Should f1 run coupes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

B-b-b-b-but this IS the canopy thread, which you resurrected in response to the death of a driver in an open cockpit car.

Are you indecisive now, or just not sure?

---

Listen. There is a dedicated canopy thread. Stop trolling or a decent moderator might come along and give you an infringement for trying to cause a fight..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Did you not notice crash barriers in certain areas which are a bit more forgiving than stone walls? There are now people with flags in most of the danger spots and the race pretty much gets cancelled if there are more than a few drops of water on the road.

---

So in 100 years we've now got crash barriers and better marshalling?

As I said, compare that with the changes made in Spa over the same period, a road circuit of similar length to the IoM (or even greater IIRC), then you may view your statement that everything possible has been done to improve safety at the TT in a new light.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

Pretty much nothing has been done to make the TT safer apart from moving spectators back a bit in certain areas and improving marshalling and medical access. Any active improvement has been the result of advances in motorbike design in general.

If you want to see how road circuits can be made safer take a look at La Sarthe or Spa, both of which have been in use for a similar period as the IoM course. Both had dedicated run off areas built and in Spa's case the course length was butchered to give a shorter track with vastly improved safety features. They've done nothing like it in the IoM.

---

I concur with the above.

There are no runoff areas with oval tracks, the cars run 200+ mph next to walls. If an accident happens, they don't spray off into a gravel trap and in the case of high-banked turns but slide back down the track and into the path of oncoming traffic.
NASCAR at least has the benefit of placing the drivers in a moly-tube roll cage; their heads aren't exposed to flying bits but Indycars...?

The IoM is worse in that respect, bike riders when they fall off risk becoming part of the scenery.

I think some people are not seeing the wood for the trees here about 'danger' and acceptance of risk. Motorbike road racers in Northern Ireland and the TT accept that there is a finite chance that the next time they get off the bike it may well be at 180mph and into the nearest available piece of scenery. The Northwest 200 track was modified at Mather's Cross following Robert Dunlop's accident, and several of the riders now complain that the track is now too sanitised. Some of the riders in motorbike road racing want the thrill of 'pure' racing on the roads. The sheer length of the TT course renders it impossible to ensure that every corner has minimal risk. But riders turn up in their droves to compete and always rave about the challenge and excitement the course offers. I would much rather have sanctioned road racing in NI and the Isle of Man, where safety features are present instead of illicit road races being organised with no safety at all.

In much the same manner there are reports that several of the Indycar drivers intimated that a large crash was likely on race day. They all still went out to compete though. They accepted the risk and unfortunately that acceptance cost one driver his life. They've accepted the risk for that kind of oval pack racing for numerous years and finally the luck ran out.

I would love to see someone attempt to design an oval with a run-off area. How do you stop the gravel running down into the actual race track? Doesn't the run off have to be at the same inclination as the banking in order to stop the cars launching when they reach the 'run-off' area? Gravity dictates that cars which hit the outer wall of an oval may well slide back down onto the racing line, so how much run-off is enough? Is it feasible to build an oval track that is about 300ft wide? Where do the crowd sit?

The SAFER barrier is a marvellous invention. The next step in terms of oval track safety, as Paul Tracy points out, is to develop some form of glass-like 'fence' analogous to that used in the NHL, but it must obviously be capable of taking the impact of a 1,000kg car travelling at 220mph+. The most obvious step for Indycars is to avoid pack racing on ovals, as stated above. Knees are still being jerked on this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

So in 100 years we've now got crash barriers and better marshalling?

As I said, compare that with the changes made in Spa over the same period, a road circuit of similar length to the IoM (or even greater IIRC), then you may view your statement that everything possible has been done to improve safety at the TT in a new light.

---

Of course. But as long as there is racing on a track with open wheeled cars there are always going to be cars flying or riding up over each other unless the rear wheels ar enclosed. Even then I'm sure we'll still see cars flying, but the point is that the risk is lessened. If you want to go off on one about the TT then fantastic, there's a whole forum for that. Comparing Spa to the TT is silly, the circuits are nowhere to a similar length. There is only so much you can do anywhere to protect a person who is daft enough to not be in a car and goes flying into the scenery at speed. It's entirely possible that the accident on the weekend need not have happened in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrewmcm

I think some people are not seeing the wood for the trees here about 'danger' and acceptance of risk. Motorbike road racers in Northern Ireland and the TT accept that there is a finite chance that the next time they get off the bike it may well be at 180mph and into the nearest available piece of scenery. The Northwest 200 track was modified at Mather's Cross following Robert Dunlop's accident, and several of the riders now complain that the track is now too sanitised. Some of the riders in motorbike road racing want the thrill of 'pure' racing on the roads. The sheer length of the TT course renders it impossible to ensure that every corner has minimal risk. But riders turn up in their droves to compete and always rave about the challenge and excitement the course offers. I would much rather have sanctioned road racing in NI and the Isle of Man, where safety features are present instead of illicit road races being organised with no safety at all.

