...... the soldier expects to have body armour, helmets and so on....

---

Does your bed have sides so that you don't fall off it? ;)

There is only so much one can do for safety in any form of sport, job, hobby, day to day life etc. We cannot account and cover for everything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 555-04Q2

Does your bed have sides so that you don't fall off it? ;)

There is only so much one can do for safety in any form of sport, job, hobby, day to day life etc. We cannot account and cover for everything.

---

OMG I hadn't realised the risk! I will order some bed sides straight away!

C'mon Dan. You are being a bit padantic about the whole safety issue.