Should f1 run coupes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kfzmeister

http://www.iacoski.com/wp-content/th...300&zc=1&q=100

---

Ah hell no!!!!! :down:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wedge

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.

---

Ralf's rear end structures didn't fail. He had an undisplaced vertebral body fracture purely due to the huge forces involved in the accident, an injury which apart from being painful wasn't a problem except if he had a second high energy impact while it healed. The fact that he was out for several months wasn't directly due to the severity of his injuries therefore.

Also rear end impact testing was a part of F1 at the time of his accident, IIRC it was side impact testing that was only just being introduced at the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrewmcm

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?

---

I think it would be helpful if Daniel defined the level of risk he is prepared to accept because I don't think its very clear in many of his posts. The rest of us seem to be singing from the same hymn sheet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrewmcm

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?

---

Those participating in motor sport are aware of the risks and choose to accept them. Those risks always have been, and always will be, there.

Sadly, events of recent days remind us there are consequences for some who choose to accept the risks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

Ralf's rear end structures didn't fail. He had an undisplaced vertebral body fracture purely due to the huge forces involved in the accident, an injury which apart from being painful wasn't a problem except if he had a second high energy impact while it healed. The fact that he was out for several months wasn't directly due to the severity of his injuries therefore.

Also rear end impact testing was a part of F1 at the time of his accident, IIRC it was side impact testing that was only just being introduced at the time.

---

Never said it did fail. I was arguing that IRL's requrements would be the 'better' car in a rear end shunt due to the nature of oval racing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wedge

Never said it did fail. I was arguing that IRL's requrements would be the 'better' car in a rear end shunt due to the nature of oval racing.

---

Sorry, but I fail to see how Ralf would have done any better in an Indy car.

His injuries were the result of the sheer speed he was going at prior to his accident, if anything on the oval Indy track the speeds would have been even higher and the potential for injury even greater. Remember that the car he was in didn't fail, the safety cell was entirely intact and there wasn't any intrusion into the cockpit.

What that accident did show was that regardless of how well the safety equipment on these cars works there is a limit to how much energy the body can dissipate in an accident. IMO had he gone nose first into the wall the deceleration would have been sufficient to rupture his aorta, yet again I would have expected the cockpit to have been entirely intact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

Those participating in motor sport are aware of the risks and choose to accept them. Those risks always have been, and always will be, there.

Sadly, events of recent days remind us there are consequences for some who choose to accept the risks.

---

Correct :up:

We also need to remember that if the unthinkable does happen, at least it is while they are doing what they love, not being taken out by a bus while crossing the street.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrewmcm

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?

---

Very much comfortable with it, yes. How do you make motorcycle racing safer - one at a time on a time trial basis?

Why do folk climb rocks, ski off piste/Break land speed records etc? Because a) it is difficult, and b) because of the risk. Risk gives reward.

So long as you are aware of the risk, then fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

Sorry, but I fail to see how Ralf would have done any better in an Indy car.

His injuries were the result of the sheer speed he was going at prior to his accident, if anything on the oval Indy track the speeds would have been even higher and the potential for injury even greater. Remember that the car he was in didn't fail, the safety cell was entirely intact and there wasn't any intrusion into the cockpit.

What that accident did show was that regardless of how well the safety equipment on these cars works there is a limit to how much energy the body can dissipate in an accident. IMO had he gone nose first into the wall the deceleration would have been sufficient to rupture his aorta, yet again I would have expected the cockpit to have been entirely intact.

---

Therein lies the reason why we need to do our best to stop as many serious accidents happening as is possible without turning the sport into a time trial with acres and acres of runoff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Very much comfortable with it, yes. How do you make motorcycle racing safer - one at a time on a time trial basis?

Why do folk climb rocks, ski off piste/Break land speed records etc? Because a) it is difficult, and b) because of the risk. Risk gives reward.

So long as you are aware of the risk, then fine.

---

Well said :up: