Jackie Stewart F1 legends question (aka is F1 too safe)

[RB7ate9]

Anyway, enough of my rambling...

I, for one, am tired of your never-ending posts!

But, seriously, I think a mass-damping idea would be useful for the more open tracks like Abu Dhabi whose runoff areas seem to go on forever.

[strad]

I guess it goes back to my earliest go-kart days but I don't like it when a driver can gain an advantage by cutting corners and so I have always favored kerbs that strongly encourage drivers to stick to the defined course.
I've looked,I'm trying to find, in one of my videos that includes Jackie talking about his life and career, wherein he makes what I think we'd call a Freudian slip..I hesitate to call it a quote but to paraphrase he say, ""Back when I was alive"" .. I figure meaning when he was racing, but the fact seems to be that his mind sees that time when he was risking it all as also the time when he was most alive..
I'm not even sure danger is what we should be discussing in terms of people getting killed biweekly but rather the sense of danger. The sense that it is not something millions of armchair pilots think they can do. A realization that not only can we not perform the physical act a driving the car on a high enough level but also that it is definitely not a risk we'd be willing to take.
The image now is that it's like some video game. All clean and nice for the cameras. And that the cars are so secure that not only would you do it but you let your mom do it like some kind of fair ride.
Which brings us to RB7ate9s epistle and his comments on speed. Cranking up the speed would certainly increase the danger but I think in the wrong areas. Fans..marshalls..you know collateral damage..What killed the Mille.
I think in stead he was right about the tracks themselves. Back to the kerbs and the runoffs and the crappy chicanes. I cannot think of a one chicane I approve of.
We need long straights followed by corners where you can gain position by out braking your opponent and having bigger cojones and where if you play it wrong you throw away your whole race. To that end, we get rid of carbon brakes and huge paved runoff areas that allow you maintain race pace while off track...oh yeah, and kerbs you can bend a wheel on or deflate a tire.
Thanks for listening even though I know you mostly won't agree.

[Cam]

Make the drivers cell as safe as you can and leave the rest. I'd rather worship a hero that risked it all than someone who conquered in a cotton wool jacket with watered down 'safety first' rules. What's to aspire too there? They're big boys, let them play.

Please tell, what exactly did safety rules water down.

When you were young, did you ever climb on top of your house roof? I did. And when I almost fell I got such a fright, a massive surge of adrenalin. Do you know that feeling? It's like an instant hollow in your gut when it all goes wrong, only to quickly disappear when you realise it's all okay and you feel great. It was a euphoric feeling. That experience lead me to climb trees, jump bikes and all sorts of crazy things - which usually ended up with me hurting myself, breaking bones etc.

If the 'rules' had prevented me from climbing that roof, I never would have experienced that. Would I be safer, sure, would my mum worry less, absolutely, but I'd end up finding that thrill another way - and no rules could stop that. I wouldn't respect myself if I had to only climb 1 meter up and not go all the way - my mates would call me 'chicken' and they wouldn't respect me either.

OH&S is all about minimising risk. You cannot remove it completely. There's no such thing as a 'safe' 'high risk' sport. People who chose high risk endeavours do so for a reason, they love it. To try to prevent every kind of possible injury is akin to having an F1 car and never getting it past revving the engine in neutral - what's the point in having then?

[timbo]

The image now is that it's like some video game. All clean and nice for the cameras. And that the cars are so secure that not only would you do it but you let your mom do it like some kind of fair ride.

Only for people who don't know enough. Guess what, I play videogames, and I get a feeling of how HARD it is to get consistent lap times at THAT level even without physical stress.

We need long straights followed by corners where you can gain position by out braking your opponent

Actually, that's recipe which Tilke favors.

we get rid of carbon brakes

Not sure it'll really help. Well, it probably would, but to what extent? If the drivers will have longer braking distances, there would be bigger margin for error, so even less mistakes. And how that is about risk?

oh yeah, and kerbs you can bend a wheel on or deflate a tire.

Was at India last year.

Thanks for listening even though I know you mostly won't agree.

Well, you propose something which we can discuss, which is nice.

[Richard]

Thanks Strad - I do agree, that's what I as referring to about putting doubt in a driver's mind, a sense that they can't get away with making the wrong move, a bit of fear (of failure).

As just-a-fan noted, the average driver will be processional out of fear of losing places. That's OK because the talented and brave will stand out from the crowd. It'll separate the men from the boys.

Put it another way, isn't the sport too sanitised when every car finishes?

[timbo]

People who chose high risk endeavours do so for a reason, they love it.

You think F1 drivers are adrenalin junkies?
They love speed not risk, they like risk only as a byproduct of speed.

Besides, look at any F1 crash, I'd bet you'd experience the same adrenalin surge like falling from the roof.

[timbo]

Put it another way, isn't the sport too sanitised when every car finishes?

I agree. But it is natural product of evolution (with Ferrari/Schuey leading the way with unprecedented reliability). And most evolutionary theories state that there's no backwards evolution.
So, how you encourage multi-million corporations which F1 teams are to take risks?

[Richard]

In corporate terms it is already highly risky with arbitrary rule changes and no certainty of return on investment - just ask BMW, Toyota, BAR, Merc.

