Should f1 run coupes?

I think the issue is the track in this instance not the cars. They were taking a corner at 225mph, Formula 1 cars do not take corners at this sort of speeds.

Yes, coupes would help which is why this kind of track is best left to NASCAR.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Typical silly statement. You go tell the widow that although that accident could probably easily have been prevented needn't have been because it was his choice.

I find it incomprehensible that somehow because it was his choice that it's OK. I don't get it. I genuinely do not understand the logic and don't feel that there is any logic behind that statement. Did F1 stand still when people were getting thrown from cars and say "Well it doesn't matter, it's their choice to race so why should we have seatbelts?" or when people were getting burnt to death and say "Well we could do something, but he understood the dangers so lets do nothing" and when Dale Earnhardt died they sure as hell didn't stand still and neither did F1 and most other high level forms of motorsport.

It's easy for people to post the sort of unintelligent illogical drivel which has been posted in here when the last death in F1 was in 1994 and incidents like the ones which happen sadly too often in IndyCar are a few years in the past.

---

Go read JYS bio - and understand the mentality. So many of his friends were lost racing, conversations about it with his wife, but still they carried on.

Motorsport is dangerous.

This, from Joe Saward;

there are even a few misguided folk who believe that danger can be designed out of the sport

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

I think the issue is the track in this instance not the cars. They were taking a corner at 225mph, Formula 1 cars do not take corners at this sort of speeds.

Yes, coupes would help which is why this kind of track is best left to NASCAR.

---

But Mark, the contact resulted in poor Dan's car being launched and the rest is sadly history. Yes the track is definitely to blame for the initial contact happening in the first place, but if the wheels were enclosed as they are on the 2012 cars then it's quite possible that Dan wouldn't have been launched. IndyCar have enclosed the rear wheels for good reason. Accidents will always happen but if we can minimise the chance of that accident resulting in serious injury or death than we should.

It's not like this sort of accident doesn't happen in F1......
http://www.ausmotive.com/F1/2010/Eur...r-flips-05.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

I think the issue is the track in this instance not the cars. They were taking a corner at 225mph, Formula 1 cars do not take corners at this sort of speeds.

Yes, coupes would help which is why this kind of track is best left to NASCAR.

---

Dan's car was in flames - what if an enlosed cockpit saved his life, but due to damage sustained from the impact could not be released and he burned to death.....

Then what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

I find it incomprehensible that somehow because it was his choice that it's OK. I don't get it. I genuinely do not understand the logic and don't feel that there is any logic behind that statement. Did F1 stand still when people were getting thrown from cars and say "Well it doesn't matter, it's their choice to race so why should we have seatbelts?" or when people were getting burnt to death and say "Well we could do something, but he understood the dangers so lets do nothing" and when Dale Earnhardt died they sure as hell didn't stand still and neither did F1 and most other high level forms of motorsport would Kubica be alive still if not for the HANS device in Canada a few years ago? I doubt it.

---

And what about bikes? those that compete in the IOM TT??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

I think the issue is the track in this instance not the cars. They were taking a corner at 225mph, Formula 1 cars do not take corners at this sort of speeds.

---

It's partly the problem. It's 1.5 miles, high banked suited towards NASCAR than open wheelers. Indeed Dario Franchitti remarked he didn't like cars running at Texas Motorspeedway in a Motorsport magazine podcast. Whether he had a particular issue with Texas or 1.5 milers as a whole wasn't said though.

The bigger issue, IMHO, has been pack racing and having cars running with the same mandated rev limit. Yes we've seen cars go airborne in isolated incidents but this was Indycar's equivalent of the 'big one'. It has been coming but its a testament to the skill of the Indycar drivers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Dan's car was in flames - what if an enlosed cockpit saved his life, but due to damage sustained from the impact could not be released and he burned to death.....

Then what?

---

But what if say...... his car didn't launch off the back of another car and there wasn't the massive impact in the first place :dozey: That's the point I'm making. As Henners says, there is always going to be danger in motorsport. But if we can make lower the chance of a car being launched and even getting to the point where the driver is having the sort of accident which could kill them then surely this is the way to go?

Dan's impact was massive and I think coupe or whatever it would have been hard to survive, but the point is that with the changes (sensibly) being implemented next year would quite possibly have meant that the big impact never took place.

As they say, prevention is better than the cure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

It truly was terrible to see. Its times like this I am glad F1 cars don't do ridiculous speeds (225mph) on oval circuits, surrounded by concrete walls with no run off area's and no tyre walls. In Dan's case his entire roll hoop failed on impact which is something I think F1 uses better design to combat. It reminded me very much of the Greg Moore accident years ago where his car turned upside down after carrying its speed across grass rather than textured run off area's. Not good. Will Power had a similar accident in all of this along with Pippa Mann but thankfully both walked/limped away, its just luck of the draw with motor racing, and the danger is always going to be there regardless of what measures are taken IMO. Sadly. :(

---

Completely agree. It would be silly of me not to have mentioned the fact that this happened on a track which wasn't really suitable for the type of racing that was going on. The danger is always going to be there as you say, but if someone dies and we can stand up and say hand on heart that all that could reasonably have been done was done then we can at least know that there was nothing more that could have been done. To say "Well they knew the risks" is to stick your head in the sand and hope that it never happens again. IMO of course......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wedge

And what about bikes? those that compete in the IOM TT??

---

Whilst the TT is massively dangerous, I think it's fairly safe to say that just about everything that can reasonably be done to keep the rides and spectators safe is being done. No one expects motorsport to be fatality free, we want that to be the case but any of us who has followed motorsport for any length of time knows this can sadly never be the case. I personally just want to know that when the lights go out that the drivers/riders/co-drivers/spectators/marshalls are as safe as we can reasonably make them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Go read JYS bio - and understand the mentality. So many of his friends were lost racing, conversations about it with his wife, but still they carried on.

---

What? Are we talking about the same Jackie Stewart?

The Jackie Stewart I've heard of continued, WHILST campaigning for changes and greater safety for all.

You are picking out little bits of history and presenting them in a certain way to back up your point. To make out that Jackie simply continued on racing and that was that misses out a lot of facts and twists the truth greatly.

Jackie wasn't happy with the way things were and through his determination many lives were saved. I seem to remember in an interview he said that he had considered quitting early, but felt that his views regarding safety wouldn't have been respected and he thought he stood a better chance of saving lives by staying in F1. Something which IMHO was the right thing to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Completely agree. It would be silly of me not to have mentioned the fact that this happened on a track which wasn't really suitable for the type of racing that was going on. The danger is always going to be there as you say, but if someone dies and we can stand up and say hand on heart that all that could reasonably have been done was done then we can at least know that there was nothing more that could have been done. To say "Well they knew the risks" is to stick your head in the sand and hope that it never happens again. IMO of course......

Whilst the TT is massively dangerous, I think it's fairly safe to say that just about everything that can reasonably be done to keep the rides and spectators safe is being done. No one expects motorsport to be fatality free, we want that to be the case but any of us who has followed motorsport for any length of time knows this can sadly never be the case. I personally just want to know that when the lights go out that the drivers/riders/co-drivers/spectators/marshalls are as safe as we can reasonably make them.

---

Daniel, do you honestly believe that a motorsport participant HAS to drive an unsafe car?

So, you say that fatalities do happen, and it is reasonable to expect it to be impossible to prevent, but in the same breath, say that the risk of a fatality being known by the drivers is no excuse as to why they participate in such a potentially dangerous activity?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

What? Are we talking about the same Jackie Stewart?

The Jackie Stewart I've heard of continued, WHILST campaigning for changes and greater safety for all.

You are picking out little bits of history and presenting them in a certain way to back up your point. To make out that Jackie simply continued on racing and that was that misses out a lot of facts and twists the truth greatly.

Jackie wasn't happy with the way things were and through his determination many lives were saved. I seem to remember in an interview he said that he had considered quitting early, but felt that his views regarding safety wouldn't have been respected and he thought he stood a better chance of saving lives by staying in F1. Something which IMHO was the right thing to do.

---

Yes - he knew the risks and continued to race. That is the mentality of each and every racer that I was referring to. Bingo.