In much the same manner there are reports that several of the Indycar drivers intimated that a large crash was likely on race day. They all still went out to compete though. They accepted the risk and unfortunately that acceptance cost one driver his life. They've accepted the risk for that kind of oval pack racing for numerous years and finally the luck ran out.

I would love to see someone attempt to design an oval with a run-off area. How do you stop the gravel running down into the actual race track? Doesn't the run off have to be at the same inclination as the banking in order to stop the cars launching when they reach the 'run-off' area? Gravity dictates that cars which hit the outer wall of an oval may well slide back down onto the racing line, so how much run-off is enough? Is it feasible to build an oval track that is about 300ft wide? Where do the crowd sit?

The SAFER barrier is a marvellous invention. The next step in terms of oval track safety, as Paul Tracy points out, is to develop some form of glass-like 'fence' analogous to that used in the NHL, but it must obviously be capable of taking the impact of a 1,000kg car travelling at 220mph+. The most obvious step for Indycars is to avoid pack racing on ovals, as stated above. Knees are still being jerked on this thread.

---

The human mind is very interesting when it comes to how we deal with risk. I **** myself when I see a big spider and go and run and stand on a chair to keep the 8 legged ******* away from me. Yet I'll happily go out on the moors and drive quickly knowing full well I could fall off the road and that is that. The fact that I gain 0 enjoyment out of dealing with a spider and me gaining plenty of enjoyment out of having what is a pretty sedate drive over the moors by the standards of most will tell you why I'm happy to risk it in my car.

I think there are plenty of ways to still have the thrill of oval racing yet lessen the risk. Less risk is always good IMHO.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

And the notion that the drivers involved in F1 would somehow steer clear of contact because of their superiority as drivers compared to the practitioners of NASCAR, the BTCC, etc can be thrown out of the window straight away. Behaviour would change.

---

Funny thing is I posted a thread along a similar line which basically theorised that as cars on the road get safer, people drive less safely because they think that with all the safety equipment that they'll never be the one to die. People disagreed of course :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Of course. But as long as there is racing on a track with open wheeled cars there are always going to be cars flying or riding up over each other unless the rear wheels ar enclosed.

---

Enclosing the rear wheels will still result in cars flying up, albeit less than now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Comparing Spa to the TT is silly, the circuits are nowhere to a similar length. There is only so much you can do anywhere to protect a person who is daft enough to not be in a car and goes flying into the scenery at speed. It's entirely possible that the accident on the weekend need not have happened in the first place.

---

This is where I think you show your enthusiasm but lack of knowledge.

Spa used to be about 9 miles long and lined with trees that grew to the circuit edges like the ones that claimed the life of Dick Seaman who wrapped his Mercedes round one. It was made safer after the war with the trees cut down, then they shortened the track to roughly what we have now, then run off areas have been added, gravel initially then tarmac. Finally the circuit has recently become a permanent one as opposed to a temporary road course.

These are the changes made to a circuit where the race organisers were historically anti-safety change, arguing that drivers should bring a different mentality to Spa so safety changes should not apply.

Alternatively one could look at the changes made to motorbike racing tracks over the same period which are again impressive.

On that scale the TT has done nothing to improve safety, so your original comment about the safety changes at the TT are still wrong.

As for why the TT is relevant, I suggest you read Andrewmcm's posts which I agree with completely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

This is where I think you show your enthusiasm but lack of knowledge.

Spa used to be about 9 miles long and lined with trees that grew to the circuit edges like the ones that claimed the life of Dick Seaman who wrapped his Mercedes round one. It was made safer after the war with the trees cut down, then they shortened the track to roughly what we have now, then run off areas have been added, gravel initially then tarmac. Finally the circuit has recently become a permanent one as opposed to a temporary road course.

---

Tell me Malbec, how long is the Mountain Course over which the TT is run? I'm sure you'll apologise once you realise that you're indeed the one who is lacking in knowledge.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Tell me Malbec, how long is the Mountain Course over which the TT is run? I'm sure you'll apologise once you realise that you're indeed the one who is lacking in knowledge.....

---

You're right Daniel, the IoM TT is indeed held over a longer distance than the original Spa course, however I don't see how that changes my point.

I am surprised that you bleat on and on about increasing safety in disciplines where lives are rarely (but tragically) lost but are happy with a few extra crash barriers and red flags at a track where several riders die on an annual basis....