Should f1 run coupes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Osmosis? :D

---

Well, it worked with Joan Crawford, so it's always a possibility!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

The point I was making was that he was talking about cars flying and made mention of his car flying so there was possibly an implication there even if he didn't explicitly state it. I guess it takes a certain sort of driver who can look at an accident like Webber's and then at Dan's accident and not draw parallel's between the two, to drive in F1 and be fearless. He did say that his accident could have gone one of two ways. Thankfully in F1 the fences are usually at more of an acute angle to the impacts, the impacts are slower and dare I say it, the racing isn't thankfully as close! (I feel rather conflicted when saying that last part) But a flying car vs catch fence fatal accident could still happen.

---

The racing is slower
Tracks are wider
Cars are safer
Speeds are lower
Drivers are better
Quantity of cars is lower

All the above applies to F1 when comparing to IndyCars, and is justfication I believe for no need for a knee-jerk decision to sort out F1 safety when it is not F1 that has had any problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

I think its worth noting that nowhere in the article does Mark suggest the rear wheels of F1 cars are to be enclosed in his opinion. He supports it in IndyCar because of the style of racing it has (Ovals with tight pack racing) and he makes comparisons between the safety levels of the two.

---

Hallelujah!

Finally an understanding of idiosyncrasies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

When I've had the chance to watch, I've also loved watching IndyCars on ovals purely because of the speed and the fact that they can overtake anywhere. Heck I'll watch NASCAR if it's on. If we stop IndyCars from flying then it's just that bit safer, an open wheeler with a pointy noise and bits that stick out just isn't really made to crash into a catch fence, not well at least.

---

Watching is one thing, following and knowing about idiosyncrasies is another. Otherwise we have knee jerk reactions like reviving ths thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

The point I was making was that he was talking about cars flying and made mention of his car flying so there was possibly an implication there even if he didn't explicitly state it. I guess it takes a certain sort of driver who can look at an accident like Webber's and then at Dan's accident and not draw parallel's between the two, to drive in F1 and be fearless. He did say that his accident could have gone one of two ways. Thankfully in F1 the fences are usually at more of an acute angle to the impacts, the impacts are slower and dare I say it, the racing isn't thankfully as close! (I feel rather conflicted when saying that last part) But a flying car vs catch fence fatal accident could still happen.

---

Both went airborne but go deeper there's no comparison.

It is very obvious that Webber was too greedy with his slipstream. A stupid error and completely avoidable, just like Hamilton trying to pass Kobayashi at Spa.

Wheldon was almost literally trying to dodge a bullet due to the small margin of error of pack racing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bezza

The racing is slower
Tracks are wider
Cars are safer
Speeds are lower
Drivers are better
Quantity of cars is lower

All the above applies to F1 when comparing to IndyCars, and is justfication I believe for no need for a knee-jerk decision to sort out F1 safety when it is not F1 that has had any problems.

---

Dario Franchitti was involved in two similar massive accidents but is also Indycar champion and well respected within motorsport.

Unlike NASCAR where pack racing usually involves a massive pile up but very rarely in Indycar. They race wheel to wheel, lap after lap, averaging 220mph a lap. The margin for error is very small but big ones have been very very rare since this style of racing was introduced in 1996.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

I wonder if anyone else will care to admit that enclosing the rear wheels of the cars is not such a bad thing to do now.....

---

I'm suspect anyone who witnessed the accident in Vegas is of the same opinion, and Indycar had already addressed this with the 2012 Dallara.

However, with regards to F1 and open wheel racing generally Daniel, it seems you will not rest until the cars become clones of Le Mans Prototypes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

I'm suspect anyone who witnessed the accident in Vegas is of the same opinion, and Indycar had already addressed this with the 2012 Dallara.

However, with regards to F1 and open wheel racing generally Daniel, it seems you will not rest until the cars become clones of Le Mans Prototypes.

---

Whilst personally I'd quite like that, I understand it's not most people's cup of tea. What then is so wrong with that Ferrari concept thing that's been posted early on with some sort of enclosure over the rear wheels? I think the artist has made some shall we say "errors" like putting the driver where the engine should be, but aside from that it's quite aesthetically pleasing and still quite true to the whole open wheel racing philosophy. Yeah I'd love coupes in F1, but I'd settle for a well thought out car in the same shape as a current car, just with an enclosed cockpit and rear whees which are enclosed from the rear. That people feel that a driver being able to have his head taken off by a wheel or spring is somehow part of F1 is a bit silly......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wedge

Both went airborne but go deeper there's no comparison.

It is very obvious that Webber was too greedy with his slipstream. A stupid error and completely avoidable, just like Hamilton trying to pass Kobayashi at Spa.

Wheldon was almost literally trying to dodge a bullet due to the small margin of error of pack racing.

---

I don't quite see why the fact that Mark was greedy and Dan was just unfortunate makes a difference? If Webber's accident had been fatal would he be a different kind of dead to Dan?

As was pointed out in my first post on Monday, it would be silly to ignore the part that the track and the numbers of cars played in the accident, but we could have a similar accident in F1 in the right (wrong) circumstances. Whether it's a pack accident or just two is irrelevant when someone's car is getting grated by the catch fence as SGWilko put it.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

I don't quite see why the fact that Mark was greedy and Dan was just unfortunate makes a difference? If Webber's accident had been fatal would he be a different kind of dead to Dan?

---

How many cars were involved in Webber's accident. How many other cars were in the vicinity?

Closest we'll ever find it in F1 is on the first lap cars jockeying for position but in Indycar racing the majority of laps will be like the first lap therefore such incidents are rare in F1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wedge

How many cars were involved in Webber's accident. How many other cars were in the vicinity?

Closest we'll ever find it in F1 is on the first lap cars jockeying for position but in Indycar racing the majority of laps will be like the first lap therefore such incidents are rare in F1.

---

I think you're missing the point. It only takes two cars to have an incident like that where a car flies. As far as I remember Dan only hit the car in front and then got shot into the air and the rest is history. Yes Dan's accident was part of a 14 car pileup, but it was a 2 car accident that killed him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

That people feel that a driver being able to have his head taken off by a wheel or spring is somehow part of F1 is a bit silly......

---

May I say that is more than silly way of representing some views that have been expressed here. No-one feels that such things are an intrinsic part of the sport in the same way as, for example, Ferrari is, or Monaco, or the tradition of spaying champagne on the podium.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Yes Dan's accident was part of a 14 car pileup, but it was a 2 car accident that killed him.

---

I rather think you may be missing the point. Dan Wheldon's accident was a consequence of a chain reaction caused by 34 cars running flat out on a high speed high banked 1.5mile oval.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

I think you're missing the point. It only takes two cars to have an incident like that where a car flies. As far as I remember Dan only hit the car in front and then got shot into the air and the rest is history. Yes Dan's accident was part of a 14 car pileup, but it was a 2 car accident that killed him.

---

F1 heads can contribute to the debate but not more than those in Indycar.

Of course accidents will happen but if you knew about the problems blatant in Indycar then arguably you can reduce the cause.

Webber's was due to an unforced error.

Wheldon was trying to dodge a pile up. Making the cars safer is one thing but how about if we could string the cars out more on 1.5 miles ovals or even ban going to them ever again and instead continue to run short 1 mile ovals where the speeds are lower and the superspeedways where speeds are very high but less likely to get a massive pile up due to cars being more strung out and therefore more likely to dodge a wreck.