Should f1 run coupes?

[Daniel]

Anyone who watches Le Mans will have seen the two Audi's crash with practically no injury to the drivers. At some point an F1 driver is going to get hurt and coupes are obviously stinger.

Discuss :)

[Mark]

No. It would not be F1. Simple as that.

[Daniel]

Silly answer tbh

[Jake Stephens]

No.

[Mark]

Why? F1 is open wheel open cockpit. Anything else isn't F1

[Daniel]

But if they ran around with goats on top of the engine cover previously and removed them then it doesn't change the racing....

[Sonic]

No. As we saw from the LeMans shunts, an inverted coupe traps the driver inside, and with the higher speeds involved I shudder to think of a driver trapped unconscious with the medical teams unable to get to them.

[gloomyDAY]

No!


But if they ran around with goats on top of the engine cover previously and removed them then it doesn't change the racing....My mind just got f***ed with that statement.

[Daniel]

Gloomy, I'm just trying to say that just because we did something in the past doesn't mean we should do it now.

[Rollo]

Why? F1 is open wheel open cockpit. Anything else isn't F1

The W196 Mercedes-Benz might disagree with you.


I rather like the idea for the 2012 Indy Car with the those things things fore and aft of the rear wheels. I personally like the idea because it goes part of the way to preventing jumped wheels. If the rear wheels were covered it would also reduce the size of the rooster tails behind the cars in the wet as well.

[steveaki13]

No F1 is an open wheel formula. Simples

[Daniel]

Aki, the goat statement applies. At least sonic though of a proper reason why not

[Sonic]

Aki, the goat statement applies. At least sonic though of a proper reason why not

Damn it, I don't wanna be the serious one! Can I change my answer to a goat?

[Rollo]

No F1 is an open wheel formula. Simples

Simples?
YouTube - ‪formula 1 - horrible crash at monza in 93‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTLTz0Mi8a0)

The potential for cars to go airborne because of an inherant design fault is in my opinion a dangerous stupidity. A car that goes flying is no longer under the control of the drivers. Accidents like Brundle's crash in the Jordan at Melbourne in 1996 or Villeneuve's at the same track five years later don't help the cause either.

At worst, a car jumping another car has the potential to fly into the crowd; that's particularly worth remembering on a Le Mans weekend.

Simples? Yeah right.

[steveaki13]

Damn it, I don't wanna be the serious one! Can I change my answer to a goat?

My answers Yak :p

[christophulus]

No, the only incident it would prevent/reduce would be injury from a flying wheel. If a car overturned it would be harder to get to the driver, and adds the potential issues of a driver being trapped if the cover gets damaged in an accident and won't open.

[Mark]

McNishes accident had a flying wheel but thankfully it didn't hit anyone.

[UltimateDanGTR]

No, open cockpit isn't F1.

similarly, I don't like seeing open-cockpit LMPs. Le Mans prototypes should have closed cockpits, that's what Le Mans racing is famous for.

[steveaki13]

Also as unlikley as it is these days, if its a closed top car that traps a driver in. Fire is a big issue.

I know its the same for the Le Man Cars, but F1 cars may be slightly more prone to fire.

[Daniel]

I very much suspect this accident in an F1 driver wouldn't have survived.......

9damjRvlaO0

Also I think the Rockenfeller accident was certainly an F1 driver fatality opportunity......

[Mark]

I think an F1 car would not have taken off in that fashion in the first place.

[steveaki13]

And there is not the great speed differential as in Le Man.

[Daniel]

I think an F1 car would not have taken off in that fashion in the first place.



It's happened plenty of times.

[Daniel]

And there is not the great speed differential as in Le Man.

Of course that was the cause of the accident.... but there is no way an F1 driver would have walked away from that with nothing more than bruises. I mean you saw what happened to Sergio with what was a gentler accident in Monaco......

[steveaki13]

That is true.

I wonder also if F1 would have an accident like that. Tarmac run off instead of gravel these days may have slowed the car quicker and not caused the roll and F1 barriers would be more protective than that one row of tyres and no protective fence.

Also F1 has one of the best saftey records in motorsport. The high sides provide similar protection to a close pod, except for flying wheels.


I know saftey should always evolve, and if the people in F1 want enclosed cockpits, then I will accept it but with all I mentioned above I just feel F1 is OK is it is.

[Daniel]

That is true.

I wonder also if F1 would have an accident like that. Tarmac run off instead of gravel these days may have slowed the car quicker and not caused the roll and F1 barriers would be more protective than that one row of tyres and no protective fence.

Also F1 has one of the best saftey records in motorsport. The high sides provide similar protection to a close pod, except for flying wheels.


I know saftey should always evolve, and if the people in F1 want enclosed cockpits, then I will accept it but with all I mentioned above I just feel F1 is OK is it is.

An open top car will never be as strong as a closed top car though.

[Allyc85]

Silly answer tbh

Ask a silly question and you get a silly answer ;)

[steveaki13]

Ask a silly question and you get a silly answer ;)

Although I disagree with Daniel on some points. I don't think its a silly question

I think it is correct to consider it if the situation warrants it.

[ioan]

I think an F1 car would not have taken off in that fashion in the first place.

How do you know that? Physics are the same for all bodies.

[ioan]

Ask a silly question and you get a silly answer ;)

It was not a silly question.

[Daniel]

I find it amusing that some people choose to be a stick in the mud purely because up to this point F1 has been open wheel open cockpit. Safety should always be paramount. I accept that the roofs are a problem when the cars are upside down but I can't remember a fire in recentl years?

[ioan]

I find it amusing that some people choose to be a stick in the mud purely because up to this point F1 has been open wheel open cockpit. Safety should always be paramount. I accept that the roofs are a problem when the cars are upside down but I can't remember a fire in recentl years?

Roof or no roof they still need to remove the side protects to get of the car, not exactly easier then sliding forward a cover.

[Daniel]

Best engineers in the world ;) They'll find a way :) Personally I feel the protection is move than worth the small risk of fire.

[wedge]

No, open cockpit isn't F1.

similarly, I don't like seeing open-cockpit LMPs. Le Mans prototypes should have closed cockpits, that's what Le Mans racing is famous for.

I do agree with you but there are purists who prefer the roadsters/spyders whatever you want to call them.

Coupes are much better on the eye and it what makes the category unique.


I find it amusing that some people choose to be a stick in the mud purely because up to this point F1 has been open wheel open cockpit. Safety should always be paramount. I accept that the roofs are a problem when the cars are upside down but I can't remember a fire in recentl years?

Open wheels, open cockpit. Didn't know there was a racing ladder involving prototype cars.

If you're that desperate then organise a sprint series for prototypes as the Germans did in the mid-80s but that died a death.

[Daniel]

Why though is an F1 with a roof and covered wheels somehow a prototype? Why not call it a gherkin or a poo or a shjshks?

[wedge]

Why though is an F1 with a roof and covered wheels somehow a prototype? Why not call it a gherkin or a poo or a shjshks?

So we can start a forum war

[Garry Walker]

No.

[Daniel]

So we can start a forum war

But really. I really doubt that there's much difference between a Le Mans coupe and an F1 car other than the body and the fact that one needs to last 24 hours.

[wedge]

But really. I really doubt that there's much difference between a Le Mans coupe and an F1 car other than the body and the fact that one needs to last 24 hours.

Endurance racers are supposed to be based/heritage/rooted on road cars hence there should be two seats in an LMP car.

It's the way race car technology has evolved which has made the 2 similar.

[Daniel]

Endurance racers are supposed to be based/heritage/rooted on road cars hence there should be two seats in an LMP car.

It's the way race car technology has evolved which has made the 2 similar.
So basically you're admitting that they're very similar....

If F1 really wants to be more efficient then putting a roof on and covering the wheels will instantly increase its green credentials and 99% of people will still watch plus it'll be safer.

[wedge]

So basically you're admitting that they're very similar....

If F1 really wants to be more efficient then putting a roof on and covering the wheels will instantly increase its green credentials and 99% of people will still watch plus it'll be safer.

What do you mean by F1?

The fans clearly don't want it.

You should be asking FOTA and see if you can catch them out!

[Daniel]

What do you mean by F1?

The fans clearly don't want it.

You should be asking FOTA and see if you can catch them out!

The fans don't want it? You mean a few stick in the mud people on a forum. If you put roofs on and fairings on the wheels 99% of people would still watch........

[wedge]

The fans don't want it? You mean a few stick in the mud people on a forum.

A few? The majority on this thread said no.

It's been asked before and the majority said no.

Go watch DTM. They weigh about a tonne, V8s, fancy aero mods.

[Daniel]

I said people on the forum. No doubt 9/10 of them would still watch anyway.

[wedge]

I said people on the forum. No doubt 9/10 of them would still watch anyway.

Of course. Seeing two open wheelers going wheel to wheel is a greater spectacle.

A lot of fans dislike the idea of smaller engines and turbos but I bet they'd still watch it as well.

It's not like tin-tops or endurance racing where there is a credible alternative.

[Anubis]

Also I think the Rockenfeller accident was certainly an F1 driver fatality opportunity......

Was certainly an enormous hit, and I think people feared the worst from looking at the aftermath, but I can think of a few similarly large impacts in recent open wheel history. Mike Conway at the Indy 500 springs to mind, as does Kubica at Montreal. Thinking back to some of the more scary "sudden stop" impacts in F1, you have Luciano Burti at Spa 2001 and Jos Verstappen at Spa 1996, both of which were gigantic. I'd agree that the fact McNish and especially Rockenfeller got out unhurt is amazing, but I'm not sure it necessarily means prototype racing is safer.

[555-04Q2]

Anyone who watches Le Mans will have seen the two Audi's crash with practically no injury to the drivers. At some point an F1 driver is going to get hurt and coupes are obviously stinger.

Discuss :)

NO!

[Rollo]

The fans don't want it? You mean a few stick in the mud people on a forum. If you put roofs on and fairings on the wheels 99% of people would still watch........

Are you thinking something similar in spirit to the Caparo T1 perhaps?

http://designapplause.com/wp-content/xG58hlz9/2009/02/t1-1.png

That seems to be the logical design step from where Daniel has suggested and to be perfectly honest, a field of field of 26 of cars similar to this would be ab-so-lute-ly-fan-tas-tic!

[Daniel]

Are you thinking something similar in spirit to the Caparo T1 perhaps?

http://designapplause.com/wp-content/xG58hlz9/2009/02/t1-1.png

That seems to be the logical design step from where Daniel has suggested and to be perfectly honest, a field of field of 26 of cars similar to this would be ab-so-lute-ly-fan-tas-tic!

OMG I've just realised that there is a lower possibility of the driver being hit by debris and the wheels aren't going to be able to run over each other! I'm definitely not watching a health and safety fest like that!!!!!!

[GridGirl]

It's an interesting idea but this leads me to the question of where do you stop. If f1 were to go down the coupe route then the feeder formula below would surely follow suite. Before you know it you've wiped out open top single seater racing full stop.

[SGWilko]

I very much suspect this accident in an F1 driver wouldn't have survived.......

9damjRvlaO0

Also I think the Rockenfeller accident was certainly an F1 driver fatality opportunity......

Well, when F1 starts allowing formula fords on the F1 grid, then we might have a comparable situation to set up the speed differentials involved in the accident to which you refer.

[Daniel]

Well, when F1 starts allowing formula fords on the F1 grid, then we might have a comparable situation to set up the speed differentials involved in the accident to which you refer.

I'm not talking about the cause of the incident, simply the way the car survived a massive shunt. Anyone who thinks that F1 will continue on without fatalities is delusional....

[Daniel]

It's an interesting idea but this leads me to the question of where do you stop. If f1 were to go down the coupe route then the feeder formula below would surely follow suite. Before you know it you've wiped out open top single seater racing full stop.

I see what you're saying. But there were two bad incidents in the last couple of years which involved things hitting drivers in the head. Surtees and Massa of course. Now there's nothing to stop either of those accidents happening in F1 and IMHO this is no different to the change from having no seatbelts to having seatbelts or aluminium fuel tanks to the safer ones we have today.

i simply don't get what is so bad about the car below or the Caparo T1. The F1 genes are still very much apparent, but you have lessened the risk of wheel to wheel accidents and the risk of Surtees/Massa style incidents. But then I guess as usual someone has to die in F1 for it to want to be safer.....
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2010/10/web630-red-bull-x1-prototype-front.jpg

[Mark]

I can somewhat see the point of enclosed cockpits, however I don't really see the point of completely enclosing the wheels. Look at the McNish accident, the wheels went into the crowd just as easily as they would have done with F1.

[Daniel]

I can somewhat see the point of enclosed cockpits, however I don't really see the point of completely enclosing the wheels. Look at the McNish accident, the wheels went into the crowd just as easily as they would have done with F1.

But that's imaterial. The point of enclosing the wheels in F1 is to stop 1 wheel hitting another and sending one of the cars flying. You only need look at the Webber v Kovalainen incident to see how bad wheel on wheel contact can be. Whilst I realise that having his front wing knocked off was part of the problem, it was the wheel on wheel contact that sent the car flying.

[SGWilko]

I'm not talking about the cause of the incident, simply the way the car survived a massive shunt. Anyone who thinks that F1 will continue on without fatalities is delusional....

Well, Kubica survived an equally terrifying shunt in Canada, and Rubens crash in '94 was, to say the least, miraculous that he survived.

[Daniel]

Well, Kubica survived an equally terrifying shunt in Canada, and Rubens crash in '94 was, to say the least, miraculous that he survived.

I know that, but would you honestly go as far as to say F1 is 100% safe?

[SGWilko]

I know that, but would you honestly go as far as to say F1 is 100% safe?

Walking out of my house and down my street isn't 100% safe. Statistically, flying in a jet propelled cocoon filled with highly flammable kerosene is safer than crossing the street....

The point is that F1 is immeasurably safer than 10/20 etc years ago, and they are constantly looking to improve the safety for this kind of open wheel racing.

[Daniel]

Walking out of my house and down my street isn't 100% safe. Statistically, flying in a jet propelled cocoon filled with highly flammable kerosene is safer than crossing the street....

The point is that F1 is immeasurably safer than 10/20 etc years ago, and they are constantly looking to improve the safety for this kind of open wheel racing.

I simply don't see why there need to be open wheels? Of course that's the way it was in the past by the goat argument then applies. Tell me why F1 needs open wheels other than the fact that this is how it's always been?

[MrJan]

Why are people so desperate for it to stay open wheel?

[SGWilko]

Why are people so desperate for it to stay open wheel?

Because F1 always has been, and IMHO always should, be an open wheel formula.

Shouls we advocate stabilisers for the bike racers? :crazy:

[Daniel]

Why are people so desperate for it to stay open wheel?

Because that's what it's been like for ages man! People seem to have un unrational attachment to having the wheels uncovered.

Listen, I don't think F1 should go towards being front engined, electric, fwd, or anything like that. But covering the wheels and cockpit would make the cars safer (aside from what Sonic mentioned with a car rolling, but even then a driver can't get out of an open top cockpit anyway) and would make the cars so much more fuel efficient (green racing anyone? ;) ) and somewhat minimise the need for DRS as the cars will have far less drag.

[Daniel]

always should, be an open wheel formula.

Shouls we advocate stabilisers for the bike racers? :crazy:

Why?

Your stabiliser argument is ridiculously crap as it completely changes the sport.

Mud, meet stick, stick, meet mud.

[MrJan]

Because F1 always has been, and IMHO always should, be an open wheel formula.

Well for a good 30 years it was extremely dangerous and lacked sufficient safety, so lets go back to that. It would be nice to see a few more drivers die or be seriously injured, you know like in the good old days.

Tradition shouldn't stand in the way of safety. I'm not saying that I want to see closed wheel F1, just that 'it always has been' is a **** argument.

[MrJan]

Why?

Your stabiliser argument is ridiculously crap as it completely changes the sport.

Mud, meet stick, stick, meet mud.

Mud and stick know each other well, they've been carrying on for years.

[SGWilko]

Well for a good 30 years it was extremely dangerous and lacked sufficient safety, so lets go back to that. It would be nice to see a few more drivers die or be seriously injured, you know like in the good old days.

Tradition shouldn't stand in the way of safety. I'm not saying that I want to see closed wheel F1, just that 'it always has been' is a **** argument.

Well, are you advocating we should do away with HANS, medical air, cockpit raised sides, roll bars, wheel tethers, crash structures, self sealing fuel tanks?

All measures taken to dramatically improve safety while keeping the spirit of the open wheel formula, no?

[SGWilko]

Why?

Your stabiliser argument is ridiculously crap as it completely changes the sport.

Mud, meet stick, stick, meet mud.

Gotta be better that a goat straddling your airbox Daniel.... :dozey:

[Daniel]

Well, are you advocating we should do away with HANS, medical air, cockpit raised sides, roll bars, wheel tethers, crash structures, self sealing fuel tanks?

All measures taken to dramatically improve safety while keeping the spirit of the open wheel formula, no?

Spirit :up: :rotflmao: Now you're just heading further towards needlessly indefineable definitions of what F1 is or should be.

[Daniel]

Gotta be better that a goat straddling your airbox Daniel.... :dozey:

It's merely an example of why we don't need to keep things the same because they have been like this for a time......

[SGWilko]

Spirit :up: :rotflmao: Now you're just heading further towards needlessly indefineable definitions of what F1 is or should be.

Au contraire - F1 running coupes becomes sportscars, not F1.

[SGWilko]

Your stabiliser argument is ridiculously crap as it completely changes the sport.


And how does enclosing wheels and cockpits not completely change the sport of F1 then?

[Daniel]

Well for a good 30 years it was extremely dangerous and lacked sufficient safety, so lets go back to that. It would be nice to see a few more drivers die or be seriously injured, you know like in the good old days.

Tradition shouldn't stand in the way of safety. I'm not saying that I want to see closed wheel F1, just that 'it always has been' is a **** argument.

Completely agree. Interlocking wheels only serve to cause accidents and open wheels only cause drag.

If F1 cars ran at Le Mans with the same size fuel tanks as the R18 and 908 then they would probably only do 4 laps of the 24 hour circuit per tank whereas the Peugeot's were above to do 11 or 12. Now of course they're diesels, but the energy contained in dismal isn't THAT much more than contained in petrol.

[Daniel]

Au contraire - F1 running coupes becomes sportscars, not F1.

That's like saying that a sheep that's been shorn and a sheep that hasn't, are totally different creatures.

[Daniel]

And how does enclosing wheels and cockpits not completely change the sport of F1 then?

I think it's up to you to show how it DOES change the sport.

[ArrowsFA1]

F1 is an open-wheel, open-cockpit series. To enclose the wheels & cockpit would completely change the sport.

[Daniel]

F1 is an open-wheel, open-cockpit series. To enclose the wheels & cockpit would completely change the sport.

How?

[SGWilko]

How?

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, because it is no longer open wheel open cockpit racing.....

[SGWilko]

That's like saying that a sheep that's been shorn and a sheep that hasn't, are totally different creatures.

Cobblers! Take the engine cover off an F1 car, and it remains an F1 car. Enclose the wheels on any open wheel car, and it is no longer an open wheel car, and therefore not eligable to run in an open wheel racing series.

[Daniel]

Cobblers! Take the engine cover off an F1 car, and it remains an F1 car. Enclose the wheels on any open wheel car, and it is no longer an open wheel car, and therefore not eligable to run in an open wheel racing series.

You still haven't proven to me that with fairings over the wheels, that an F1 car isn't still an F1 car.

[Mark]

I refer the honourable gentleman to the FIA Technical Regulations re: Formula 1 cars. If it's not in there it's not an F1 car.

Otherwise "proof" is an arbitary concept, you can't be the sole arbiter of what is proven or not proven.

[Daniel]

I refer the honourable gentleman to the FIA Technical Regulations re: Formula 1 cars. If it's not in there it's not an F1 car.

Otherwise "proof" is an arbitary concept, you can't be the sole arbiter of what is proven or not proven.

OK I will agree with you on that, but let's imagine that the FORMULA 1 rules get changed and the wheels have to be faired and a roof has to be put over the driver? Then is it an F1 car? yes.

The point that you've made very well there is that an F1 car isn't what we think it is, but what the rules say that it needs to be. Which someone disproves the theory that for a car to be an F1 car it would HAVE to be open wheen and open cockpit.

[Mark]

If the FIA say it is, then it is, but of course that's not what we're talking about here.

[Daniel]

If the FIA say it is, then it is, but of course that's not what we're talking about here.

then what the FIA say is irrelevant therefore due to previous mention of said goat argument, your argument is hereby deemed irrelevant :D

[SGWilko]

then what the FIA say is irrelevant therefore due to previous mention of said goat argument, your argument is hereby deemed irrelevant :D

If you substitute the goat for a Kid, does it still satisfy your argument.

[MrJan]

So when a team 'breaks' the rules (e.g Sauber in Melbourne) the car ceases to be an F1 car? Ooooh, that's confuddling.

[Daniel]

So when a team 'breaks' the rules (e.g Sauber in Melbourne) the car ceases to be an F1 car? Ooooh, that's confuddling.

People are scrambling to somehow concoct an exact definition of what an F1 car is. Some of the current cars will cease to be F1 cars when the exhaust blown difusers are banned......

[SGWilko]

So when a team 'breaks' the rules (e.g Sauber in Melbourne) the car ceases to be an F1 car? Ooooh, that's confuddling.

Barry, we are discussing a change from open wheel to coupe. What part does the incorrect radius on a rear wing element play in a car going from open wheel to becoming a coupe?

[Anubis]

i simply don't get what is so bad about the car below or the Caparo T1. The F1 genes are still very much apparent, but you have lessened the risk of wheel to wheel accidents and the risk of Surtees/Massa style incidents. But then I guess as usual someone has to die in F1 for it to want to be safer.....


There's nothing wrong with them at all, it's just they're starting to look like the current crop of LMP cars, which in turn are looking ever more like F1 cars with a few bits of bodywork added. If that evolution continues, what difference will there be between the two series other than race length? As for the last comment, little bit knee jerk isn't it? People were getting killed on the Mulsanne long before they put the chicanes in, so are we going to accuse the ACO of waiting for serious accidents before making changes?

[SGWilko]

People are scrambling to somehow concoct an exact definition of what an F1 car is. Some of the current cars will cease to be F1 cars when the exhaust blown difusers are banned......

An F1 car, one would imagine, be a car designed to the rules, and entered into the championship for Formula One cars, which currently, is an open wheel series.

Turn up with a lid on your cockpit and wheel fairings, and I suspect you'd have spent an awful lot of money for nothing, except maybe your BFH.

[Daniel]

An F1 car, one would imagine, be a car designed to the rules, and entered into the championship for Formula One cars, which currently, is an open wheel series.

Turn up with a lid on your cockpit and wheel fairings, and I suspect you'd have spent an awful lot of money for nothing, except maybe your BFH.

You don't seem to get it. I'm not talking about the current rules which I imagine preclude cars from having fairings or a roof over the driver currently. I'm saying that the rules should be changed to make for safer racing by allowing for wheel fairings and roofs.

[DexDexter]

Anyone who watches Le Mans will have seen the two Audi's crash with practically no injury to the drivers. At some point an F1 driver is going to get hurt and coupes are obviously stinger.

Discuss :)

Getting hurt is part of the game, that's why they are paid so much. I've got a better idea, F1 should run bicycles, speeds would be lower and spectators could see the riders better and for a longer period of time. :)

[SGWilko]

You don't seem to get it. I'm not talking about the current rules which I imagine preclude cars from having fairings or a roof over the driver currently. I'm saying that the rules should be changed to make for safer racing by allowing for wheel fairings and roofs.

...meanwhile there is a debate that suggests the F1 drivers are sissy's for starting behind the SC. And yet you want to enclose the wheels and cockpit because F1 is not currently safe enough?

[SGWilko]

Getting hurt is part of the game, that's why they are paid so much. I've got a better idea, F1 should run bicycles, speeds would be lower and spectators could see the riders better and for a longer period of time. :)

Where would you put the goat - in the shopping basket?

[Mark]

You know what really gets my goat.

[SGWilko]

You know what really gets my goat.

The goatherder?

[Daniel]

...meanwhile there is a debate that suggests the F1 drivers are sissy's for starting behind the SC. And yet you want to enclose the wheels and cockpit because F1 is not currently safe enough?
Funnily enough I completely agree with the way the race was run in Canada.....

[Daniel]

Getting hurt is part of the game, that's why they are paid so much. I've got a better idea, F1 should run bicycles, speeds would be lower and spectators could see the riders better and for a longer period of time. :)

So we should never learn from mistakes?

[wedge]

If you are that bothered then bugger off and watch Indycars next year

2012 IndyCar prototypes revealed - Racer.com (http://www.racer.com/2012-indycar-prototypes-revealed/article/202552/)

[DexDexter]

So we should never learn from mistakes?

We should, that's why I think bicycles are the way to go. Much safer. :D

[MrJan]

Barry, we are discussing a change from open wheel to coupe. What part does the incorrect radius on a rear wing element play in a car going from open wheel to becoming a coupe?

None whatsoever. But then you were discussing the change from open wheel to couple, I was on about the definition of what makes an F1 car an F1 car. Mark wrote "I refer the honourable gentleman to the FIA Technical Regulations re: Formula 1 cars. If it's not in there it's not an F1 car.". If that's how we're playing it then I was asking if any infringement of those rules would mean that the car would cease to be classified as a Formula One car.

