There is an interesting piece on James Allen's blog regarding canopies. It can be suspected that visibility and quick escape by a driver will be new issues that need to get addressed. Let's see if anything comes out of it.
Printable View
There is an interesting piece on James Allen's blog regarding canopies. It can be suspected that visibility and quick escape by a driver will be new issues that need to get addressed. Let's see if anything comes out of it.
I wouldn't go as far as 'hate', but I will still dislike it, albeit not because of what has just occurred. It's much the same reason as I never had the slightest interest in the Reno air races, and will continue to hold that view for those reasons rather than this year's tragedy having a bearing on my judgement. But I would never advocate banning Reno, and I would never advocate banning oval racing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
What of it?Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
Las Vegas as an oval race track in an of itself is safe. The now obsolete Dallara Indycars are, in and of themselves, safe. What was unacceptable about Sunday's race was largely determined by the aerodynamic package of the cars. Low HP, high downforce results in no separation of cars and as such we have 34 cars doing flat-out 220mph with a separation of mere inches, and no chance of breaking away from the pack. This is indeed a very dangerous game to play - Indycar has dodged bullets with interlocking wheel contact for several years (Conway, Brack, Briscoe spring to mind) and the luck ran out on Sunday.
Once a car gets in the air there is little that can be done to predict the nature of the impact that it will experience. On Sunday we witnessed what happened when a car goes into the fence cockpit first. Webber and Villeneuve could both have encountered similar fates in the past had circumstances been different. We also saw three further examples of cars that impacted into walls/fences at different angles, and those drivers emerged relatively unscathed.
Improving safety measures to prevent accidents can take numerous paths. The simplest things that Indycar can do are to increase horsepower, dramatically reduce downforce and race on low-banked ovals. This will force drivers to drive and the element of skill will separate the cars and the likelihood of cars being launched through interlocking wheel contact is greatly reduced.
Closed-cover cockpits are a knee-jerk reaction at this stage. Legard and Allen should know better than to shoot their mouths off within 24 hours of the incident. People need time to cool off before things can be considered in a rational and logical manner.
Greg Moore's accident was a result of the access road being at a different height to the surrounding grass. In the wake of his accident the infield of most superspeedways has now been paved, removing this particular potential for accident from the equation.
I completely agree with your statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrewmcm
I think people have typically missed the point of my posts which is not really about enclosing the cockpit in this case, I don't think it was a survivable impact unless the cars were built like a Tiger tank, the thing I think that could have saved Dan was to not have the accident in the first place and I think enclosing the rear wheels is a great step towards seeing less cars getting launched into the air.
I know that's incredibly simplistic, but aren't some of the best solutions for lifes problems the ones which are painfully simple? The fact is that if Dan Wheldon's car hadn't have taken off then I'd probably still not be posting on this forum. Now how do people in this thread think we could keep F1 cars out of the air and on the ground?
I have to say I think the idea that a canopy could have protected Dan is a bit fanciful in my opinion. Great for keeping wheels or springs out of the cockpit, but not so good at keeping out catch fences which are attached to the earth.
I will concede the likes of a 'rear bumper' on F1 cars wouldn't be the end of the world!
I agree, however I also doubt how much effect that would have in a massive pile up as at Las Vegas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
One big factor behind accidents like this and Mark Webber's in Valencia is that while the open wheels allow contact between cars to flip up, the reason they fly so high isn't due to the energy received from the rotating tyre but because once substantial amounts of air get down below the flat low chassis it drives the whole car up. This cannot be resolved easily.
Canopies aren't necessarily the answer either. I believe the polycarbonate canopies used recently in FIA trials are from F16s, and that two F16 pilots have been killed in non-penetrating birdstrikes where the canopy deformed enough to hit the pilot causing fatal brain and spinal injury. Polycarbonate canopies are also heavy enough to make removing them in case of an accident a serious problem, and one ought to remember that accidents that require rapid access to the cockpit without penetration are far more common than penetration injuries to the cockpit.
Many of the factors behind the tragic accident are peculiar to Indycar, open wheel racing on oval tracks with spec chassis at high speed, very little field spread with cars often 3 abreast. In addition to that sadly at Las Vegas a few extra drivers who were race-rusty were added onto the field, including Dan Wheldon himself, although I'm sure that wasn't a factor in his involvement.
As David Coulthard's article in the Telegraph indicates though Indycar had a reputation amongst drivers for relatively high risk racing, a reputation borne out by the high number of deaths and injuries relative to F1. It was their choice and ultimately isn't that why we the fans hold these guys in awe? They know the risks and yet they still face them week after week, that indeed makes them special.
But we're not talking about canopies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Malbec
The issue here is that the car took off. Why did it take off? Because it had air underneath it. Why did it have air underneath it? Because it rode up over the back of another car.
If you stop the cars riding up over the back of each other than you stop this sort of accident from happening. Will rear bumpers as Mark calls them help to minimise the risk of this? One would reasonably have to say yes due to the fact that wheel to wheel contact is less likely. I don't think the designers made that particular change just for aesthetics.....
I'm slightly confused by the inability by why we're talking about canopies in regards to an accident which was probably not survivable in anything else other than a Panzer tank..... prevention is better than the cure.
Why be so defensive? Canopies were mentioned on posts 551 and 552 which is why I mentioned it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Which is probably why I agreed with Mark's post about rear 'bumper' style things on F1 cars being a decent idea, if you weren't so defensive you might have noticed this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
However there are plenty of accidents that involve a car being pushed up into the air without wheel to wheel contact as you well know, so don't expect such a change to reduce the rate of these accidents as much as you think they will.
In addition open wheel racing has traditionally been 'cleaner' than closed wheel racing because of the fear of wheel/wheel contact and the subsequent risk of injury and death. This contrast has become less obvious recently ironically due to improved safety and the resulting groundbreaking behaviour of drivers like Senna and Schumacher who would have paid with their lives for some of the stunts they pulled had they both raced 20 years earlier. Imagine what it would be like in the future if wheels are completely covered. Just compare NASCAR and Indy or BTCC and F3 to get an idea of how different the actual racing is once the risk of wheel/wheel contact is reduced substantially. Open wheel racing is called that for a reason, it defined the very nature of the sport which is why I have reservations about covering the wheels up too much.
If the cars did not use aero to push them onto the track, then they would not be going so fast that when air does get under the car, it does not do an S-Club 7 and reach for the stars.