Safety Hysteria

[timbo]

I don't agree with hysteria bit. Question is what can be learned from such event and how can safety be improved. For a long time I felt that drivers head is a weak part in modern F-1 cars. Look at McLaren for example. Somehow the driver's position is different from other cars and the head is clearly exposed.

Powerboat cockpits are not a good example in that it is tough to imagine something blocking the canopy in the water - while if car is upside down it is possible.

As I stated many times we may look at top-fuel dragsters for examples on how to build survival cell for the racing car.
Also, I belive that only a windshield is not enough, there's got to be second roll hoop above and ahead of the driver's helmet.

[RacingManiac]

I don't agree with hysteria bit. Question is what can be learned from such event and how can safety be improved. For a long time I felt that drivers head is a weak part in modern F-1 cars. Look at McLaren for example. Somehow the driver's position is different from other cars and the head is clearly exposed.

Powerboat cockpits are not a good example in that it is tough to imagine something blocking the canopy in the water - while if car is upside down it is possible.

As I stated many times we may look at top-fuel dragsters for examples on how to build survival cell for the racing car.
Also, I belive that only a windshield is not enough, there's got to be second roll hoop above and ahead of the driver's helmet.

I think having "just water" blocking the canopy can be just as dangerous.....the differential pressure over that surface can potentially makes it impossible to open until it is equalize(ie, filled with water) and if for some reason the pilot needs to get out first that can be a problem...its the same reason why as ISLAMATRON said in another thread that people carries hammer in the car to break the window incase the car falls into the river...

The issue with the dragster protection is that they need much less visibility than f1 car, they run heavy guage tubes that have many blind spots. Works ok when you need to run down a 1/4 mile straight line, can be a problem when you need to negotiate corners with other cars running beside you....

Mind you, I don't think the visibility of a modern openwheeler is spectacular, but probably not as bad as a dragster....

Just this discussion though have kinda shown how many aspect needs to be looked at before deciding on something, and I am sure we are just scratching the surface...

[nae]

i dont get the 100% safety argument

these are grown men, they know the risks
mitigating the risk reduces the attraction
(to them as well as the spectators)

the only way to have 100% safety is not to
run the risk, or the sport and we can all
go watch cycling which only has the occasional
broken leg , head injury, death

life is not a safe venture it ALWAYS ends in death

I for one don't want any more sanitisation of motor sport

[RacingManiac]

You can't make it 100% safe, its impossible. You are going fast, you will crash, and you can't fight G-forces no matter how hard you try. But stuff like what killed Surtee and hurt Massa is not what I'd consider as unavoidable, or as something I'd consider as part of drivers are expected to suffer. Yes they are very random and rare, but they can be largely negated with rules that takes it into account. There are enough random events that safety equipments can't deal with(oil on track causing crashes, tire puncture at speed, weather...etc), something that protects driver should be as rudimentary as crash structure...And even with something in place safety is not guaranteed, but it would be wrong to not try to deal with it at all. If they tried doing nothing at all throughout the history of the sports to keep it dangerous and dare I say exciting, then they might as well race Roman chariot and have man eating lions on the side of the tracks....

[ISLAMATRON]

i dont get the 100% safety argument

these are grown men, they know the risks
mitigating the risk reduces the attraction
(to them as well as the spectators)

the only way to have 100% safety is not to
run the risk, or the sport and we can all
go watch cycling which only has the occasional
broken leg , head injury, death

life is not a safe venture it ALWAYS ends in death

I for one don't want any more sanitisation of motor sport

So to you more risk = more attraction? Are you only attracted to women with STD's? Cars with terrible safety records? Most of us dont watch F1 for "the risk", we watch it for the engineering and driving excellence. If you are so intrigued with "risk" maybe you should take part in some figure 8 destruction derby "racing".

[Confused_Andy]

Theres no way something like that (massa) could ever be replicated. It reminds me of when i was on a beach with some mates who were throwing stones into the sea and we managed to get another mate in the balls from about 50metres away, its freak!

The F2 surtees incident... What happened to the tether on the car? Or is it only F1 cars where the wheels are tethered on...

[RacingManiac]

Its tethered, but tethers do fail...which is why it makes sense that, if we have tackled the problem of flying debris entering the cockpit from one direction, maybe its time to look at it from other pespective.

[Professor]

I don't agree with hysteria bit. Question is what can be learned from such event and how can safety be improved. For a long time I felt that drivers head is a weak part in modern F-1 cars. Look at McLaren for example. Somehow the driver's position is different from other cars and the head is clearly exposed.

Powerboat cockpits are not a good example in that it is tough to imagine something blocking the canopy in the water - while if car is upside down it is possible.

As I stated many times we may look at top-fuel dragsters for examples on how to build survival cell for the racing car.
Also, I belive that only a windshield is not enough, there's got to be second roll hoop above and ahead of the driver's helmet.

I have some power boat racing experience. The unlimiteds have a bottom hatch for extraction when inverted. Not applicable to F1 car.