It was just a comment made by standing back from the face of the argument, if an F1 car is solely defined by the FIA rules then shirley it can no longer be an F1 car if it doesn't fit those rules?

[Rollo]

But that's imaterial. The point of enclosing the wheels in F1 is to stop 1 wheel hitting another and sending one of the cars flying. You only need look at the Webber v Kovalainen incident to see how bad wheel on wheel contact can be. Whilst I realise that having his front wing knocked off was part of the problem, it was the wheel on wheel contact that sent the car flying.

YouTube - ‪Christian Fittipaldi way through checkered flag‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vv2kxImg4vc)
YouTube - ‪Patrese hits Berger in Portugal 92‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9e5A55atmAc)
YouTube - ‪Brundle crashes 1996‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItC4s1WDAbU)
YouTube - ‪Villeneuve Crash Melbourne 2001‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3jIMoZuc-U)
YouTube - ‪Webber crash Valencia 2010‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kNZzqqdhM0)

People don't want proof of danger, they'd rather wait until people die. Maybe it will require this:
YouTube - ‪Worst Crash Ever - 24 Hours of Le Mans - 1955 (HD)‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFoaFRG1rqo)

It took the death of Alberto Ascari to make the lawmakers think about the use of seat belts and redsigning that corner at Monaco.
When François Cevert died, his mate Jackie Stewart thought it worthwhile to champion the idea of drivers safety.
HANS devices were developed in the mid-1980s but it too the deaths of Roland Ratzenberger and Ayrton Senna to look at the concept, and the idea wasn't really brought hom until Dale Earndhart Sr. died.

Maybe it will take the death of either a lot of spectators to make real the idea that an open-wheeler is inherently dangerous and stupid.

I personally also like the idea of enclosing the driver because that space in the event of fire can be sealed off from the rest of the car. I still remember Berger's crash at Imola in 1989.
YouTube - ‪Berger F1 Ferrari accident 1989‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3bCIrrdzes)
The risk of fire on board a racing car should be taken as seriously as on board a submarine. A lot of other motorsports have on board fire extinguishers, yet F1 cars don't seem to.

[SGWilko]

So we should never learn from mistakes?

They have and they do, continuously.

[SGWilko]

None whatsoever. But then you were discussing the change from open wheel to couple, I was on about the definition of what makes an F1 car an F1 car. Mark wrote "I refer the honourable gentleman to the FIA Technical Regulations re: Formula 1 cars. If it's not in there it's not an F1 car.". If that's how we're playing it then I was asking if any infringement of those rules would mean that the car would cease to be classified as a Formula One car.

It was just a comment made by standing back from the face of the argument, if an F1 car is solely defined by the FIA rules then shirley it can no longer be an F1 car if it doesn't fit those rules?

Don't call me Shirley.....

[Daniel]

YouTube - ‪Christian Fittipaldi way through checkered flag‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vv2kxImg4vc)
YouTube - ‪Patrese hits Berger in Portugal 92‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9e5A55atmAc)
YouTube - ‪Brundle crashes 1996‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItC4s1WDAbU)
YouTube - ‪Villeneuve Crash Melbourne 2001‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3jIMoZuc-U)
YouTube - ‪Webber crash Valencia 2010‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kNZzqqdhM0)

People don't want proof of danger, they'd rather wait until people die. Maybe it will require this:
YouTube - ‪Worst Crash Ever - 24 Hours of Le Mans - 1955 (HD)‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFoaFRG1rqo)

It took the death of Alberto Ascari to make the lawmakers think about the use of seat belts and redsigning that corner at Monaco.
When François Cevert died, his mate Jackie Stewart thought it worthwhile to champion the idea of drivers safety.
HANS devices were developed in the mid-1980s but it too the deaths of Roland Ratzenberger and Ayrton Senna to look at the concept, and the idea wasn't really brought hom until Dale Earndhart Sr. died.

Maybe it will take the death of either a lot of spectators to make real the idea that an open-wheeler is inherently dangerous and stupid.

I personally also like the idea of enclosing the driver because that space in the event of fire can be sealed off from the rest of the car. I still remember Berger's crash at Imola in 1989.
YouTube - ‪Berger F1 Ferrari accident 1989‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3bCIrrdzes)
The risk of fire on board a racing car should be taken as seriously as on board a submarine. A lot of other motorsports have on board fire extinguishers, yet F1 cars don't seem to.

That Berger crash is quite literally the first thing I can remember about F1. Your videos illustrate the problem with open wheeled race cars perfectly :up:

It's a pity that Shirley G Wilko doesn't understand :p

[SGWilko]

YouTube - ‪Christian Fittipaldi way through checkered flag‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vv2kxImg4vc)
YouTube - ‪Patrese hits Berger in Portugal 92‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9e5A55atmAc)
YouTube - ‪Brundle crashes 1996‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItC4s1WDAbU)
YouTube - ‪Villeneuve Crash Melbourne 2001‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3jIMoZuc-U)
YouTube - ‪Webber crash Valencia 2010‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kNZzqqdhM0)

People don't want proof of danger, they'd rather wait until people die. Maybe it will require this:
YouTube - ‪Worst Crash Ever - 24 Hours of Le Mans - 1955 (HD)‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFoaFRG1rqo)

It took the death of Alberto Ascari to make the lawmakers think about the use of seat belts and redsigning that corner at Monaco.
When François Cevert died, his mate Jackie Stewart thought it worthwhile to champion the idea of drivers safety.
HANS devices were developed in the mid-1980s but it too the deaths of Roland Ratzenberger and Ayrton Senna to look at the concept, and the idea wasn't really brought hom until Dale Earndhart Sr. died.

Maybe it will take the death of either a lot of spectators to make real the idea that an open-wheeler is inherently dangerous and stupid.

I personally also like the idea of enclosing the driver because that space in the event of fire can be sealed off from the rest of the car. I still remember Berger's crash at Imola in 1989.
YouTube - ‪Berger F1 Ferrari accident 1989‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3bCIrrdzes)
The risk of fire on board a racing car should be taken as seriously as on board a submarine. A lot of other motorsports have on board fire extinguishers, yet F1 cars don't seem to.

IIRC it was a closed wheel racecar that killed the spectators at Le Mans in 1955. If a car gets airbourne (remenber the closed wheel, closed cockpit Mercedes Le Mans cars?) it will not automatically avoid the crowds just because it has a cover over the cockpit and the wheels are covered.

Planes fall out the sky, but still we use them - thousands of journeys every day.....

As to extinguishers, they do and have had them in F1 for quite some years now, along with medical air to the helmet to create positive pressure in the event of a fire.

[SGWilko]

That Berger crash is quite literally the first thing I can remember about F1. Your videos illustrate the problem with open wheeled race cars perfectly :up:

It's a pity that Shirley G Wilko doesn't understand :p

In what way would enclosing Berger's wheels have prevented his front wing from failing exactly? One of the lessons learned from that crash was banning the refridgeration of fuel before the race.....

Taking McNish's crash as an example, it could very easily have rolled onto the marshalls behind the barriers and caused death, the fact that it did not had nowt to do with the cockpit cover or enclosed wheels.

[Rollo]

Planes fall out the sky, but still we use them - thousands of journeys every day.....


Yes, and there are also black box recorders in the event of something going awry so that investigators can learn from the incidents and improve them.
The story of the de Havilland Comet is interesting in this respect. When those started falling out of the sky, the designers didn't simply glibly sit by and say "flying is dangerous, it's too bad" did they?

[wedge]

IIRC it was a closed wheel racecar that killed the spectators at Le Mans in 1955. If a car gets airbourne (remenber the closed wheel, closed cockpit Mercedes Le Mans cars?) it will not automatically avoid the crowds just because it has a cover over the cockpit and the wheels are covered.

Planes fall out the sky, but still we use them - thousands of journeys every day.....

As to extinguishers, they do and have had them in F1 for quite some years now, along with medical air to the helmet to create positive pressure in the event of a fire.

Wilko, you're missing the point. Rollo's point is that it will take a huge accident to bring the point home of how dangerous interlocking wheels is.

OF-i0nrpUyE

gnslpiaEAVA

Needless to say, Dario and a couple of huge flips and still racing in Indycar.

The biggest danger in bike racing is being flung off the bike so does that mean bike racing, IOM TT, etc; should be banned?

[Daniel]

In what way would enclosing Berger's wheels have prevented his front wing from failing exactly? One of the lessons learned from that crash was banning the refridgeration of fuel before the race.....

Taking McNish's crash as an example, it could very easily have rolled onto the marshalls behind the barriers and caused death, the fact that it did not had nowt to do with the cockpit cover or enclosed wheels.

You're picking out facts which have little to do with the argument. The point is that if those two accidents had happened with F1 cars then the sum total of injuries wouldn't have been a cut arm, some bruises and a photographer with a broken lens.

[DexDexter]

YouTube - ‪Christian Fittipaldi way through checkered flag‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vv2kxImg4vc)
YouTube - ‪Patrese hits Berger in Portugal 92‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9e5A55atmAc)
YouTube - ‪Brundle crashes 1996‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItC4s1WDAbU)
YouTube - ‪Villeneuve Crash Melbourne 2001‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3jIMoZuc-U)
YouTube - ‪Webber crash Valencia 2010‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kNZzqqdhM0)

People don't want proof of danger, they'd rather wait until people die. Maybe it will require this:
YouTube - ‪Worst Crash Ever - 24 Hours of Le Mans - 1955 (HD)‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFoaFRG1rqo)

It took the death of Alberto Ascari to make the lawmakers think about the use of seat belts and redsigning that corner at Monaco.
When François Cevert died, his mate Jackie Stewart thought it worthwhile to champion the idea of drivers safety.
HANS devices were developed in the mid-1980s but it too the deaths of Roland Ratzenberger and Ayrton Senna to look at the concept, and the idea wasn't really brought hom until Dale Earndhart Sr. died.

Maybe it will take the death of either a lot of spectators to make real the idea that an open-wheeler is inherently dangerous and stupid.

I personally also like the idea of enclosing the driver because that space in the event of fire can be sealed off from the rest of the car. I still remember Berger's crash at Imola in 1989.
YouTube - ‪Berger F1 Ferrari accident 1989‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3bCIrrdzes)
The risk of fire on board a racing car should be taken as seriously as on board a submarine. A lot of other motorsports have on board fire extinguishers, yet F1 cars don't seem to.

There are a lot of stupid things in the world but I think we've got more serious problems to worry about than drivers sitting inside carbon fibre cars with very good helmets, safe circuits and excellent medical team standing by all the time. A bigger worry is sitting in your own passenger car which is still made of age old materials such as sheet metal and crash tested only at about 60km/h. Sure there is danger in F1 but should we ban something that is safer than your normal shopping trip or a ride to work?

[SGWilko]

Yes, and there are also black box recorders in the event of something going awry so that investigators can learn from the incidents and improve them.
The story of the de Havilland Comet is interesting in this respect. When those started falling out of the sky, the designers didn't simply glibly sit by and say "flying is dangerous, it's too bad" did they?

Point is though that the accident has to happen before the cause of said accident can be investigated. If you don't have said accident, it does not get investigated.

Just because there are no driver deaths in F1 since 1994, does not stop the pursuit of safety.

Mind you, they still allowed the comet to fly despite planes still dropping out of it.

[Daniel]

Wilko, you're missing the point. Rollo's point is that it will take a huge accident to bring the point home of how dangerous interlocking wheels is.

OF-i0nrpUyE

gnslpiaEAVA

Needless to say, Dario and a couple of huge flips and still racing in Indycar.

The biggest danger in bike racing is being flung off the bike so does that mean bike racing, IOM TT, etc; should be banned?

There was me thinking that everytime an open wheeled car hits another and flies that someone dies.

[SGWilko]

You're picking out facts which have little to do with the argument. The point is that if those two accidents had happened with F1 cars then the sum total of injuries wouldn't have been a cut arm, some bruises and a photographer with a broken lens.

Are you stating fact or opinion in respect of what might happen if the McNish accident was in an F1 car.

What did Rubens suffer in an (arguably) worse accident in Imola '94? (and of course, safety has moved on since then quite a bit).

[SGWilko]

There was me thinking that everytime an open wheeled car hits another and flies that someone dies.

Isn't that why you want the wheels and cockpits enclosed, because F1 is currently so dangerous? :dozey:

[Daniel]

Isn't that why you want the wheels and cockpits enclosed, because F1 is currently so dangerous? :dozey:

So basically because a few people have accidents and survive, we need not improve F1 safety. Do I need to post youtube links to the Massa and Surtees (fatality) incidents?

[SGWilko]

So basically because a few people have accidents and survive, we need not improve F1 safety. Do I need to post youtube links to the Massa and Surtees (fatality) incidents?

Massa still alive, right? What do you suppose might have saved his life in this extremely freak accident? F1 safety standing still?

Nosiree, what saved Massa's life (and sight I shouldn't think) was the constant testing of substances such as those used in race helmets.

Then there is the extracation procedure, the crash structures on the car, the barriers ya da ya da ya da.

You see, safety never stops, despite your best efforts to demonstrate that F1 is complacent in this regard.

It is open wheel racing, Get Over It.

[wedge]

So basically because a few people have accidents and survive, we need not improve F1 safety. Do I need to post youtube links to the Massa and Surtees (fatality) incidents?

They were 'freak' accidents. Racing will never be 100% safe.

[SGWilko]

They were 'freak' accidents. Racing will never be 100% safe.

For this very reason, I believe modern day F1 tickets have a diclaimer printed on them to the effect of "Motor racing is dangerous....." You get the point.

[555-04Q2]

Its more dangerous to cross a quiet suburban road than it is to drive an F1 car at 350 km/h.

[SGWilko]

Its more dangerous to cross a quiet suburban road than it is to drive an F1 car at 350 km/h.

Uh oh, shirley we need cotton wool and lots of it? :p

[Daniel]

Its more dangerous to cross a quiet suburban road than it is to drive an F1 car at 350 km/h.

What a silly statement. You will point to the fact that no one has died in F1 since 1994 and point to the people who die crossing roads.....

But you seem to forget the fact that billions of people cross the road every year and people do billions of miles on suburban roads every year. Are you trying to say that if everyone crossed the road at 350kph that we'd be safer?

[SGWilko]

What a silly statement. You will point to the fact that no one has died in F1 since 1994 and point to the people who die crossing roads.....

But you seem to forget the fact that billions of people cross the road every year and people do billions of miles on suburban roads every year. Are you trying to say that if everyone crossed the road at 350kph that we'd be safer?

Well now. From an early age, children are taught not to cross the road on their own, Green Cross Code etc, we have Pedestrian crossings, speed limits ya da ya da.

I don't think my little legs will take me to 350kph TBH.......

[555-04Q2]

What a silly statement. You will point to the fact that no one has died in F1 since 1994 and point to the people who die crossing roads.....

But you seem to forget the fact that billions of people cross the road every year and people do billions of miles on suburban roads every year. Are you trying to say that if everyone crossed the road at 350kph that we'd be safer?

:erm: ..... :confused:

[DexDexter]

What a silly statement. You will point to the fact that no one has died in F1 since 1994 and point to the people who die crossing roads.....

But you seem to forget the fact that billions of people cross the road every year and people do billions of miles on suburban roads every year. Are you trying to say that if everyone crossed the road at 350kph that we'd be safer?

Still, you and I drive cars that are a lot less safe than open cockpit F1 cars. How is that acceptable? Shouldn't car manufacturers make cars safe as possible? Let's ban normal cars until car manufacturers make them as safe as they can, currently they are not doing that. It's really trivial to worry about 24 highly paid drivers in open cockpits when the average Joe is driving cars that aren't as safe as they could be.

[Daniel]

Still, you and I drive cars that are a lot less safe than open cockpit F1 cars. How is that acceptable? Shouldn't car manufacturers make cars safe as possible? Let's ban normal cars until car manufacturers make them as safe as they can, currently they are not doing that. It's really trivial to worry about 24 highly paid drivers in open cockpits when the average Joe is driving cars that aren't as safe as they could be.

Of course our cars are a lot less safe. We don't wear helmets, HANS devices or fireproof clothing. Our cars cost a tiny fraction of what an F1 car costs to build....... if you want road cars to be safer then start a thread in chit chat......

[ioan]

Still, you and I drive cars that are a lot less safe than open cockpit F1 cars. How is that acceptable?

Maybe because we do not race our cars (at least those with a bit of brains don't), do not drive at 350 km/h. And BTW we do not pay millions of € for a car.
And if you don't buy crap cars you get very safe road cars nowadays for the buck.

[Daniel]

F1 racing with closed cockpits and covered wheels? :o hplease:

No thanks, try watching snooker. Its safer. :)
Excellent advice. If no one sees the accident that kills someone then no one dies. Fantastic! :D

[Daniel]

Its why I admire Stirling Moss. Part of the attraction is the risk, always has been always will be. If you remove the danger (or supposed danger) from the driver, you are likely to get more dangerous racing in terms of unreasonable risks. Open wheel Grand Prix racing is what it says on the tin and for anyone who thinks its too dangerous can watch Le Mans or rally where there is danger but the driver sits in a bubble. So no thanks to changing F1.. :)

Seriously, if you don't know that the sport is called rallyING then there's little hope for you.

[schmenke]

As has been mentioned, the FIA technical regulations stipulate an open cockpit design and exposed wheels.

For those that wish to see enclosed cockpits and fendered wheels, there are other forms of motorposrt available.

Why the need for this thread? :confused:

[Bagwan]

Seriously, if you don't know that the sport is called rallyING then there's little hope for you.

It is difficult to debate with you , Daniel , when you make aggressive posts such as this .

And this : "Excellent advice. If no one sees the accident that kills someone then no one dies. Fantastic!"

To go to such extremes simply weakens your stance .


Nobody here has suggested that safety should not be a centre of concern .

At one time , it was thought by the experts that it was safer to be thrown from the car in the case of an accident .
In a way , it was the right thinking at the time because the fuel handling made for many huge fireballs on impact .

We've come a long way .

Think of HANS as an example .
Many people , not just the Intimidator died without it .

The Earnhart death , though , brought in a device already invented , but shunned by motorsport in general beforehand .
All of sudden , the idea had legs , because a fan favourite had died .

And , to the point , it wasn't a driver in this series of F1 , but a series very distant from F1 in almost every way but for the number of wheels .

The FIA quickly adopted it , even though many drivers weren't happy .


For the drivers , it seems there's the same attraction to the danger involved that there always has been .


In my opinion , you dont need fenders or covered cockpits to be safe .

The much bigger issue today , as I see it , is the sightlines . Drivers sit so low they cannot see anything coming up the side until it is breaks the line ahead of the sidepod .

Add fenders and a covered cockpit and you would just add more obstructions to the vision .
You'd need bumpers , too .

[Daniel]

It is difficult to debate with you , Daniel , when you make aggressive posts such as this .

And this : "Excellent advice. If no one sees the accident that kills someone then no one dies. Fantastic!"

To go to such extremes simply weakens your stance .


Nobody here has suggested that safety should not be a centre of concern .

At one time , it was thought by the experts that it was safer to be thrown from the car in the case of an accident .
In a way , it was the right thinking at the time because the fuel handling made for many huge fireballs on impact .

We've come a long way .

Think of HANS as an example .
Many people , not just the Intimidator died without it .

The Earnhart death , though , brought in a device already invented , but shunned by motorsport in general beforehand .
All of sudden , the idea had legs , because a fan favourite had died .

And , to the point , it wasn't a driver in this series of F1 , but a series very distant from F1 in almost every way but for the number of wheels .

The FIA quickly adopted it , even though many drivers weren't happy .


For the drivers , it seems there's the same attraction to the danger involved that there always has been .


In my opinion , you dont need fenders or covered cockpits to be safe .

The much bigger issue today , as I see it , is the sightlines . Drivers sit so low they cannot see anything coming up the side until it is breaks the line ahead of the sidepod .

Add fenders and a covered cockpit and you would just add more obstructions to the vision .
You'd need bumpers , too .

But with faired wheels you would have bumpers to a certain extent. Watch Le Mans and you'll see that LMP's are far more resistent to damage than F1 cars are by nature of being a bit meatier.

Saying to someone that if they don't like the danger in F1 that they should watch snooker (the 2nd most boring sport known to man after darts) is a silly statement.

With regards to visibility I agree with you, but with a roof over his head the driver could sit a little higher (this would of course need to be stipulated in the rules :) ) and this would somewhat solve this problem.

I enjoy when people make a proper argument out of it by bringing things like visibility (already bad in F1 to be fair) and the ability of a driver to escape after a roll - into the mix, but to simply say "it's the way now so it should stay that way" is rather silly don't you think? In the past we didn't have the crash barrier that almost certainly saved Perez's life in Monaco the other week, should things have simply stayed the same way as they were before? I've really enjoyed the valid reasons some people have made for NOT having a coupe body shape, maintaining the status quo is however not a valid reason.

[SGWilko]

LMP's are far more resistent to damage than F1 cars.

An F1 car is desiged to disintegrate in an impact because it dissipates the energy, the only part remaining intact being the survival cell.

[Daniel]

An F1 car is desiged to disintegrate in an impact because it dissipates the energy, the only part remaining intact being the survival cell.

I mean in terms of things which are going to break off and mean that the car loses significant aerodynamic efficiency and handling, as you well know, LMP's will break apart in a proper accident too :) I would love to be able to see F1 cars racing closely and having a little touch without one or more cars involved having to go back to the pits :)

[Anubis]

So basically because a few people have accidents and survive, we need not improve F1 safety. Do I need to post youtube links to the Massa and Surtees (fatality) incidents?

A closed cockpit is no guarantee of survival, it just presents different issues. A cockpit may well have saved Henry Surtees, but I could post links to accidents such as Mark Porter and Ashley Cooper to show a roof and doors are go guarantee. How many iterations of your argument are you prepared to make? If drivers are still killed in closed cockpit series, your logic dictates there's something fundamentally unsafe about those series as well.

[schmenke]

FIA Technical Regulations - published on 08.03.2011

Article 13.1.3:
"The driver must be able to enter and get out of the cockpit without it being necessary to open a door or
remove any part of the car other than the steering wheel. ..."

[ioan]

It is difficult to debate with you , Daniel , when you make aggressive posts such as this .

And this : "Excellent advice. If no one sees the accident that kills someone then no one dies. Fantastic!"

To go to such extremes simply weakens your stance .

May be, still Daniel is right. Why do fans want to keep a sport dangerous just because it appeals more to them?!

Some people should go watch some Hollywood block buster if it's stupid danger that you want to watch, instead of telling people to watch snooker just because they care more for the drivers lives.

[ioan]

FIA Technical Regulations - published on 08.03.2011

Article 13.1.3:
"The driver must be able to enter and get out of the cockpit without it being necessary to open a door or
remove any part of the car other than the steering wheel. ..."

They already need to remove their head protection to get in and out of the car. Looks like no one applies the rules nowadays.

[ioan]

An F1 car is desiged to disintegrate in an impact because it dissipates the energy, the only part remaining intact being the survival cell.

It's exactly the same for LMP cars. Heck it's the same for modern road cars also.

[ioan]

A closed cockpit is no guarantee of survival, it just presents different issues. A cockpit may well have saved Henry Surtees, but I could post links to accidents such as Mark Porter and Ashley Cooper to show a roof and doors are go guarantee. How many iterations of your argument are you prepared to make? If drivers are still killed in closed cockpit series, your logic dictates there's something fundamentally unsafe about those series as well.

And nothing would save a driver if a nuclear bomb explodes on top of his car. So why not send them out to race in tinfoil cars? Just asking!

[Daniel]

A closed cockpit is no guarantee of survival, it just presents different issues. A cockpit may well have saved Henry Surtees, but I could post links to accidents such as Mark Porter and Ashley Cooper to show a roof and doors are go guarantee. How many iterations of your argument are you prepared to make? If drivers are still killed in closed cockpit series, your logic dictates there's something fundamentally unsafe about those series as well.

of course, but in those situations we're talking about cars which "only" have a roll cage and are built out of steel and not carbon fibre.

[Bagwan]

But with faired wheels you would have bumpers to a certain extent. Watch Le Mans and you'll see that LMP's are far more resistent to damage than F1 cars are by nature of being a bit meatier.

Saying to someone that if they don't like the danger in F1 that they should watch snooker (the 2nd most boring sport known to man after darts) is a silly statement.

With regards to visibility I agree with you, but with a roof over his head the driver could sit a little higher (this would of course need to be stipulated in the rules :) ) and this would somewhat solve this problem.

I enjoy when people make a proper argument out of it by bringing things like visibility (already bad in F1 to be fair) and the ability of a driver to escape after a roll - into the mix, but to simply say "it's the way now so it should stay that way" is rather silly don't you think? In the past we didn't have the crash barrier that almost certainly saved Perez's life in Monaco the other week, should things have simply stayed the same way as they were before? I've really enjoyed the valid reasons some people have made for NOT having a coupe body shape, maintaining the status quo is however not a valid reason.

I enjoy the precision required to navigate those machines knowing that a slight touch puts you and likely your opponent out .

The most impressive of them all is the driver that sends it around the track on the edge of disaster .
That's on the edge , not over .

The "old days" were dangerous , and that was part of the draw for the crowd .
They cried real tears for heros , and dreamed of taking over thier position .

Today , when the modern F1 driver sits in one of those cars from an earlier era , they often shudder to think what it was really like to drive in those races .
In part , it's that past that still draws the crowd , not the present .

One of the only items that has stayed even remotely similar to those old days is the concept of open wheels , even though F1 has seen fenders in the really early days .

Simply put , having the wheels uncovered makes it more demanding , and more necessary to be precise .
This has always been true , but the safety aspect has improved so much that the really dangerous elements are now harder to find .

So the "status quo" is not really that at all . They are safe because they are designed to be so , within the formula .
They are designed to keep the driver safe , and work well doing that , in an open wheel configuration .
It's not "status quo" when they are constantly evolving , for both speed , and safety at speed .

[Rollo]

A closed cockpit is no guarantee of survival, it just presents different issues. A cockpit may well have saved Henry Surtees, but I could post links to accidents such as Mark Porter and Ashley Cooper to show a roof and doors are go guarantee. How many iterations of your argument are you prepared to make? If drivers are still killed in closed cockpit series, your logic dictates there's something fundamentally unsafe about those series as well.

If there'd been some sort of plexi cover in front of Aryton Senna, then it's possible that the suspension pieces wouldn't have pierced his face.
http://www.benchapman.com/project/image51.jpg

If there'd been some sort of plexi cover in front of Felipe Massa, then it's highly likely that the errant suspension spring from Barichello's Brawn would have been deflected. Massa now has a titanium plate in his skull because of the inherent design flaw of F1 cars.

Obviously a closed cockpit is no guarantee of survival but it is safer. Doesn't it make more sense to aim for a higher standard than to settle for a worse one? If Formula One is supposed to be the pinnacle of motorsport, then why shouldn't it also lead the way in terms of safety development?

[555-04Q2]

Why don't we just give them all bicycles with shin pads, knee pads, elbow pads, helmets, ankle boots, a tampon and a normal salary. That would be safer wouldn't it :crazy:

[DexDexter]

May be, still Daniel is right. Why do fans want to keep a sport dangerous just because it appeals more to them?!

Some people should go watch some Hollywood block buster if it's stupid danger that you want to watch, instead of telling people to watch snooker just because they care more for the drivers lives.

Ok, using your logic, football is the first to go, there have been some serious injuries so let's ban contact altogether and don't let them run since somebody might have a heart attack. Rugby is too dangerous as well, some serious injuries have occurred so let's end the whole sport. Golf too, a golf ball is very dangerous if it hits somebody in the head. Why do people want to keep golf dangerous, shouldn't they use a soft ball? In football the players should not kick the ball at full force since it might hit someone's head. Why do the spectators want to keep it dangerous and don't demand the players play safe? :rolleyes:


If there'd been some sort of plexi cover in front of Aryton Senna, then it's possible that the suspension pieces wouldn't have pierced his face.
http://www.benchapman.com/project/image51.jpg

If there'd been some sort of plexi cover in front of Felipe Massa, then it's highly likely that the errant suspension spring from Barichello's Brawn would have been deflected. Massa now has a titanium plate in his skull because of the inherent design flaw of F1 cars.

Obviously a closed cockpit is no guarantee of survival but it is safer. Doesn't it make more sense to aim for a higher standard than to settle for a worse one? If Formula One is supposed to be the pinnacle of motorsport, then why shouldn't it also lead the way in terms of safety development?

Formula cars have an open cockpit, that's why. It's the essential part of the sport. Why do you want F1 to be safer than our normal lives?

[SGWilko]

Why don't we just give them all bicycles with shin pads, knee pads, elbow pads, helmets, ankle boots, a tampon and a normal salary. That would be safer wouldn't it :crazy:

Tampon :eek: and risk anahalactic shock or toxic whatsitsname syndrome? No, I'd give them all liners, you know, the Red Bull ones (gives you wings). If we're gona do safety, we'd best get it right..... :dozey:

[SGWilko]

Ok, using your logic, football is the first to go, there have been some serious injuries so let's ban contact altogether and don't let them run since somebody might have a heart attack. Rugby is too dangerous as well, some serious injuries have occurred so let's end the whole sport. Golf too, a golf ball is very dangerous if it hits somebody in the head. Why do people want to keep golf dangerous, shouldn't they use a soft ball? In football the players should not kick the ball at full force since it might hit someone's head. Why do the spectators want to keep it dangerous and don't demand the players play safe? :rolleyes:

In fact, the FIA should, in cahoots with all governments, mandate that we should all stay in our homes and never go out, just in case, because no-one has yet invented the 'personal body safety encapsulation device' and we are thus not doing enough to be safe....... :crazy:

[555-04Q2]

You wanna be safe? Carry a gun :p :

[Daniel]

Checkpoint 10: A case for the closed cockpit (updated) (http://checkpoint10.blogspot.com/2009/07/case-for-closed-cockpit.html)


The following deaths might have been prevented if the drivers were protected by some kind of canopy:

•Helmuth Koinigg died at the 1974 United States Grand Prix when his head struck the top of an armco barrier as his car slid underneath.
•Tom Pryce was struck by a fire extinguisher after colliding with a marshal at the 1977 South African Grand Prix.
•Markus Hoettinger was killed in a Formula 2 race in 1980 when he was struck by a tire that fell off another car.
•In 1994, Ayrton Senna died when he was struck by tire and suspension part at the San Marino Grand Prix.
•In 1995, Marco Campos died when he hit his head on the concrete wall as his car overturned during an F3000 race at Magny-Cours.
•At the 1996 Molson Indy Toronto, Jeff Krosnoff died when he struck a tree in an accident on the back straightaway.

And here are some near-misses:

•During the 1972 French Grand Prix, Helmut Marko was struck in the eye by a stone thrown by another car. This accident left him partially blind and ended his career.
•At the 1994 Brazilian Grand Prix, Martin Brundle was hit in the head by Jos Verstappen's flying Benetton, miraculously without serious injury.
•Cristiano da Matta suffered a head injury after hitting a deer during a Champ Car test at Road America in 2006.
•Formula 1 drivers were lucky not to die at the 2003 British Grand Prix, when a demonstrator ran onto the racing circuit and narrowly missed several cars traveling at high speed.
•Kimi Raikkonen was fortunate that his car's wheel tether worked during his spectacular crash at the 2005 European Grand Prix.
•Again, Kimi Raikkonen had a close call with both his own tire and the tire barrier during a crash at Monza in 2007.
•At Melbourne 2007, David Coulthard almost hit Alex Wurz after an ill-judged overtaking move sent Coulthard's Red Bull sailing over Wurz's car.

[555-04Q2]

Or drivers could just not race in F1 or any other open wheel formula. They know the hazards of racing in an open wheel formula, they accept it and they get paid big bucks for it. If it was really a concern, they would not be in F1.

[Daniel]

Or drivers could just not race in F1 or any other open wheel formula. They know the hazards of racing in an open wheel formula, they accept it and they get paid big bucks for it. If it was really a concern, they would not be in F1.

So why were Jackie Stewart in Formula 1 when he was obviously concerned about safety then?

[555-04Q2]

You want to quote from the biggest moaner in the history of F1? :s hock: He didn't moan about the millions he made now did he ;)

If drivers really though that F1 was so dangerous, they would find something else to do.

[wedge]

"Danger is the most important thing, like salt is to cooking" - Stirling Moss

[Andrewmcm]

If there'd been some sort of plexi cover in front of Aryton Senna, then it's possible that the suspension pieces wouldn't have pierced his face.
http://www.benchapman.com/project/image51.jpg

If there'd been some sort of plexi cover in front of Felipe Massa, then it's highly likely that the errant suspension spring from Barichello's Brawn would have been deflected. Massa now has a titanium plate in his skull because of the inherent design flaw of F1 cars.

Obviously a closed cockpit is no guarantee of survival but it is safer. Doesn't it make more sense to aim for a higher standard than to settle for a worse one? If Formula One is supposed to be the pinnacle of motorsport, then why shouldn't it also lead the way in terms of safety development?

Er, that's why F1 cars now have high cockpit sides, to prevent wheels encroaching on the driver's helmet. Look how far the tubs (didn't) rise up alongside the drivers in 1994 and compare them to where they are now. I wouldn't call open cockpits a design flaw either. They are designed to be that way.

Enclosing the driver in F1 requires a radical redesign of the machines. You can't just put something over their heads and enclose them. I'm also quite sure that F1 drivers can get out of the modern cars without having to take off the headrests if they're in a hurry.

I'll point you to Simona de Silvestro's accident at Indy this year - car on fire upside down, and she manages to get herself out. Extracting oneself from a gull-wing car upside down and on fire is quite a different kettle of fish.

[Berwickk]

Or drivers could just not race in F1 or any other open wheel formula. They know the hazards of racing in an open wheel formula, they accept it and they get paid big bucks for it. If it was really a concern, they would not be in F1.
That's exactly what I was thinking, they know what their doing, hell, they would probably argue against people trying to make it closed roof. It's their risk that they choose to make, just like saying a soldier shouldn't be sent to war because he might be shot at, he knew what he was doing when he signed up.

[Daniel]

Er, that's why F1 cars now have high cockpit sides, to prevent wheels encroaching on the driver's helmet. Look how far the tubs (didn't) rise up alongside the drivers in 1994 and compare them to where they are now. I wouldn't call open cockpits a design flaw either. They are designed to be that way.

Enclosing the driver in F1 requires a radical redesign of the machines. You can't just put something over their heads and enclose them. I'm also quite sure that F1 drivers can get out of the modern cars without having to take off the headrests if they're in a hurry.

I'll point you to Simona de Silvestro's accident at Indy this year - car on fire upside down, and she manages to get herself out. Extracting oneself from a gull-wing car upside down and on fire is quite a different kettle of fish.

F1 cars don't catastrophically catch fire all that often though?

[Daniel]

That's exactly what I was thinking, they know what their doing, hell, they would probably argue against people trying to make it closed roof. It's their risk that they choose to make, just like saying a soldier shouldn't be sent to war because he might be shot at, he knew what he was doing when he signed up.

Yes, but if reasonable steps can be taken to make that soldier safer then they should be...... the soldier expects to have body armour, helmets and so on....

[555-04Q2]

That's exactly what I was thinking, they know what their doing, hell, they would probably argue against people trying to make it closed roof. It's their risk that they choose to make, just like saying a soldier shouldn't be sent to war because he might be shot at, he knew what he was doing when he signed up.

Welcome to the forum :)

[555-04Q2]

Yes, but if reasonable steps can be taken to make that soldier safer then they should be...... the soldier expects to have body armour, helmets and so on....

Does your bed have sides so that you don't fall off it? ;)

There is only so much one can do for safety in any form of sport, job, hobby, day to day life etc. We cannot account and cover for everything.

[Daniel]

Does your bed have sides so that you don't fall off it? ;)

There is only so much one can do for safety in any form of sport, job, hobby, day to day life etc. We cannot account and cover for everything.

OMG I hadn't realised the risk! I will order some bed sides straight away!

[555-04Q2]

C'mon Dan. You are being a bit padantic about the whole safety issue.

[Berwickk]

Welcome to the forum :)
Cheers :)

[555-04Q2]

:beer:

[Sonic]

Or drivers could just not race in F1 or any other open wheel formula. They know the hazards of racing in an open wheel formula, they accept it and they get paid big bucks for it. If it was really a concern, they would not be in F1.

Bravo! I've raced both open and tin tops - even had a car land on my car at Donny in '99 (still got the tyre marks on my skid lid to prove it) and I got back in the car the next day because that's what racing drivers do.

The risks are known, and whilst those risks should be managed, that is the key word - managed, not eradicated. Both because it is impossible and because its the adrenaline rush is what makes us want to do it in the first place. Take that away and you take away the reason for the sport to exist.

Its one of the reasons all that whinging on the radio about the rain got me so annoyed. 100% guaranteed, if the green flag had waved, they have been flat out, on the limit, giving it the beans. Not one would have parked it and said 'that's too wet.'

[schmenke]

I still really don’t understand the purpose of this discussion.
The sport of F1 mandates open cockpit and exposed wheels.
Altering from this mandate changes the formula of the sport similar to other forms of motor racing that are currently available to bother drivers and spectators.

[555-04Q2]

Bravo! I've raced both open and tin tops - even had a car land on my car at Donny in '99 (still got the tyre marks on my skid lid to prove it) and I got back in the car the next day because that's what racing drivers do.

The risks are known, and whilst those risks should be managed, that is the key word - managed, not eradicated. Both because it is impossible and because its the adrenaline rush is what makes us want to do it in the first place. Take that away and you take away the reason for the sport to exist.

Its one of the reasons all that whinging on the radio about the rain got me so annoyed. 100% guaranteed, if the green flag had waved, they have been flat out, on the limit, giving it the beans. Not one would have parked it and said 'that's too wet.'

:up: Some people will be unable/unwilling to understand your post. But it is a good one and sums up the point perfectly :up:

[MrJan]

Or drivers could just not race in F1 or any other open wheel formula. They know the hazards of racing in an open wheel formula, they accept it and they get paid big bucks for it. If it was really a concern, they would not be in F1.

