Should f1 run coupes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wedge

Stirling Moss competing in historic events wearing a tin hat and no safety belt, what a tool!

Tragedy is part of the sport. Unfortunately racing wouldn't be racing without it. I'm thankful I'm in an era where fatalities are few than in past decades. Element of danger should be part of the sport too.

---

Did I say that? What would you say if he said we should return to the way things were in his day? He wouldn't say that of course, but if he did?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

Having said that, the premise behind returning to this thread is in my opinion, classless beyond what even this forum expects. It's a classic example of attempting to say "I told you so" that doesn't relate to this thread or F1 racing, and as usual accuses anyone with an alternate opinion of trolling and cries that a moderator should get involved.

The event that led to the death of a man has already been addressed, as proven by the fact that the prototypes did a demonstration run the day before Wheldon sadly lost his life.

---

I'm sorry, but SGWilko's posts in this thread are merely there for the sole intention of getting a rise out of me. Is that actually OK with people?

You obviously miss the point of the thread which is that there are problems inherent with open wheel open cockpit racing which should be adressed. Formula 2 cars, IndyCars and F1 cars all have the same issue with debris being able to hit drivers and also with wheels touching each other and launching other cars. Now the reason for this thread is that F1 usually leads by example so if F1 has wheel tethers then this filters down.

The accident and death of Dan Wheldon was incredibly tragic.

However, it has no relevance to F1.

F1 does not race on ovals lined with walls and fencing. Therefore, to use the death of a young driver to bring this back up, Daniel, in a "look what I told you" kind of way, is incredibly self-indulgent and pathetic.

Safety is incredibly good in F1. We have not had a death since 1994.

You will never remove 100% the possibility of a death at a racetrack, and if you go too far in the way of safety then you may as well not bother racing in the first place, as that would be safer!

Coupes / canopies are not what F1 are about. Yes, we need to protect drivers heads from flying wheels etc but there are certain dangers that drivers have to face. Freak accidents can and will occur I am afraid, but in the case of Felipe Massa, the modern helmet was strong and saved his life. You can't ask more than that.

Move on now, please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bezza

The accident and death of Dan Wheldon was incredibly tragic.

However, it has no relevance to F1.

F1 does not race on ovals lined with walls and fencing. Therefore, to use the death of a young driver to bring this back up, Daniel, in a "look what I told you" kind of way, is incredibly self-indulgent and pathetic.

Safety is incredibly good in F1. We have not had a death since 1994.

You will never remove 100% the possibility of a death at a racetrack, and if you go too far in the way of safety then you may as well not bother racing in the first place, as that would be safer!

Coupes / canopies are not what F1 are about. Yes, we need to protect drivers heads from flying wheels etc but there are certain dangers that drivers have to face. Freak accidents can and will occur I am afraid, but in the case of Felipe Massa, the modern helmet was strong and saved his life. You can't ask more than that.

Move on now, please.

---

I missed the moment where you became a moderator Bezza :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Agreed, but you must factor in the amount of rookies/inexperienced pilots, the sheer volume of cars on the track, the speeds and the fact that one guy was racing through the pack with the carrot of $5m dangling in front if he won....

---

I agree with everything but your last point. As Mario Andretti has said (in response to similar suggestions elsewhere):

Quote:

---

Dan Wheldon did not take mad risk because he was over-motivated by $5 mil prize. To imply he drove different due to $$, you offend his honor

---

http://twitter.com/#!/MarioAndretti/...49225826062336

I think someone said earlier in the thread that Dan Wheldon saw the accident happening ahead and might have seen it as an opportunity to make up places. That might be right, but if it was he wouldn't have been the only one of the drivers to think that way, and the money would have made no difference.

In the fictional film Grand Prix Jean Pierre Sarti said when he saw an accident he put his foot down because others may be lifting.

As for this thread the same arguments that have been repeated over and over again apply. Motorsport is dangerous. Accidents will happen. If we don't want these kind of things to happen then stop racing. The thread had run its course some time ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

Ok, there's some crossed wires here. I'm not against rear bumpers but I do feel that would be a slippery slope towards covering up the wheels, if not car style then certainly kart style. Its the effect of covering up the wheels completely that I'm worried about.



You misunderstood what I wrote.

You wrote that the TT had done everything it possibly could have done to increase safety. I pointed out that it clearly hadn't for the reasons I described.

Andrewmcm's post however described something completely different, something far more important.

He wrote about the nature of risk and racing and how riders and drivers chose to drive knowing the risks. This is the point you've continually avoided again and again, something you have failed to give a satisfactory answer to.

Anyway this is my last post on this topic. Daniel, the first time I read your posts was on a thread where you wanted to ban chip fryers I think, its pretty clear we'll never agree on individual rights to choose risk taking activities.

---

You're almost sounding American there. The fact that chip pans are more or less indigenous to the UK and surprisingly chip pan fires only occur in the UK. The logical thought process is that we don't do things which are risky but have a relatively low reward. There are much better alternatives to chip pans which is why they shouldn't be used any longer. It's a daft situation that falling asleep whilst cooking your dinner should result in you being killed. My mum actually had a chip pan when I was about 2 and guess what, it caught fire and nicely scorched the wall and ceiling of the house we were living in at the time. 1985 Daniel's mum went out and bought herself an electric deep frier which doesn't catch on fire when left for too long. Still, if you want people to have the freedom to die just because they've fallen asleep whilst making chips then I guess that's your thing :)

I didn't ignore what Andrewmcm said, I gave an example in my own life how I happily do something which is more dangerous than something that I refuse to do. There are always some who are more risk averse than some others. That people had reservations about the race says it all.

Why did you not just come out and say "I'm not against covering the wheels up as such, I'm just worried that it'll go further and further" originally? It would have saved a lot of aggravation and time.

This thread has become like an oval race. Round and round and round and round and round and round until something(one) puts an end to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

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.

---

Enclosed wheels will ONLY prevent a car getting airborne as a result of wheel to wheel contact in a certain manner. A car that t-bones another with a defferential in closing speeds will likely result in the approaching car riding up and getting airborne.

Quote:

---

Alex Lloyd: "Is our job worth the risk? When you think of Dan's wife and children left behind, the answer is simple. No. But coming into this race you could argue that the risks are so remote that it was worth the risk to do what we love. Injury is possible, but we just haven't seen a death in the sport for a long time, and huge safety improvements have been made.
"Sunday we learned the hard truth: that no matter how much we can improve safety and plan for all eventualities, some things are impossible to prepare for. I think over this off-season we will evaluate what went wrong and how we can prevent this from happening again. And mark my words, we will learn from this.
"No one can be blamed for this accident. It is just that, an accident. We will learn and improve, but we will not blame."

---

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/95517

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

I'm sorry, but SGWilko's posts in this thread are merely there for the sole intention of getting a rise out of me. Is that actually OK with people?

---

Maybe if you pull the pole out from your keester, you'd spend less time assuming I'm proviking you and realise I am provoking thought as to your stance on what causes, and what will prevent accidents.

For all we know, had Dan's car not got grated on the fencing, he might still be here to tell the tale. If you hit a car with bumpers hard enough, will the bumpers not contact the wheel and be sent flying, possibly into the crowd.

Do as Joe Saward suggests, wait and see what the experts have to say after investigations have been carried out.....

Never mind, as you were......