Should f1 run coupes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

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.

---

Of course, but you seem to somehow think that this means that an F1 car could never hit another F1 car and then hit the catch fence. Accidents can happen for a variety of reasons, racing too close on an oval track is merely one of many reasons an accident can happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wedge

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.

---

I say again, if Webber had died in that situation would he be a different sort of dead to Dan?

YES, oval racing is inherently more dangerous than F1 and invites these sort of accidents to happen moreso than F1. But cars fly in F1 just as bad if they hit the wheel of the car in front at speed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Of course, but you seem to somehow think that this means that an F1 car could never hit another F1 car and then hit the catch fence.

---

Not at all. I'm sorry if any of my posts have led you to conclude that because in my years watching F1 I have obviously seen wheel to wheel contact and impacts with catch fencing and armco barriers which have caused serious injury and in some cases a fatality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Accidents can happen for a variety of reasons, racing too close on an oval track is merely one of many reasons an accident can happen.

---

Of course, but pack racing at those speeds on those kind of circuits like we saw in Las Vegas simply does not happen in F1, and yet it appears you're linking Dan Wheldon's death with your apparent wish for F1 to become more like LMP cars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Of course, but you seem to somehow think that this means that an F1 car could never hit another F1 car and then hit the catch fence. Accidents can happen for a variety of reasons, racing too close on an oval track is merely one of many reasons an accident can happen.

---

For that very reason we don't need a kneejerk reaction in F1.

They're banging wheels, carbon fibre; blocking, pushed onto the grass but not a frequency of cars going airborne as in Indycar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wedge

For that very reason we don't need a kneejerk reaction in F1.

They're banging wheels, carbon fibre; blocking, pushed onto the grass but not a frequency of cars going airborne as in Indycar.

---

I don't quite see why what I've said is in itself a reason to not make changes.

I agree that it has to be a well thought out and tested thing, you don't simply want to mandate wheel covers and then find out that they're not fixed on well enough and spectators or marshals get killed. We don't need or want a kneejerk reaction, it has to be well thought out and well designed and specced

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Of course, but you seem to somehow think that this means that an F1 car could never hit another F1 car and then hit the catch fence. Accidents can happen for a variety of reasons, racing too close on an oval track is merely one of many reasons an accident can happen.

---

The F1 I watch has run off (tarmac and/or gravel), conveyerbelt clad tyre barriers.

The cars do not go around 90 degree corners at similar speeds to those on the straights, and certainly not 2, 3 or even 4 abreast.

Only Velencia has catch fencing that can be likened with that in Indycars, and is not to be mistaken for an oval.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

The F1 I watch has run off (tarmac and/or gravel), conveyorbelt clad tyre barriers.

The cars do not go around 90 degree corners at similar speeds to those on the straights, and certainly not 2, 3 or even 4 abreast.

Only Velencia has catch fencing, and is not to be mistaken for an oval.

---

I didn't say it was an oval? Again you miss the point, a car taking off is NOT a good thing and each time the driver is at a significantly higher risk of death or serious injury than when he's on the ground. 4 or 47 abreast, the accident was for all intents and purposes a 2 car accident. We have more than 1 car racing at a time in F1 don't we?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

Not at all. I'm sorry if any of my posts have led you to conclude that because in my years watching F1 I have obviously seen wheel to wheel contact and impacts with catch fencing and armco barriers which have caused serious injury and in some cases a fatality.


Of course, but pack racing at those speeds on those kind of circuits like we saw in Las Vegas simply does not happen in F1, and yet it appears you're linking Dan Wheldon's death with your apparent wish for F1 to become more like LMP cars.

---

What was going on before Dan's accident is somewhat irrelevant tbh. Any open wheeled car could have an accident like that be it on a corner, on an oval or on a straight. Like you say wheel to wheel contact has in the past resulted in fatal injuries. No doubt F1 is safer now, but perhaps we just need to do away with flying cars? Is it a necessary part of F1?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

I didn't say it was an oval? Again you miss the point, a car taking off is NOT a good thing and each time the driver is at a significantly higher risk of death or serious injury than when he's on the ground. 4 or 47 abreast, the accident was for all intents and purposes a 2 car accident. We have more than 1 car racing at a time in F1 don't we?

---

Q. Why did Dan's car hit another?
A. Because the cars in front were going slower.

Q. Why were the cars in front going slower?
A. Because there was a multicar pileup they were trying to avoid.

Q. Why was there a multicar pileup?
A. Because the cars - 34 of them - were running close together, flat out, on a short oval track.

Now compare this to F1 - no comparison.

You simply are very unlikely (this is a risk factor that has to be considered) to be cornering at max speed in an area on current F1 tracks where there is; catch fencing and banked track that could replicate Dan's accident circumstances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Q. Why did Dan's car hit another?
A. Because the cars in front were going slower.

Q. Why were the cars in front going slower?
A. Because there was a multicar pileup they were trying to avoid.

Q. Why was there a multicar pileup?
A. Because the cars - 34 of them - were running close together, flat out, on a short oval track.

Now compare this to F1 - no comparison.

You simply are very unlikely (this is a risk factor that has to be considered) to be cornering at max speed in an area on current F1 tracks where there is; catch fencing and banked track that could replicate Dan's accident circumstances.

---

A couple of questions for you

Q Could this accident have happened if there were only two cars on the track?
A <Enter your answer in here>

Q Have we ever had accidents in F1 where cars have hit slower cars in front?
A <Enter your answer in here>

By your reasoning, because IndyCar hasn't had any incidents (of late that I'm aware of) where an object like a spring or a wheel hitting a driver in the head that it could never happen in IndyCar. The attitudes of people on here seem a lot like putting your heads in the sand and just blindly hoping that it never happens.

IndyCar was taking precautionary action against to help stop cars from taking off but F1 charges blindly on hoping that no one gets killed during one of these silly flights :)