Should f1 run coupes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

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 :)

---

Point is, reservations were expressed about the safety of the specific track and the speeds, number of cars etc. It was, in effect, an accident waiting to happen.

It could have happened with only two cars on the track, but what is the likelihood?

Yes, Mark Webber hit the slower Lotus. Also the start fiasco in Spa last century, one of the tail end charlies when full chat into the carnage, but no-one took off.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

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 :)

---

And the mentality was that they could go even faster as a result :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

What was going on before Dan's accident is somewhat irrelevant...

---

It is entirely relevant IMHO. You continue to insist that it was a two car accident as if the other 32 cars weren't on the track and played no part. You simply can't isolate one element of such a crash in that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

...perhaps we just need to do away with flying cars? Is it a necessary part of F1?

---

For goodness sake, "flying cars" are not a "part of F1" in the same way that (as we've already discussed) "a driver being able to have his head taken off by a wheel or spring" is not a "part of F1". These are not common occurrences, and they are as likely to happen at, say, Le Mans or along the M4. Should we all stop driving on motorways?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

It is entirely relevant IMHO. You continue to insist that it was a two car accident as if the other 32 cars weren't on the track and played no part. You simply can't isolate one element of such a crash in that way.

For goodness sake, "flying cars" are not a "part of F1" in the same way that (as we've already discussed) "a driver being able to have his head taken off by a wheel or spring" is not a "part of F1". These are not common occurrences, and they are as likely to happen at, say, Le Mans or along the M4. Should we all stop driving on motorways?

---

I'm not saying it played no part. You and your comrades seem to think that it can only happen when there are 34 cars on the track racing together. Mark Webber has shown that you don't need 34 cars on the track for it to happen.

If flying cars and people with serious/fatal head injuries are not intrinsic to F1 then why not minimise the chance of their occurence? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

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.

---

Actually, it looks like the Korean circuit looks to have concrete walls and catch fencing right on the border of the racing surface for about 1/2 of the course. Singapore, well, I call that catch fencing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

I'm not saying it played no part. You and your comrades seem to think that it can only happen when there are 34 cars on the track racing together. Mark Webber has shown that you don't need 34 cars on the track for it to happen.

If flying cars and people with serious/fatal head injuries are not intrinsic to F1 then why not minimise the chance of their occurence? :confused:

---

How many times does this point need to be repeated. It's an accepted risk in F1 because such incidents are rare.

It's different in Indycar. The problems that it has has been brewing for years.

Webber didn't exactly jump on his soapbox calling for change after his accident.

Not quite the same in Indycars when you're hanging for dear life lap after lap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wedge

Webber didn't exactly jump on his soapbox calling for change after his accident.

---

People have to die in F1 before something changes. Webber didn't die.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

I'm expecting a Star Wars question next just for consistency.

---

It´s raining here, it seems as I´m not that dumb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

People have to die in F1 before something changes. Webber didn't die.

---

That's how motorsport generally works, I'm afraid.

It's a dangerous sport and accidents will happen. Open wheelers racing wheel to wheel is one of the great spectacles in racing. To what extent should this occur is a question for Indycar and definitely not F1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

Thats not strictly true as we've seen systems put in place since Massa's accident, most notably the black reinforced strips drivers now have on their helmets to make the visor area tougher should the driver be hit by a small dense object. The cockpit sides were also raised after Coulthard and Wurz came together a few years ago too. Both accidents could have been fatal and things were done after learning from such incidents. It would be easy to have knee jerk reactions to such incidents like banning circuits, but F1 is top of the game in terms of safety and I think IndyCar can learn alot from it.

---

It works both ways.

CART pioneered the cushion protection around the cockpit and wheel tethers before F1.

When Ralf had his rear end shunt at Indy nearly a decade ago he was out for months, whereas an IRL driver wouldn't have had that problem as IRL cars have gone through rigorous gearbox/rear end crash tests.

So, off topic of course. But are we all still happy with our personal definitions of acceptable risk after the events of this weekend past?