How's that any different to when drivers accepted the lack of safety in the '60s?

I'm not saying that I agree with what Daniel is suggesting, but the arguments against it are generally just too weak. There are a few that have come out and given decent reasons of why covered cockpits aren't the best option, but other than that it's all bull**** trying to hold on to 'tradition' and a lack of anyone saying what actually makes an F1 car an F1 car.

If we had front engined cars with no wings but still open cockpit and open wheel, how would people feel about that?

Anyway as someone that works in the building industry I know that "well they do it so it must be okay" is completely the wrong approach to health & safety. I know chippies that are happy to stand on hop-up steps at the top of a 2 story mobile tower scaffold. I know roofers that will happily work with no edge protection or harness, and the less said about scaffolders the better. None of this means that it's right or that there shouldn't at least be a debate on the subject of elfin safety.

F1 is a long, long, long way safer than it was many years ago, is the racing any less interesting? Do the drivers feel less of a buzz?

[555-04Q2]

How's that any different to when drivers accepted the lack of safety in the '60s?

I'm not saying that I agree with what Daniel is suggesting, but the arguments against it are generally just too weak. There are a few that have come out and given decent reasons of why covered cockpits aren't the best option, but other than that it's all bull**** trying to hold on to 'tradition' and a lack of anyone saying what actually makes an F1 car an F1 car.

If we had front engined cars with no wings but still open cockpit and open wheel, how would people feel about that?

Anyway as someone that works in the building industry I know that "well they do it so it must be okay" is completely the wrong approach to health & safety. I know chippies that are happy to stand on hop-up steps at the top of a 2 story mobile tower scaffold. I know roofers that will happily work with no edge protection or harness, and the less said about scaffolders the better. None of this means that it's right or that there shouldn't at least be a debate on the subject of elfin safety.

F1 is a long, long, long way safer than it was many years ago, is the racing any less interesting? Do the drivers feel less of a buzz?

Quite simple. As schmenke posted, F1 rules stipulate an open cockpit where the driver needs to get out without having to remove anything but the steering wheel. That is how an F1 car is regulated to be built. If people/drivers feel it is not safe enough, they can join the touring car championship or some other closed cockpit racing formula.

[CaptainRaiden]

I still really don’t understand the purpose of this discussion.
The sport of F1 mandates open cockpit and exposed wheels.
Altering from this mandate changes the formula of the sport similar to other forms of motor racing that are currently available to bother drivers and spectators.

Nail, hit, head.

/thread

[555-04Q2]

Nail, hit, head.

/thread

Nail, hit, finger.....aaaarrrrrrrgggggghhhhhhh.

We agree on something else again, a rare thing :D

[Daniel]

I still really don’t understand the purpose of this discussion.
The sport of F1 mandates open cockpit and exposed wheels.
Altering from this mandate changes the formula of the sport similar to other forms of motor racing that are currently available to bother drivers and spectators.

But if the sport dictated a goat being strapped on the engine cover? Or a pair of boobs on the nose? If one of the cars turned up with no goat and no boobs is it still an F1 car?

Rules can be changed if the sport feels they need to be changed.

Barry has hit the nail on the head really, to simply keep it as it is because that is how it was in the past is silly. If Michelin had come in this year and put low profile tyres on big wheels it would have been different but it would still be F1

[DexDexter]

I still really don’t understand the purpose of this discussion.
The sport of F1 mandates open cockpit and exposed wheels.
Altering from this mandate changes the formula of the sport similar to other forms of motor racing that are currently available to bother drivers and spectators.

There is no purpose, the poster Daniel just likes heated discussion and arguments :) .

[555-04Q2]

F1 has been an open cockpit design for over 60 years now Dan. Why change it?

[Daniel]

There is no purpose, the poster Daniel just likes heated discussion and arguments :) .

Well sorry for having an opinion and trying to justify it :rolleyes:

[Daniel]

F1 has been an open cockpit design for over 60 years now Dan. Why change it?

Because I feel that it's safer? :mark: :confused:

[schmenke]

Perhaps you miss my point Daniel.

If a similar motorsport series already existed that mandated goats and boobs why would there be a need to change the formula of F1? Keep F1 as it is and if you fancy goats 'n boobs particpate in the other series.

[555-04Q2]

It would be safer to fit 600cc Diahatsu engines so they don't go fast enough to hurt themselves...

[555-04Q2]

Perhaps you miss my point Daniel.

If a similar motorsport series already existed that mandated goats and boobs why would there be a need to change the formula of F1? Keep F1 as it is and if you fancy goats 'n boobs particpate in the other series.

ROTFLMAO.

:laugh: You had me at goats :laugh:

[Daniel]

Perhaps you miss my point Daniel.

If a similar motorsport series already existed that mandated goats and boobs why would there be a need to change the formula of F1? Keep F1 as it is and if you fancy goats 'n boobs particpate in the other series.

Well IMHO F1 isn't purely about the cars. It's about the calibre of the field, sure you've got your Buemi's and Algesuari's and so on, but the top drivers are proper top drivers. You also have some of the best tracks in the world, cars which are bloody quick and a well recognised championship.

It's also not that I like roofs and faired wheels, it's that I feel that this would make things safer without spoiling the racing. If we continue on fatality free then I doubt anything will change of course, but lets say we have a Surtees style accident and a Massa style incident which are both fatal or extremely serious then IMHO there will be only one outcome and I think it's one that should be considered sooner rather than later.

[Daniel]

It would be safer to fit 600cc Diahatsu engines so they don't go fast enough to hurt themselves...

Now that's just silly, cars with 600cc engines are never going to be interesting to watch unless engine technology moves on. Roofs and covered wheels won't lessen the show....

[555-04Q2]

Now that's just silly, cars with 600cc engines are never going to be interesting to watch unless engine technology moves on. Roofs and covered wheels won't lessen the show....

No more silly than a closed cockpit F1 racer would be. You getting the point now :?: ;)

[Daniel]

No more silly than a closed cockpit F1 racer would be. You getting the point now :?: ;)

Not to be funny, but you're choosing not to discuss this in a reasonable fashion.

A small engine like that makes the cars SLOWER which directly means that there is less spectacle.
A roof and wheel fairings would merely make the cars differently, and with the reduction in drag could even make for a better show.

[555-04Q2]

Not to be funny, but you're choosing not to discuss this in a reasonable fashion.

A small engine like that makes the cars SLOWER which directly means that there is less spectacle.
A roof and wheel fairings would merely make the cars differently, and with the reduction in drag could even make for a better show.

I watch F1 for what it is, not what it could be. If they covered the cockpit and arched the wheels, I promise you that I will be the first to switch off the telly after over 20 years of F1 loyalty and only 4 live races missed in that time.

[schmenke]

I think we all agree that safety is the prime consideration when specifying both the sporting and technical regulations of any sport. But a balance has to be achieved between safety and maintaining the essence of the sport. Otherwise F1 would be running 600cc Diahatsus as mentioned, and rugby players would be wearing inflatable sumo suits.

[Daniel]

I watch F1 for what it is, not what it could be. If they covered the cockpit and arched the wheels, I promise you that I will be the first to switch off the telly after over 20 years of F1 loyalty and only 4 live races missed in that time.

Although I'm sure you're serious, I doubt you would switch off. F1 would still be more or less the same, it would just be slightly different.

OK let me put it this way. Next race if a wheel comes off and kills a driver as Surtees died and then the race after that someone gets hit in the head in a similar manner to the way Massa did and turns into a vegetable for the rest of their lives then what could F1 do in your opinion to try and lessen this risk? Serious question there.

[Bagwan]

Although I'm sure you're serious, I doubt you would switch off. F1 would still be more or less the same, it would just be slightly different.

OK let me put it this way. Next race if a wheel comes off and kills a driver as Surtees died and then the race after that someone gets hit in the head in a similar manner to the way Massa did and turns into a vegetable for the rest of their lives then what could F1 do in your opinion to try and lessen this risk? Serious question there.

They do react to these things , though , Daniel .
They have two tethers on the wheels now .

When Massa was hit , the crowd went silent , and we all waited with baited breath until we knew he would be OK .
And , even though he had the face of a prize fighter , he was itching hard to get back in the seat .

The cars are designed to be safe , and are very much so , despite open wheels .
But , it's the danger , despite the safety , that draws both the crowd and the fan .
It is the fact that they are open wheel that is a great part of that draw .

[MrJan]

Quite simple. As schmenke posted, F1 rules stipulate an open cockpit where the driver needs to get out without having to remove anything but the steering wheel. That is how an F1 car is regulated to be built. If people/drivers feel it is not safe enough, they can join the touring car championship or some other closed cockpit racing formula.

Oh FFS, it's like smashing myself in the face with a brick. Did you not actually read what I wrote, or are you being intentionally ignorant?


That is how an F1 car is regulated to be built
Only currently. A few years ago they were regulated to be 3l v10s, does that mean that the current crop aren't real F1 cars? We've had turbos, we've had ground effect, we've had six wheels, we've had double deck diffusers. Are none of these F1 cars? Are all of them F1 cars? The rules are only ever current (even then they change, like we're about to see with blown diffusers). If the 2016 rules state that they should be closed cockpit then it's just another step in the life of the sport.


If people/drivers feel it is not safe enough
Like I said with the building industry (a point you completely ignored), people always feel that they are safe enough until an accident happens...at which point, in building anyway, someone gets sued. Just because people feel safe, doesn't mean that they are safe.

Also like I said before, I don't necessarily believe that we need closed cockpits etc. I just think that people are being stupidly stick in the mud with the replies that Daniel is getting.

[MrJan]

I watch F1 for what it is, not what it could be. If they covered the cockpit and arched the wheels, I promise you that I will be the first to switch off the telly after over 20 years of F1 loyalty and only 4 live races missed in that time.

I'm dumbfounded at reading that.

[schmenke]

I'm dumbfounded at reading that.

Why is that Miguel?
I too have been watching F1 for 20+ years ( :erm: ) and over the last couple of years the sport(?) has taken a direction that has increasingly depreciated by interest.
Closed cockpits and fendered wheels would simply mean that I would likely switch to different series :mark: .

[I am evil Homer]

F1 is far more about the drivers though...people want to see the helmet colours and identify with their 'man'. Now some of that is being lost with the constant helmet redesigns to add in some diamonds for Monaco (gimmick, much?!?) but a coupe loses some that appeal of seeing the hands sawing at the wheel a la Kobayashi.

[Bagwan]

Barry , there are always two ends to the spectrum , and we always need to find the safest place in between .

A friend of mine who works at the nuke plant nearby mentioned the other day that he had the change a light bulb .
It would have been three steps up the ladder to do it , but it was one too many .
He was required to acquire a zoom boom to do it , which took about half of his day , as it had to be brought from another end of the plant .
He was also required to tie off , and because of this , was put in some danger as a result , by having to lean down to the bulb from the boom very awkwardly .
It took three guys .
One drove the machine .
One lead him through the plant .
And one , to change the bulb .


All the while , without a functioning bulb in place , it was dark for half the day .

The other end of that spectrum isn't your roofer friends , but those cats in Asia who use bamboo for scaffolding .


In F1 we have willing participants .
They are willing to go all the way up the ladder , not just the third step .

[MrJan]

Why is that Miguel?
I too have been watching F1 for 20+ years ( :erm: ) and over the last couple of years the sport(?) has taken a direction that has increasingly depreciated by interest.
Closed cockpits and fendered wheels would simply mean that I would likely switch to different series :mark: .

To my mind it's the speed and the racing that's important, what the cars look like is an irrelevance to me. Enclosing the car like the Caparo or that Red Bull thing from GT5 doesn't ultimately change the racing, at least not to my mind. And in the end I'm a motorsport fan, if there's motorsport being shown on telly and it's interesting to watch then why would I want to turn off? Especially for something as trivial as a roof.

As far as I'm concerned switching off from an entertaining series because of such a rule change would be petty in the extreme.

[MrJan]

Barry , there are always two ends to the spectrum , and we always need to find the safest place in between .

A friend of mine who works at the nuke plant nearby mentioned the other day that he had the change a light bulb .
It would have been three steps up the ladder to do it , but it was one too many .
He was required to acquire a zoom boom to do it , which took about half of his day , as it had to be brought from another end of the plant .
He was also required to tie off , and because of this , was put in some danger as a result , by having to lean down to the bulb from the boom very awkwardly .
It took three guys .
One drove the machine .
One lead him through the plant .
And one , to change the bulb .


All the while , without a functioning bulb in place , it was dark for half the day .

The other end of that spectrum isn't your roofer friends , but those cats in Asia who use bamboo for scaffolding .


In F1 we have willing participants .
They are willing to go all the way up the ladder , not just the third step .

