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

[turbof1]

[mod edit - The next few posts were moved from the Spa race thread ]

What extra safety measures are you referring to? How would they slow the cars?

Things like developments on impact structures, roll hoop, extra attachments for the wheels to make sure they don't come off, lower noses so they don't penetrate the cockpit, sturdier designs to keep front wings from breaking off and sliding under the front tyres, whatever that makes both the driver of the car AND the other drivers able to drive around with reduced risk. I understand that not every safety measure will equally make the car slower, some things might have barely an impact, and I also understand you can never exclude the danger, but reducing risk means car can generally be allowed to go faster without turning circuits into run off wastelands, which modern circuits generally are.
(I thank the heavens that in Belgium it would literally take years to even get permission to build modern run off areas at Spa; atleast Belgian Bureaucraty has its advantages at some points)

[wesley123]

That is hardly any different.

And that wasnt the point, the point was that reducing aerodynamic dependence by limitting what allowed will increase mechanical importance, however since the latter is so limited in what is allowed this does not happen. There is hardly any room for real improvement, some thing like the f-duct, something big. The only difference you can make is by improvements in dampers etc. but nothing big

The whole approach of making cars slower to increase safety is just wrong. Instead of banning, the FIA should make cars slower by making cars safer. That way cars can get faster without increasing risk for the driver.

No one's making cars slower – they're making cars no faster.

And that by limiting the area where innovative development can take place. That isnt good.

Also safety, although important, is the biggest lie ever in this. These cars can well enough hit the concrete wall with 350+kph and the driver wont get hurt. The only real danger is debris hitting a driver, and people out of the car. And let be clear, what does a better crashbox for example help when you get debris thrown at your face or when you scoop a marshall?

imo cars can easily be quicker while still being safe, but they wont let them for some reason.

Apart from that, the danger to break a leg for example is part of the sport, we dont see soccer players wear kneepads to protect their knees and so on. Being safe okay, but breaking a leg is part of the sport.

[ced381]

I must admit, SeijaKessen & Nando are some very entertaining individuals. And I learned a lot more about F1 from their argument! Keep it up!

[beelsebob]

What extra safety measures are you referring to? How would they slow the cars?

Things like developments on impact structures,

Okay, which developments are you talking about, in what way do they slow the car down?

roll hoop,

We already have one of those, are you referring to a front one?

extra attachments for the wheels to make sure they don't come off

That would actually make the cars less safe, the reason the breaking tension is set as it is is so that the car can't be flipped over by the momentum of a wheel. But how would extra wheel tethers make the cars slower anyway?

lower noses so they don't penetrate the cockpit

Fair point, though I don't really see how this is going to slow the cars over several years – it'll have an effect in one year, but not an enormous one (as McLaren demonstrate), and it's not like they can keep lowering them.

sturdier designs to keep front wings from breaking off and sliding under the front tyres

I'm not convinced that won't cause more problems than it would solve – sturdier designs that won't break imply noses that won't crumple and break, and hence not as good absorption from the front crash structure.

whatever that makes both the driver of the car AND the other drivers able to drive around with reduced risk.

Certainly, but your assertion was that it would slow the cars down naturally too.

but reducing risk means car can generally be allowed to go faster without turning circuits into run off wastelands, which modern circuits generally are.

The problem is, the absolute biggest improvements to safety in F1 have been in track safety, and no amount of improvements to the cars will change the fact that actually, the improvements to track safety can't be outdone by minor tweaks to the cars now.

[simieski]

That would actually make the cars less safe, the reason the breaking tension is set as it is is so that the car can't be flipped over by the momentum of a wheel. But how would extra wheel tethers make the cars slower

Where is this information from? A wheel is a tiny percentage of the mass of the car, so a huge velocity differential would be required for it to establish enough momentum to influence the car to the point of flipping it, under what circumstance could this occur?

[turbof1]

What extra safety measures are you referring to? How would they slow the cars?

Things like developments on impact structures,

Okay, which developments are you talking about, in what way do they slow the car down?

roll hoop,

We already have one of those, are you referring to a front one?

extra attachments for the wheels to make sure they don't come off

That would actually make the cars less safe, the reason the breaking tension is set as it is is so that the car can't be flipped over by the momentum of a wheel. But how would extra wheel tethers make the cars slower anyway?

lower noses so they don't penetrate the cockpit

Fair point, though I don't really see how this is going to slow the cars over several years – it'll have an effect in one year, but not an enormous one (as McLaren demonstrate), and it's not like they can keep lowering them.

sturdier designs to keep front wings from breaking off and sliding under the front tyres

I'm not convinced that won't cause more problems than it would solve – sturdier designs that won't break imply noses that won't crumple and break, and hence not as good absorption from the front crash structure.

whatever that makes both the driver of the car AND the other drivers able to drive around with reduced risk.