In fact the big teams are the ones who recognised that certainty (ie boredom) was counter productive when we had processional races on everlasting tyres with no overtaking and the same chap in red winning everything. That's why we now have KERS, DRS, restricted aero and fragile tyres to mix things up. It was recognition that what makes a good corporate environment (certainty of outcome and collusion) makes a terrible sport.

So what this thread is saying is that we have some gimmick risks on the cars (DRS, tyres, KERS), why not have some physical risks on the track as well?

[strad]

I would put forth that the reason Monaco remains so popular is there is a more tangible sense of inherent risk.

[RB7ate9]

While my post awhile back touted increasing performance, that was more in terms of feasibility (i.e. companies are more ready to change the cars than most facilities will change the track).

I would agree with Strad about increasing the challenge of the track, perhaps in addition to boosting cars' performance. Perhaps not so much in terms of DNF-ing a car, but seriously hampering them. One thought is to have the runoff areas that have really grainy asphalt (much more grainy than the track) that would just SHRED the tires to the point where you have to go into the pit immediately after running across them. This would force poor drivers to really think about their braking zones, good drivers to gage the risk between flat-spotting and a full-on unscheduled pit-stop, and great drivers to think about how to get everyone else to think like a poor/good driver. Would be a little better than gravel traps.

Otherwise, more dynamic tracks with elevation changes (Spa, India, Austin), cross overs (Japan, OLD Monza!) and challenges (perhaps out-sloped turns?) would be nice things that would at least add difference to the tracks.

[Stradivarius]

I believe that a valid point in the discussion about safety is that a racing driver today is a totally different person than a racing driver 40 years ago. Winning the championship today requires, in addition to a good car, skill and a clear head, making correct decisions in many different situations, while courage is not that important. In the old days courage was a necessity, which excluded a lot of people who might otherwise be very talented. A driver whose main advantage is courage, will not protest against dangers, as it will only serve to remove his strength. On the other hand, a driver whose main advantage is the skills behind the racing wheel, might very well protest against dangers to eliminate the competitor's advantage. So I can imagine that this has caused motor racing to gradually change towards higher safety.

Another thought is that the bravest people we hear about tend to not be the most intelligent in the way the expression is often used. While the most intelligent people we hear about are usually rather careful. So maybe it is as simple as a matter of what qualities a racing driver needs today compared to what he needed in the old days.

And of course, as formula 1 is broadcasted worldwide to millions of people, one should also think about what is considered acceptable to show on TV. Showing people die on live TV is clearly not something which is considered acceptable among the majority of the viewers.

When it comes to reliability, it is strongly connected to the points scoring system used. Until 20 years ago, the 6 worst races didn't count in the championship. This obviously made both the drivers and teams to take higher risks if they were in lower position than their 9 best finishes, as they had nothing to loose.

[Cam]

And of course, as formula 1 is broadcasted worldwide to millions of people, one should also think about what is considered acceptable to show on TV. Showing people die on live TV is clearly not something which is considered acceptable among the majority of the viewers.

I disagree. Marco Simoncellis crash in MotoGP last year hasn't stopped the sport of motorbike racing, hasn't stopped the tv broadcasts or caused any major players to stop racing and from what I can tell, hasn't caused any major sponsors to leave. People still tune in to watch the races. I watched it live on tv and was horrified at what I saw. I still watch the races though. MMA has had a reported 7 deaths, yet the sport continues to grow in popularity. It's one of the most brutal and bloody sports seen since roman times - so why do so many people tune in to watch?

Ever been caught in a traffic jam only to find out that a car crash on the other side of the road is slowing everyone down to have a gawk? It's live and people look knowing full well it's an accident and there may be carnage. Bet you look too.

[jdlive]

Well jdlive, You are most certainly entitled to your opinion but there a millions that disagree with you and honestly...I'm one of them.

Explain to me what you like about that sound more, than you do about the current screaming engines? Maybe I'll hear what the deal is about then

[jdlive]

This broad topic of conversation weaves in and out of many smaller topics that have very little to do with safety or risk in and of themselves. The idea that increased risk somehow "increases racing" is nonsensical, because, on its own, it implies something along the lines of one or two corners of a circuit being subjected to random artillery barrages during the course of a grand prix - actually, I quite like that idea.

I think those who question modern safety standards and F1's risk-averse culture do so not merely because they wish to see increased risk to life and limb in F1, but to see speeds increased and to see an increase in the competitive penalties for exceeding the limits of the machine and/or the circuit. Formula One is going backwards as far as speeds go, and there's very little reason for drivers at many tracks to avoid going off-track, because there's virtually no penalty for doing so.

I want to see the cars go faster. I want to see bigger penalties for going off-track. By its very nature, those desires inherently call for increased risk. But, I'm not asking for increased risk just for the sake of increased risk - unless they do the artillery thing.

If the survival cells have to be beefed up to make increased speeds a reality, fine. If run-off areas have to be altered to increase penalties for using them, that's fine, too. Ideally, I'd like to see the burden of risk carried solely on the shoulders of the car. That way if a driver goes beyond the limits, only the car suffers the consequences; the driver walks away.

Increasing speed of the cars while making everything else safer is what I'd like to see done as well. I want to see 400 KPH through Eau Rouge like the Red Bull X1 did, but in an F1 preferably.

[jdlive]

I would put forth that the reason Monaco remains so popular is there is a more tangible sense of inherent risk.

That, combined with higher visual speed there, is definitely the reason it is my favorite GP to watch