So putting a fighter jet style cockpit on an F1 to reduce the possibility of a driver dying from debris ingress, is your idea of an equivilent to spending 18 man hours to change a lightbulb to prevent someone dying from falling from a step ladder (which apparently happens surprisingly often)?

[Bagwan]

So putting a fighter jet style cockpit on an F1 to reduce the possibility of a driver dying from debris ingress, is your idea of an equivilent to spending 18 man hours to change a lightbulb to prevent someone dying from falling from a step ladder (which apparently happens surprisingly often)?

Not exactly .
But , there are issues , like falling off that ladder , that have been anticipated , and dealt with , that have spawned more dangerous situations .
This was a six step ladder . The fact that he was required to go to a different part of the plant to get an alternate tool for the job meant that this specific part of the plant wasn't lit properly , making for a more dangerous situation for half of a day for all those working in the area .

Take more of the F1 driver's vision away and it really doesn't help , does it ?
They lack sufficient view as it is , and complain often that they can't see the front wings .
And front wings have littered every track this year .

I would lobby for a higher driver position , and mandate a bar for protection , but a closed cockpit won't work , in my eyes , as they must race too close to further limit vision .

I believe that adding a cockpit cover would limit vision .
I believe adding one would find more cars upside down or at least crashing heavily as a result .
The best reason I can think of for having one is because you'd need one if you had one .

[555-04Q2]

Although I'm sure you're serious, I doubt you would switch off. F1 would still be more or less the same, it would just be slightly different.

OK let me put it this way. Next race if a wheel comes off and kills a driver as Surtees died and then the race after that someone gets hit in the head in a similar manner to the way Massa did and turns into a vegetable for the rest of their lives then what could F1 do in your opinion to try and lessen this risk? Serious question there.

Serious answer...I would say that would be a tradegy as every serious accident is. But there is a limit to what we can prevent happening. I'm not against improving safety, but there will always be an eliment of danger and the drivers know this. They compete for the thrill of it, danger included. Covering the cockpit for example reduces some safety issues, but could create othr issues such as fire hazards or restricting access to a seriously injured driver in an overturned car. I think F1 is about as safe as you can get it to be when cars are travelling at over 300 km/h.

[ioan]

Ok, using your logic, football is the first to go, there have been some serious injuries so let's ban contact altogether and don't let them run since somebody might have a heart attack. Rugby is too dangerous as well, some serious injuries have occurred so let's end the whole sport. Golf too, a golf ball is very dangerous if it hits somebody in the head. Why do people want to keep golf dangerous, shouldn't they use a soft ball? In football the players should not kick the ball at full force since it might hit someone's head. Why do the spectators want to keep it dangerous and don't demand the players play safe? :rolleyes:

I'm impress with how much rubbish you can come up to try to defend the un-defendable.
Who asked for stopping sports? Did I say they should stop racing?!

Tell me do they ware tibia protection in Football? Yes they do. By your account they must be stupid to try to protect them from the possible accidents.
Also do they use all kind of head protection in Rugby? Yes they do, so they must be idiots cause they try to protect themselves as much as possible without impairing their performance.
BTW do they use lots of protection in Hockey? Hell sure they do, I wonder why?! Maybe so that someone can come up with some utterly ridiculous post like yours and question an athletes need for protecting his own body and health.

[555-04Q2]

[quote="barryfullalove"] Oh FFS, it's like smashing myself in the face with a brick. Did you not actually read what I wrote, or are you being intentionally ignorant?
[quote]

Thank you for the kind words...

[ioan]

I watch F1 for what it is, not what it could be. If they covered the cockpit and arched the wheels, I promise you that I will be the first to switch off the telly after over 20 years of F1 loyalty and only 4 live races missed in that time.

One should always thrive to improve safety if possible. The show should be 2nd to the drivers, team members, marshals and spectators safety, always.

[555-04Q2]

One should always thrive to improve safety if possible. The show should be 2nd to the drivers, team members, marshals and spectators safety, always.

I'm all for safety mate. Just not rediculous/unnecessary safety measures at the expense of the "show" :)

[ioan]

I'm all for safety mate. Just not rediculous/unnecessary safety measures at the expense of the "show" :)

F the show, fair play and safety are first in line, followed by technical genius, driving skills, ice cream, pit babes...list of other hundreds of good stuff.... show. ;)

[555-04Q2]

F the show, fair play and safety are first in line, followed by technical genius, driving skills, ice cream, pit babes...list of other hundreds of good stuff.... show. ;)

The pit babes should he higher up you list ;) :D

[SGWilko]

So why were Jackie Stewart in Formula 1 when he was obviously concerned about safety then?

He was quite veciferous on the subject of barriers - your example of the chaps car going under the barrier - who in their right mind these days has a barrier with a space underneath it? You see, safety keps improving. Rather than cure the problem with a covered cockpit, prevent it by having proper barriers.

[ioan]

The pit babes should he higher up you list ;) :D

Nah, ice cream wins hands down, plus I can have as many as I want! :D

[ioan]

He was quite veciferous on the subject of barriers - your example of the chaps car going under the barrier - who in their right mind these days has a barrier with a space underneath it? You see, safety keps improving. Rather than cure the problem with a covered cockpit, prevent it by having proper barriers.

How the hell does a barrier solve the lack of safety that is inherent to an open cockpit?!

[555-04Q2]

Nah, ice cream wins hands down, plus I can have as many as I want! :D

:laugh: :up:

[SGWilko]

How the hell does a barrier solve the lack of safety that is inherent to an open cockpit?!

If the car cannot travel under the barrier and hence take the drivers head off................ also modern barriers are designed to absorb energy and prevent the car bouncing back onto the racing line.

But other than that ioan, SFA I guess.....

[SGWilko]

I would happily wager a bet that drivers will take many more risks in closed wheel/cockpit F1 cars, and could easily in itself lead to more accidents due to the false sense of security given.

[555-04Q2]

Touring cars is a prime example...

[DexDexter]

I'm impress with how much rubbish you can come up to try to defend the un-defendable.
Who asked for stopping sports? Did I say they should stop racing?!

Tell me do they ware tibia protection in Football? Yes they do. By your account they must be stupid to try to protect them from the possible accidents.
Also do they use all kind of head protection in Rugby? Yes they do, so they must be idiots cause they try to protect themselves as much as possible without impairing their performance.
BTW do they use lots of protection in Hockey? Hell sure they do, I wonder why?! Maybe so that someone can come up with some utterly ridiculous post like yours and question an athletes need for protecting his own body and health.

All above is true but they could do more to make those sports even more safe, but they choose not to because it would take away THE important element of the sport. That's the point, F1 is open-wheel, open cockpit racing just like hockey is a contact sport. Mess with that and you'll destroy the sport.

BTW where did I question athlete's need for protecting his own body and health? You and poster Daniel should go private and start an argument for the sake of it since you two guys love that so much.

[Andrewmcm]

This thread is hilarious.

Safety in racing is reactive, not pro-active. The HANS Device, high-sided cockpits, carbon fibre chassis, SAFER Barrier, close-faced helmets, wheel tethers and so on ad infinitum have all come about as there was a need for them to be designed in order to improve safety.

I have a question for you all (generalising to all open-wheel type cars, and I assume that CART/Indycars are as safe as F1 cars): Would Greg Moore have benefitted from a closed cockpit, or would he still have met the same fate? Would Zanardi have suffered the same injuries in a car with enclosed wheels/body?

The fact is that improvements in safety come about when there is a need for it to be addressed. As I mentioned above an open cockpit is not a design flaw, but an inherent part in the design of a 'formula' car. Changing that design to be closed-cockpit would radically alter the shape of the car, and would no doubt turn a lot of fans off.

I'm also of the opinion that improvements in safety have lead drivers to take increased ricks on-track, as there is a certain level of belief that they will escape (relatively) unharmed if accidents occur.

[DexDexter]

All above is true but they could do more to make those sports even more safe, but they choose not to because it would take away THE important element of the sport. That's the point, F1 is open-wheel, open cockpit racing just like hockey is a contact sport. Mess with that and you'll destroy the sport.

BTW where did I question athlete's need for protecting his own body and health? You and poster Daniel should go private and start an argument for the sake of it since you two guys love that so much.


Well sorry for having an opinion and trying to justify it :rolleyes:

We both know that's not the case. You constantly start provocative threads just for the sake of it.

[DexDexter]

You know what, let ioan and Daniel have their closed cockpits, the rest of us will continue to follow open-wheel, open cockpit racing like always. Stupid thread which should be closed.

[MAX_THRUST]

I haven't bothered reading all the threads, ut NO. F1 is open cockpit racing and LeMans is a diferent animal. Can we not do a pole on this?

[Daniel]

This thread is hilarious.

Safety in racing is reactive, not pro-active. The HANS Device, high-sided cockpits, carbon fibre chassis, SAFER Barrier, close-faced helmets, wheel tethers and so on ad infinitum have all come about as there was a need for them to be designed in order to improve safety.


Is that how it should be though?

[Daniel]

Heaven forbid there should be some discussion on here....

[steveaki13]

Perhaps you miss my point Daniel.

If a similar motorsport series already existed that mandated goats and boobs why would there be a need to change the formula of F1? Keep F1 as it is and if you fancy goats 'n boobs particpate in the other series.

I quite fancy a go at the Goat and Boob Racing.

Spot on post though.

[SGWilko]

Heaven forbid there should be some discussion on here....

There's been plenty, I suspect the goat and boobs sarcasm and flippency when other opinions and discussions don't go your way have put everyone off.

[Daniel]

There's been plenty, I suspect the goat and boobs sarcasm and flippency when other opinions and discussions don't go your way have put everyone off.

I've quite enjoyed how the conversation has gone where people have actually given proper reasons :)

[steveaki13]

Remove the goats they have sharpe horns that could hurt someone. :p :

[Andrewmcm]

Is that how it should be though?

Sadly yes. If there is no market to develop or mandate a product then no-one will buy/use it. Look at Dale Earnhardt's opinion of the HANS device, something that in all likelihood would have saved his life. Now it is used in every major series in the years following his untimely demise.

Accidents like those encountered by Massa and Surtees are freakish. In much the same way that those of Greg Moore and Zanardi were freakish. Martin Brundle commented on Sunday that F1 cars aren't designed to hit each other head on, as the probability of those accidents occurring are so low. I guess the point is that a racing car can't be designed with every type of crash in mind, as the resulting machine would not be particularly speedy.

[Anubis]

of course, but in those situations we're talking about cars which "only" have a roll cage and are built out of steel and not carbon fibre.

So why aren't you arguing that all tin top series should switch to carbon fibre safety cells then? You're not being consistent. There hasn't been an F1 driver fatality for 17 years now, despite some pretty horrendous accidents. That suggests F1 takes safety seriously. I'm not saying other series don't, but it seems odd you're so concerned about F1 when there are other forms of racing, even other single series that have seen multiple fatalities in that time. If safety alone is your concern, it would appear more sensible to focus on series where safety improvements could have a greater return, that is to say series that have had more serious injuries that F1 in the same time frame, rather than worrying about theoretical F1 crashes and the injuries that may or may not occur and whether they may or may not have been avoided had the cars been closed wheel and/or closed cockpit.

[Anubis]

F1 cars don't catastrophically catch fire all that often though?

They don't catastrophically take off or have debris flying into the cockpit all that often either, but that seems to be the crux of your argument.

[call_me_andrew]

This thread is causing my hypochondria to flare up.

[bluegem280]

Remove the goats they have sharpe horns that could hurt someone. :p :

Where were the goats, it was a hare running on the track, not dangerous.. :)

[Daniel]

I gave my reasons and you got nasty. Sorry but you are not in charge of how the debate flows on here and your opinion on whether someones reason is a 'proper' one is your opinion at the end of the day.

No disrespect, but "It should be in the future because it was in the past" isn't really a valid reason :)

[SGWilko]

No disrespect, but "It should be in the future because it was in the past" isn't really a valid reason :)

Alright then Daniel, can you list the possible accidents a current F1 car might suffer that could lead to a driver fatality that has not already been taken care of?

[ArrowsFA1]

No disrespect, but "It should be in the future because it was in the past" isn't really a valid reason :)
My interpretation of your argument is that just because F1 has always been F1 (i.e. an open wheel, open cockpit form of racing) doesn't mean it has to continue to be F1.

[ioan]

Safety in racing is reactive, not pro-active.

Which is bad enough, as many lives would have been saved by being more proactive. For all his defaults Mosley did a good job, he was even a tad proactive with regards to driver safety.

[ioan]

No disrespect but "there is no reason to change open wheel, open cockpit Grand Prix racing into a closed cockpit series".

You mean that peoples lives are no reason for improving something? Oh well what to expect from the product of today's video gaming 'society'. :down:

[BDunnell]

Which is bad enough, as many lives would have been saved by being more proactive. For all his defaults Mosley did a good job, he was even a tad proactive with regards to driver safety.