Certainly, but your assertion was that it would slow the cars down naturally too.

but reducing risk means car can generally be allowed to go faster without turning circuits into run off wastelands, which modern circuits generally are.

The problem is, the absolute biggest improvements to safety in F1 have been in track safety, and no amount of improvements to the cars will change the fact that actually, the improvements to track safety can't be outdone by minor tweaks to the cars now.

Dear god, it was a quick and undetailed summed up of some random ideas, by far not intended to be broken up and discussed individually. Basicilly just anything that makes the car safer for both the driver of the car and the other drivers fits the bill. more safer structures and such will affect bodywork; it will have effect laptime; by how much depends on the solution.

The problem is, the absolute biggest improvements to safety in F1 have been in track safety, and no amount of improvements to the cars will change the fact that actually, the improvements to track safety can't be outdone by minor tweaks to the cars now.

I know; it was more of a side note. And improvements on track safety generally are very difficult on existing tracks. In many cases there just isn't room for it, and even it is, it is generally way too expensive. I mean look at Spa: the circuit has a net loss each year. They aren't going to spend more money on building bigger run-off area's, which btw would mean trees have to be cut down. As a circuit it would need to ask permission for that to 3 different governments alone, and then I am not speaking about getting permissions to lay down the run-offs. Just saying, improving track safety isn't as straight forward as you might think.

[SeijaKessen]

Ahhhh onboard video from those awful dark ages.

Turn up the volume, and then consider what F1 is missing today.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9yhbiPC65U[/youtube]

[beelsebob]

That would actually make the cars less safe, the reason the breaking tension is set as it is is so that the car can't be flipped over by the momentum of a wheel. But how would extra wheel tethers make the cars slower

Where is this information from? A wheel is a tiny percentage of the mass of the car, so a huge velocity differential would be required for it to establish enough momentum to influence the car to the point of flipping it, under what circumstance could this occur?

Just like a huge velocity differential is required to tear a wheel from the car these days

[timbo]

These cars can well enough hit the concrete wall with 350+kph and the driver wont get hurt.

Not true.

The only real danger is debris hitting a driver, and people out of the car.

Not true. The real danger is the car getting impact it is not designed to.

[timbo]

Things like developments on impact structures, roll hoop, extra attachments for the wheels to make sure they don't come off, lower noses so they don't penetrate the cockpit, sturdier designs to keep front wings from breaking off and sliding under the front tyres, whatever that makes both the driver of the car AND the other drivers able to drive around with reduced risk.

Those are actually minor.
Impact structures and wheel tethers mostly add weight, and these days it's easy to build cars well below the limit.
Nose shape is the product of the overall aero shape and trends come and go (high noses for 1995-2000, lower 2003-2009 etc) and designers are very fast compensating for any change they have to make.
Same with sturdier wings and cockpit protection.
What really slows cars is engine rules and aero rules, they act on the speed directly. But tell me, how fast you want cars to be?

[timbo]

without turning circuits into run off wastelands, which modern circuits generally are

We have three street circuits this year (2 of them introduced last 4 years), we still have Suzuka and Monza, tracks like Korea, India etc have large parts with walls near the track, Silverstone was always a run off wasteland, what is your problem?

[beelsebob]

Dear god, it was a quick and undetailed summed up of some random ideas, by far not intended to be broken up and discussed individually. Basicilly just anything that makes the car safer for both the driver of the car and the other drivers fits the bill. more safer structures and such will affect bodywork; it will have effect laptime; by how much depends on the solution.

The point I was trying to make was that 1) there's very little now actually that can be done to improve safety without completely changing car design (though minor improvements can be made) 2) that the changes that could be made, wouldn't actually impact the speed of the cars significantly.

[jdlive]

Ahhhh onboard video from those awful dark ages.

Turn up the volume, and then consider what F1 is missing today.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9yhbiPC65U[/youtube]

I'm glad they are gone to be honest!

[strad]

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.

[Just_a_fan]

Ah yes, the good old days.

Particularly like the trees with a simple bit of armco in front of them about a foot from the circuit at one of the chicanes. "But they'd be going slowly as it's a chicane", "yes, but they were driving boxes made from tin foil and tissue paper - especially around the footwell".

Of course, the good old days never really existed but people do like to romanticise previous times.

I can vividly remember watching Senna die and I for one am glad we don't have to watch guys losing their lives for our entertainment these days. Very glad.