[Shredcheddar]

i dont get the 100% safety argument

these are grown men, they know the risks
mitigating the risk reduces the attraction
(to them as well as the spectators)

I for one don't want any more sanitisation of motor sport

Here's what your comment sounds like in my head:

There's not enough passing in F1. I'm getting bored with F1. Maybe someone will almost die soon and it'll perk my interest.

--- that.

[Michiba]

i dont get the 100% safety argument

these are grown men, they know the risks
mitigating the risk reduces the attraction
(to them as well as the spectators)

I for one don't want any more sanitisation of motor sport

Here's what your comment sounds like in my head:

There's not enough passing in F1. I'm getting bored with F1. Maybe someone will almost die soon and it'll perk my interest.

--- that.

That is a rather false argument to use. I don't think anyone is thinking that and you are misinterpreting some comments.
The other side of the spectrum to your thoughts would be something on the lines of 'well lets race at 40km/hr, no one should die from that, but that would be boring as batshit, so I won't watch'

[nae]

i dont get the 100% safety argument

these are grown men, they know the risks
mitigating the risk reduces the attraction
(to them as well as the spectators)

I for one don't want any more sanitisation of motor sport

Here's what your comment sounds like in my head:

There's not enough passing in F1. I'm getting bored with F1. Maybe someone will almost die soon and it'll perk my interest.

--- that.

good leap of reading there

F1 is boring compared to many other race series, that's the view of a lot of those that don't understand it, however it isn't all about passing. a lot of it is about technology, being the fastest / cleverest and consequently has risk associated with running prototype cars in the heat of a race / qually . those that take the risks often win, see overtaking moves. and often those risk don't bare fruit.

to sanitise the sport further to the point the cars are TúV tested before an event
or that the wheels are closed or that the driver is immune to risk will bring it to the level of tin top racing where the skills are different and the rubbing common. if there is no risk the reward is lessened.

i have no wish to see anyone die for entertainment but equally i have no wish to see the sport sanitised to the point that drivers cant possible have an consequence from racing in the sport

I cite the Isle of man TT as a sport of ultimate risk. the riders know the score
yet they still race flat out on country roads. some die , most don't. there is little or no overtaking on the road yet it is an awesome sight to behold.

we as a whole society seem terribly risk averse and in my view that is to the our detriment.

[xpensive]

I don't know really, people can call me cynic, old-fart or whatever, but as long and far as I can remember, danger is be a part of the sport. How the hell did they get George Follmer to take the seat of that horrible Trevor Harris "tiny-wheel" Shadow with a 750 Hp big-block Chevy in 1969?

Very few people were more shocked and saddened over Ronnie Peterson's death at Monza in 1978 than myself, but as Mario concluded in the motorhome after the race "Sadly, this is also a part of motorsport".

Seeing the way today's F1-youngsters attacking in the first corner during the first lap, do you reckon they would have done the same sitting in Chris Amon's 1969 tubular frame/aluminum skin tub, with his feet just behind the hot radiator? Don't think so.

Remember some years back after Gerhard Berger had almost totalled his own Benetton together with some poor guy's car from a lesser financially fortunate team (think it was one of Stoddard's Minardis actually) during practice.
Berger had a great laugh about it with the journos afterwards, as he said "it was just a couple of cars, nobody got hurt".

[meves]

I don't think that their is hysteria, I think that everyone just worries about bringing things to the fore, and it will bring a few weeks of focus and then a lack of interest will creep in from everyone. I think the solution needs to be safe and consider all the issues.

Previously we have had accidents where a fully enclosed cockpit would be a huge problem. Crashes like the Roger WIlliamson (which had tragic consequences anyway) accident and the Pedro Diniz accident would have been a serious issue if the cockpit, maybe leading to crushing injuries or not enabling swift extraction had they been fully enclosed but having a screen to deflect anything from the direction of travel.



I would hope if their is to be a reaction then it's sensible, measured and is maybe something like the image above. However this may well not have helped in the Henry Surtees case and we must all remember that the motorsport is inherently dangerous and drivers do it for the love and in the top flight are well paid partially due to the danger.

I hope that we do something measured and respond sensible and not end up with a poorly conceived solution that gets dropped in a season or two as the solution causes more issues

[WhiteBlue]

The FiA do not have a track record of hysteria. They have conducted an incredible amount of research over the years and are likely to continue that work. Back in 2004 the FiA institute was founded (which is headed by Prof. Sid Watkins). http://www.fiainstitute.com/about/Pages/home.aspx The institute's sole purpose of being is improving motor sport safety and continue the incredible work of Watkins, Mosley and many others. Over the years hundreds of improvements have been made to motor sport safety and as a result the dangers of the sport have been mitigated and reduced to a level where some people forget them. I have every confidence that the FiA Institute will once again rise to the challenge of the recent accidents involving Henry Surtees and Felipe Massa. The loss of life and health is regrettable and must motivate all concerned to first research the problems and then implement measures that will improve the chances of surviving similar accidents with less damage.