But equally some lives would still have been lost no matter what, because lives will always be lost in motorsport, just as in life.

(By the way, I know exactly what reaction this comment will produce from some unimaginative quarters.)

[Daniel]

My interpretation of your argument is that just because F1 has always been F1 (i.e. an open wheel, open cockpit form of racing) doesn't mean it has to continue to be F1.

I think that's a very silly definition of F1. Go out and ask the question of what F1 is to people and I doubt many will mention open wheels. To me F1 is the tracks, the drivers, the level of competition and ingenuity and F1 cars are simply the cars they're in. I certainly don't think that F1 cars should have a car type body like DTM, F1 has never been about road cars, I simply think that coupe's are stronger by nature of not having a hole in the top and that perhaps some future fatalities or serious injuries can be avoided by the addition of a roof and covering the wheels.

The only person who has even tried to answer my question regarding what would/should be done if these sort of accidents were causing fatalities and serious injuries. Lets say two people die in the next race from injuries sustained from objects hitting the driver in the head? What is done then and why should we be reactive rather than proactive when it's hardly beyond imagination that something could hit the drivers in the head?

[Daniel]

But equally some lives would still have been lost no matter what, because lives will always be lost in motorsport, just as in life.

(By the way, I know exactly what reaction this comment will produce from some unimaginative quarters.)

I agree with that to a certain extent, the human body isn't really made to go racing and people will always die, but should we not learn lessons from specific incidents and apply them going forward? Isn't it also prudent to look at the risks, evaluate them and make changes to lessen the risk?

I mean you work as an aviation journalist am I right? Do Airbus and Boeing take a reactionary attitude towards safety? :mark:

[Daniel]

Once again ioan you have ignored what I have said and suggested I have no regard for human life. Well done, I mean that, well done. :dozey:

You've still not answered my question, lets say two drivers die in the next race from injuries from flying wheels and other bits of car. What do we do?

[ioan]

But equally some lives would still have been lost no matter what, because lives will always be lost in motorsport, just as in life.

(By the way, I know exactly what reaction this comment will produce from some unimaginative quarters.)

I agree, there is no such thing as 100% safe, however there is space for improvement in F1.

[ioan]

You've still not answered my question, lets say two drivers die in the next race from injuries from flying wheels and other bits of car. What do we do?

Nothing, or do you suggest that their lives are more important than the show and the F1 rules/definitions?! ;)

[Daniel]

Nothing, or do you suggest that their lives are more important than the show and the F1 rules/definitions?! ;)

The thing I don't get Ioan is that people are saying that things should be reactionary and that we don't need to be proactive about things. But the fact is that Massa has already been hit in the head and was close to being blind and/or a vegetable plus there's poor Henry Surtees who had an accident that could easily happen in F1 which killed him. It almost seems like people need to see a fatal or debilitating injury happen in F1 for it to suddenly be relevant to F1 which is a silly attitude IMHO. I mean if someone dies in an accident in a lower rally class and that accident is conceivably possible in a WRCar then you'd hope the designers of the WRCar would try to account for it and minimise the risk, rather than needing the accident to happen to a WRCar before they do anything about it.....

[ioan]

The thing I don't get Ioan is that people are saying that things should be reactionary and that we don't need to be proactive about things. But the fact is that Massa has already been hit in the head and was close to being blind and/or a vegetable plus there's poor Henry Surtees who had an accident that could easily happen in F1 which killed him. It almost seems like people need to see a fatal or debilitating injury happen in F1 for it to suddenly be relevant to F1 which is a silly attitude IMHO. I mean if someone dies in an accident in a lower rally class and that accident is conceivably possible in a WRCar then you'd hope the designers of the WRCar would try to account for it and minimise the risk, rather than needing the accident to happen to a WRCar before they do anything about it.....


It's this bloody human nature. rest assured if someone from their family would have been at the receiving end they would sing a different tune.

[ioan]

I can appreciate fans are concerned for the safety of their hero's and I class myself in that camp. But where do we draw the line? Moto GP riders race with nothing but a leather suit for protection when they come off. Admittedly the tracks are alot safer nowadays with run off areas and extra padding on tyre walls, but that also applies to F1. The Isle of Man TT had 3 riders lose their lives last weekend because they race on closed public roads and on a circuit that is far too long to make completely safe. Do we cancel the event because every year somebody dies? Or do we let it continue the way it is and accept that every rider that enters the event is aware of the risk? I saw no calls on the TT thread calling for safety measures because people were actually dying.. Its an event afterall that has lost more riders in its history than F1 and they experience this on a yearly basis. F1 has not lost a driver (thank goodness) for 17 years, yet it creates more of an issue than sports with a higher mortality rate? In RallyING we see modified road cars competing on tracks littered with danger be it public roads or forrest stages, yet its allowed to continue. We saw with Robert Kubica how easily it can all go wrong when faced with a safety barrier that was not up to spec.

All these sports could be made safer in reality but the money has to come from somewhere. In our case its most likely the fans who would pay. How much would it cost the secure the entire TT circuit , every garden wall, kerb, Lamppost postbox etc etc? How much would it cost to wrap every tree close to the track on a rally stage? Going health and safety mad also carries a price in the way it takes away the appeal. I might be classed as a nutter who enjoys watching people die by some here who fail to read my posts, but I enjoy Grand Prix racing because its open wheeled, and you can see the driver. Its fast, its dangerous and its fun. I've raced go karts for years and I have never asked for a roll cage to be fitted because it looks stupid and I like the feeling of taking a corner flat out with the adrenaline hit of knowing something could go wrong. Call it weird but its racing and I love it. :)

Each to his own I guess.

[Firstgear]

No disrespect, but "It should be in the future because it was in the past" isn't really a valid reason :)

Sure it is. It's the main reason Monaco is still on the calendar.

[Daniel]

I can appreciate fans are concerned for the safety of their hero's and I class myself in that camp. But where do we draw the line? Moto GP riders race with nothing but a leather suit for protection when they come off. Admittedly the tracks are alot safer nowadays with run off areas and extra padding on tyre walls, but that also applies to F1. The Isle of Man TT had 3 riders lose their lives last weekend because they race on closed public roads and on a circuit that is far too long to make completely safe. Do we cancel the event because every year somebody dies? Or do we let it continue the way it is and accept that every rider that enters the event is aware of the risk? I saw no calls on the TT thread calling for safety measures because people were actually dying.. Its an event afterall that has lost more riders in its history than F1 and they experience this on a yearly basis. F1 has not lost a driver (thank goodness) for 17 years, yet it creates more of an issue than sports with a higher mortality rate? In RallyING we see modified road cars competing on tracks littered with danger be it public roads or forrest stages, yet its allowed to continue. We saw with Robert Kubica how easily it can all go wrong when faced with a safety barrier that was not up to spec.

All these sports could be made safer in reality but the money has to come from somewhere. In our case its most likely the fans who would pay. How much would it cost the secure the entire TT circuit , every garden wall, kerb, Lamppost postbox etc etc? How much would it cost to wrap every tree close to the track on a rally stage? Going health and safety mad also carries a price in the way it takes away the appeal. I might be classed as a nutter who enjoys watching people die by some here who fail to read my posts, but I enjoy Grand Prix racing because its open wheeled, and you can see the driver. Its fast, its dangerous and its fun. I've raced go karts for years and I have never asked for a roll cage to be fitted because it looks stupid and I like the feeling of taking a corner flat out with the adrenaline hit of knowing something could go wrong. Call it weird but its racing and I love it. :)
All that and you still don't seem to say what you feel should be done if there were fatalities in F1 from these sorts of injuries.

[Daniel]

Sure it is. It's the main reason Monaco is still on the calendar.

At the same time though Monaco has change a lot from what it used to be.

[Daniel]

I can appreciate fans are concerned for the safety of their hero's and I class myself in that camp. But where do we draw the line? Moto GP riders race with nothing but a leather suit for protection when they come off. Admittedly the tracks are alot safer nowadays with run off areas and extra padding on tyre walls, but that also applies to F1. The Isle of Man TT had 3 riders lose their lives last weekend because they race on closed public roads and on a circuit that is far too long to make completely safe. Do we cancel the event because every year somebody dies? Or do we let it continue the way it is and accept that every rider that enters the event is aware of the risk? I saw no calls on the TT thread calling for safety measures because people were actually dying.. Its an event afterall that has lost more riders in its history than F1 and they experience this on a yearly basis. F1 has not lost a driver (thank goodness) for 17 years, yet it creates more of an issue than sports with a higher mortality rate? In RallyING we see modified road cars competing on tracks littered with danger be it public roads or forrest stages, yet its allowed to continue. We saw with Robert Kubica how easily it can all go wrong when faced with a safety barrier that was not up to spec.

All these sports could be made safer in reality but the money has to come from somewhere. In our case its most likely the fans who would pay. How much would it cost the secure the entire TT circuit , every garden wall, kerb, Lamppost postbox etc etc? How much would it cost to wrap every tree close to the track on a rally stage? Going health and safety mad also carries a price in the way it takes away the appeal. I might be classed as a nutter who enjoys watching people die by some here who fail to read my posts, but I enjoy Grand Prix racing because its open wheeled, and you can see the driver. Its fast, its dangerous and its fun. I've raced go karts for years and I have never asked for a roll cage to be fitted because it looks stupid and I like the feeling of taking a corner flat out with the adrenaline hit of knowing something could go wrong. Call it weird but its racing and I love it. :)

Of course it's not possible to put bubble wrap over the entire TT course, but they do try and put barriers in some of the worst placed. Luckily an F1 track is shorter and as you're not dealing with people's front walls and so on, it can be made safe more easily.

[Daniel]

Better helmet design through the development of materials which are impact absorbent. Common sense in for added measure and theres something to work on.

I notice when I mentioned two of the other events you follow you offered no comment. Possibly because disagreeing with the majority is what you do best and what you are known for. I know the answer back will be along the lines of "well this is the F1 forum and its irrelevant" as you have used that before when a comparison was used in a debate you didn't agree with. Do you wear a helmet in your Fiat 500 when faced with the reality that people die every day on Britains roads from head injuries sustained in vehicle collisions? Why don't these idiots wear safety gear when its so obviously safer? Saying that, I can imagine you do and it probably renders my arguement void lol. Chuffin spangles... :)

Because henners, if I wore a helmet in the 500 I'd be far more likely to be involved in an accident and not owning something with a carbon fibre survival cell, being in more accidents means I'm more likely to die.

There is only so much you can do with helmets, if you make the helmet heavier than you put more strain on the drivers neck when there's an accident.

[schmenke]

Because henners, if I wore a helmet in the 500 I'd be far more likely to be involved in an accident and not owning something with a carbon fibre survival cell, being in more accidents means I'm more likely to die.

There is only so much you can do with helmets, if you make the helmet heavier than you put more strain on the drivers neck when there's an accident.

On the other hand adding a cockpit enclosure that is more than just a wind deflector adds significant mass to the vehicle, particularly affecting the centre of gravity, thus necessitating a complete redesign of the car to the extent that it no longer is a formula one specification.

[SGWilko]

Do Airbus and Boeing take a reactionary attitude towards safety? :mark:

Well, they could supply all passengers with a parachute, but they don't, do they? That'd save lives wouldn't it?

[Daniel]

On the other hand adding a cockpit enclosure that is more than just a wind deflector adds significant mass to the vehicle, particularly affecting the centre of gravity, thus necessitating a complete redesign of the car to the extent that it no longer is a formula one specification.

But Schmenke, the specification is whatever the FIA say it is :) Don't make me talk about goats and boobs again :angryfire :p

[SGWilko]

You've still not answered my question, lets say two drivers die in the next race from injuries from flying wheels and other bits of car. What do we do?

Stop wheels from falling off. (and before you try it, wheels come off coupes too)

[Daniel]

Stop wheels from falling off. (and before you try it, wheels come off coupes too)

But as was mentioned somewhere (Joe Saward's blog I think) if you make the tethers stronger then you start ripping parts of the tub off. IMHO having faired wheels would help to keep wheels on somewhat :)

[SGWilko]

At the same time though Monaco has change a lot from what it used to be.

Bingo - you're getting it! Monaco has changed to make it safe forFormula 1 (open wheel, open cockpit) cars to race there.

[Daniel]

Bingo - you're getting it! Monaco has changed to make it safe forFormula 1 (open wheel, open cockpit) cars to race there.

Ummm, I think you'll find that the changes in safety make it safer for all cars to race there, I don't see how the changes in safety are just for open cockpit open wheel cars.

[SGWilko]

But as was mentioned somewhere (Joe Saward's blog I think) if you make the tethers stronger then you start ripping parts of the tub off. IMHO having faired wheels would help to keep wheels on somewhat :)

How? If as you say the coupes are also designed to disintegrate on impact.......