Printable View
What a silly statement. That would in no way be MotoGP then. It'd be some idiots in bubbles with two wheels sticking out the bottom. You're far more intelligent than this poor attempt at justifying your opinion Ben, far more intelligent than that.....Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Jackie's words are so true and so well thought out. That people haven't taken a step back and said "Perhaps we need to think about things and evaluate the dangers that are inherent to motorsport and eliminate those which needn't be inherent" suggests one of two thingsQuote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
You simply aren't that bothered about drivers getting killed or seriously injured
or
You childishly don't want to side with Ioan and myself because we're not that popular on here.
No one denies that the risks in IndyCar and MotoGP were slim and stepping into an IndyCar or hopping onto a MotoGP bike are still pretty darn safe, but losing Dan and Marco was a Dan and a Marco too much. Whilst there was probably nothing which could have been done to stop Marco's accident, Dan's was possibly preventable and a similar (of course not identical) accident could happen in F1 with the same result.....
People like Knockie will seek to torpedo the idea of any change like a canopy or a bumper without anyone even beginning to develop a solution to the problems he speaks of and will often bring up issues with canopies when it's a bumper that's being talked (irrelevant somewhat???) about so as to steer things off topic and attract some negativity to the collective idea. of making F1 safer. As Ioan says, we've got some really smart and intelligent people in F1. Why not form a group similar to the overtaking group called the safety group and give them a couple of years to come up with some innovative and well thought out ways of packaging a canopy or a rear bumper. If there were two people who could make the changes work in terms of safety and racing then i think having Ross Brawn and Adrian Newey on the case would give us a pretty good chance of coming up with a solution that minimises the risks whilst not creating new ones.
Whether some so called F1 fans on a forum on the internets like the idea the FIA are going to look into things and if Jackie Stewart has twigged to the idea of interlocking tyres being an issue then you can bet that people within the FIA and within the teams have and are looking at ways of making sure we never see an F1 car hit the barriers at speed like Dan's car did. This is all regardless of whether you deliberately poo-poo ideas or justify things in your own heads in a non-sensical manner. Sadly some people on here need to see an actual accident in F1 which kills a driver rather than just seeing an accident which kills a driver which could happen in F1.
That, Daniel, is precisely what some people — myself included — feel about F1 being a coupe formula. It wouldn't be F1. I don't see what is so hard to grasp about that standpoint.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
With all due respect you're merely just resisting change for the sake of it. I do hope that if F1 does adopt a formula where there is a canopy and enclosed rear wheels that you all sod off to some F1 history forum where you can reminisce about the days when the drivers were exposed to needless risks purely for your titilation.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
The talk will go something like this......
Ey oop lad, back in my day it were like this. If something fell off another car and hit you in the head, you either got decapitated and killed, or you was left sooooo traumatised by t'episode that you lost your speed. None of this namby pamby elf n safety crap where your canopy gets hit by something and you drive back to the pits and live to drive another day.
Here we go again with the tiresome and offensive view that those of us who feel that fatalities are, alas, inevitable wish to see them happen. This simply isn't true and you know it. I just don't believe that it is possible or desirable to remove any potential element of risk from any activity, not because those risks are in any way important to me, but because I view them as being impossible to eliminate. You and I are both interested in aviation. Every year a certain number of people are killed demonstrating aircraft at air displays. Do you feel that such displays should be banned? I would rather they be allowed to continue within certain parameters, but without those parameters becoming unduly restrictive. Sadly, even within the (now, in my view, reasonable) parameters a certain number of accidents are to be expected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
My thoughts turn to my old job working for an MP, and the letters we used to get from constituents about what they saw as dangerous road junctions. We would write letters on their behalf to the police and the local council, who would invariably write back saying they could not do anything, the safety record of said junction did not merit action, and so on. Equally invariably the constituent would be outraged, saying something along the lines of: 'Do they have to wait for someone to die before doing anything?' Not only do I think that is an entirely sensible position, but it may not follow even from one death caused by that junction being dangerous that action is necessary, on the grounds that the majority of people are not killed while negotiating it. Or, I think of the bloke injured in the 7 July 2005 terror attacks in London whose bloodied, bandaged face was plastered all over the front of the Sun in support of its backing for draconian new anti-terror laws. Surely, they felt, it followed that anyone who survived the attacks must want all possible measures to be enacted to prevent the same happening to even one other innocent person? As it happened, he didn't, and he objected mightily to his photo being used to those ends. Yes, draconian measures may save one life, but does this mean they should always be supported for that reason? Not to me.
With respect, that's utter nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Again you go with the crap. Where have I ever said that we need to remove all danger from F1 or said that it's even possible? What benefit is there to someone dying on TV in front of us anyway? I accept that it can and will happen, but we should always take all reasonable steps to ensure that it doesn't happen. Dan's accident didn't need to happen, it didn't enrich anyone's experience of that race and future (preventable) accidents also need not happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
You like F1 how it is, that's understandable, but that's no reason for F1 to simply stand still.
Fact of the matter is that Jackie Stewart agrees that interlocking wheels in this day and age are an issue. But of course you and the other flat earthers on here know more about safety than Jackie :) People on here happily dig out Jackie's past as proof when it comes to other subjects but for some reason they choose to wilfully ignore it now.
Read this thread. It's full of people who seem to feel that a minor incident like Felipe's should be allowed to happen and are happy with the rather severe consequences for someone who was 100% blameless. It's full of people who seem to think that because Dan Wheldon was driving an IndyCar that a similar accident couldn't happen in F1. You've got Knockie who seems to thing that the revised helmets will now keep everything out of the cockpit, even catchfences :dozey:Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Sometimes it takes someone looking from the outside to see the problems. How many of the drivers in IndyCar refused to race in Las Vegas on a track which wasn't all that safe at the speeds they were doing with so many cars tightly bunched together? Drivers by necessity have to disregard the danger, be it acceptable risk or as we saw in Las Vegas the other week, rather unacceptable risk. That's why they're F1 drivers and we're not.Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88
If F1 drivers pondered every possible danger to themselves then they would cease to become F1 drivers. Therefore whilst F1 drivers should definitely have input when it comes to safety, they shouldn't be the sole barometer as to whether something is too dangerous or not.
Seeing as you continue to correlate the death of Dan Wheldon to similar risks in F1, I'd put forward now the notion that dangerous tracks (Imola being a good example) be dropped, rather than knee jerk changes to mitigate miniscule risks (such as the Massa incident) which, incidentally, has led to a change in helmet design.
F1 safety is not standing still, and no-one on here, except for yourself, is suggesting it should.
To the point about enclosing the motorcyclist - how else could you prevent a reoccurance of Simoncelli's accident? And that is exactly the point that has been made, inter alia, about Massa's accident and - although not F1 - Surtees accident.
Freak accidents, one that led to a loss of life, one that did not.
Wheldon's accident owed more to the track, number of cars and the speeds involved.