Should f1 run coupes?

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 would Kubica be alive still if not for the HANS device in Canada a few years ago? I doubt it.

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.

---

If the driver HAS to race a needlessly and inherently dangerous car, then there is something wrong with the sport, and someone will be charged with corporate manslaughter.

Or, the driver, knowing his car to be dangerous, has the choice to abstain. Prost was the only driver I recall ever having the bollocks to refuse to race in wet conditions he considered dangerous.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

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?

---

That's not what I've said at all. Stop twisting my words like this.

What I have said quite clearly and unambiguously is that whilst motorsport is dangerous and fatalities will always happen, is that it should be made as safe as is reasonably possible. IndyCar have already prior to this incident seen fit to choose a design which enclosed the rear wheels for next year and meant that this sort of accident would be much less likely in the future. Surely that tells you something.

1. That the risk was there and obvious
2. That the risk was deemed to be too much
3. That it was felt that there was a solution to this issue which didn't compromise the racing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

What happened yesterday in Las vegas could happen in F1.

---

Really? Since when do F1 cars run almost altogether, sometimes 3 or 4 abreast on wall enclosed banked oval tracks at speeds exceeding 220mph for most of the lap?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

I have to say after yesterdays events I was sadly reminded of this thread. I agonised over whether to post this and decided that the best thing to do was to post. Call me callous, call me cruel, say that I'm using someone's death to make a point, whatever, but I just don't see why people have to race with something that's needleessly inherently dangerous.

Of course the fact that the race was on a high banked oval with lots of cars was a big factor. But Dan got launched because when two open wheel cars touch, the one behind is generally going to get launched. I won't post pictures on here out of respect for Dan (RIP), but you clearly see him getting launched off the back of someone and then the rest is history sadly.... Do we need cars launching in motorsport? Should we not do everything to make sure this doesn't happen?

Extremely sad that he would die in the very last race before the design of the cars was to be changed in a way which probably would have meant Dan wouldn't have been launched.
http://indycar.com/var/assets_content/2012update.png

RIP Dan Wheldon :(

---

Re your post above, I've bolded what you stated in bringing this thread to life again.......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

If the driver HAS to race a needlessly and inherently dangerous car, then there is something wrong with the sport, and someone will be charged with corporate manslaughter.

Or, the driver, knowing his car to be dangerous, has the choice to abstain. Prost was the only driver I recall ever having the bollocks to refuse to race in wet conditions he considered dangerous.....

---

I think you're missing the point by a mile. Whether the driver has to or whatever is not the point. Whether a driver has a choice or not will not stop an accident from happening and a driver from dying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

I think you're missing the point by a mile. Whether the driver has to or whatever is not the point. Whether a driver has a choice or not will not stop an accident from happening and a driver from dying.

---

Indeed, you cannot mandate for anything - if it's going to happen, it will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

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

---

Everytime you say this you forget to tag on the "...whilst tirelessly campaigning for extra safety measures and threatening track owners with boycotts if safety wasn't improved" bit.

If you want to continue "interpreting" things like this then you're welcome to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

In Dan's case his entire roll hoop failed on impact

---

Really, that's terrible - nothing would have saved him in that case when such an integral part of the structure fails due to the sheer loads involved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Everytime you say this you forget to tag on the "...whilst tirelessly campaigning for extra safety measures and threatening track owners with boycotts if safety wasn't improved" bit.

If you want to continue "interpreting" things like this then you're welcome to do so.

---

Daniel, track owners ideas as to safety in those days were maybe to provide a bucket of sand in case there was a fire. When you turn up and armcos are fitted the wrong way round or bits missing, then that is another story.

You are banging on about fitting a canopy or enclosing wheels to a car to prevent the unpreventable freak accident.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Daniel, track owners ideas as to safety in those days were maybe to provide a bucket of sand in case there was a fire. When you turn up and armcos are fitted the wrong way round or bits missing, then that is another story.

You are banging on about fitting a canopy or enclosing wheels to a car to prevent the unpreventable freak accident.....

---

What?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!

Can you honestly tell me that with a field of 2012 cars, the same accident would have occured for sure in the same circumstances? This beggars belief. Why you are not a consultant with the FIA for safety is simply impossible to comprehend when you obviously can see the pointlessness in something which IndyCar has developed specifically to stop this sort of accident or at least minimise the occurence.

You're either very delusional about your ability to understand risk and the dynamics of contact between two open wheel vehicles or you're trolling. Throughout todays posting I have used terms like possibly and maybe to describe whether having the rear wheels enclosed on the car might have stopped this incident resulting in a fatality and you just come and say that the accident was "unpreventable".

This is a prime example why I've quit this forum, only returning to this thread because safety is always worth discussing. You try to be reasonable, you try to understand that no one can ever know anything 100% and someone comes along and states that an accident is 100% for sure cast iron dead cert unpreventable :dozey: