2012 Random F1 Discussion

Tobias · PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 12:34 pm

ellis wrote:

Tobias wrote:

well, no one was expecting a death in 1994 either. The reactions would be the same and probably little would be done because this is about as safe as it gets.

I'd argue it was coming and expected.

Lehto, Pedro Lamy, Wendlinger, Barrichello and Alesi all suffered relatively serious injuries at the start of the year. It was the year when F1 finally became too fast for the safety standards it had at the time.

good point ellis. But I would say even when the drivers were injured, the thinking process would be: "thank god for the modern safety we have now. If not for that, he would be dead".

Anyway, Ratzenbergers accident was about as sickening as it could be.

micha · PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 12:34 pm

RtN wrote:

micha wrote:

In my memory the USA is much more aware of the dangers and don't really knee-jerk. NASCAR didn't when Earnhart died. Indy didn't when that rising star (forgot name) died and when Wheldon died.

NASCAR made the HANS device mandatory as a direct consequence of Earnhardt's death. IndyCar couldn't really do anything in direct response to Renna and Wheldon's accidents because they were both at the end of a season or beyond.

I'm not suggesting that, were something to happen in F1, that the teams would all have to turn up at the next race with tubular frames hastily bolted onto the cars, but there's already a lobby for canopy protection within F1 and if a driver dies who could have been saved by it, it would be introduced very quickly, in my opinion.

It's openwheel racing for crying out loud. It has its drawbacks and how many times did it really cause a problem??

I really wonder what the next knee-jerk reaction is if someone crashes, damages the opening mechanism and the car catches fire........

RtN · PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 12:46 pm

It only needs to cause a problem once for certain people to want to do something. There was a lot of noise about it after Massa's accident.

Formula 1 is now at a point where it must not be viewed as a blood sport in any way, shape or form because of the commercial interests. I know that that is almost completely tantamount to what motorsport is, and it seems unworkable, but that is what it has become.

kart99 · PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 3:39 pm

I feel this line of clothing will be popular:

http://www.leavemealone.fi/en/

micha · PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 4:13 pm

having some sort of discussion on another forum. I was complaining that the current tracks lack places where you really don't want to spin because of miles of tarmac and that "do or die" actions where replaced by "do or take the scenic route" actions. Failing to outbreak someone isnt really penalized as you wont hit a wall or get stuck in the gravel and just can continue.

Someone is suggesting a sort of virtual barrier. Cross it and either the car will shutdown completely or you suffer a 50% power loss for a small period to have some sort of penalty for leaving the track.

while it is artificial it somehow does seem attractive to me. It keeps F1 safe but also introduces something that makes people now want to leave the track.....

Coldtyre · PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 5:38 pm

Tobias wrote:

good point ellis. But I would say even when the drivers were injured, the thinking process would be: "thank god for the modern safety we have now. If not for that, he would be dead".

In the end, only kinetic energy and material stiffnesses matter, not what people say or think or feel about how safe anything is.

That way of thinking leads to ignoring the risk, waiting for a death to happen, and only then start going emo and spasming into mitigation measures. I've always found that approach to be terribly hypocritical, illogical, and ignorant.
It was F1's approach in 1994, and Indycar's approach regarding that horrible chassis that killed Renna and Wheldon.

There's no middle ground here:
- Either you can't accept the risk, and something has to be done about it now because it's perfectly identified
- Or, you choose to accept the risk, and shrug off the deaths that might come with it as part of the deal.

F1 doesn't seem to be ready to do anyone of those two, but deaths will happen eventually. Because probability is a bitch and if you race enough races with openwheelers, probability for someone to get hit in the head tends towards 100%.

micha · PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 5:45 pm

I once heard that even if fully strapped in and with HANS the sudden deceleration might cause problems to internal organs like the brain. Those aren't strapped in and still can move around in the head and body.

Coldtyre · PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 6:38 pm

Yes. Still humans of the same flesh and blood inside those cars (at least for now...)

Tobias · PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 7:04 pm

on a lighter note :lol:

Spoiler:

JJ · PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 8:24 pm

I've always wondered the ways F1 development would have progressed IF there had been fatalities for example in 1997, 2000, 2004 or 2008. How a fatal accident or multiple accidents would have affected F1 car design, safety equipments or rules? I reckon this year's cars would have been quite a different looking ones. Also if there had occurred fatal accident(s) in Monaco or Spa or Suzuka in the past 10 years, would those circuits still host F1-race?

Gabriel · PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:09 pm

JJ wrote:

Also if there had occurred fatal accident(s) in Monaco or Spa or Suzuka in the past 10 years, would those circuits still host F1-race?

That would depend on the crash itself.

Imola got changed because some may argue that the speeds reached or the angle of impact at Tamburello or the next corner may have contributed to the loss of 2 drivers.

But sometimes fatal crashes just happen and the layout or safety measures (or lack thereof) have nothing to do with it.

De Cesaris fan · PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:42 pm

kart99 wrote:

I feel this line of clothing will be popular:

http://www.leavemealone.fi/en/

Yeah, I received one of those for my birthday last week!

Beezle · PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:21 am

Gabriel wrote:

JJ wrote:

Also if there had occurred fatal accident(s) in Monaco or Spa or Suzuka in the past 10 years, would those circuits still host F1-race?

That would depend on the crash itself.

Imola got changed because some may argue that the speeds reached or the angle of impact at Tamburello or the next corner may have contributed to the loss of 2 drivers.

But sometimes fatal crashes just happen and the layout or safety measures (or lack thereof) have nothing to do with it.

Right. See Massa @ Hungary (which could have been worse than it actually was).

RtN · PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2012 2:33 pm

Norbert Haug is leaving Mercedes at the end of the year.

Echti · PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2012 2:48 pm

RtN wrote:

Norbert Haug is leaving Mercedes at the end of the year.

Saw that coming somehow.

nightflight · PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2012 5:30 pm

RtN wrote:

Norbert Haug is leaving Mercedes at the end of the year.

Not 100% right. Both parties decided to void his contract to the end of this year. That gives room for speculations.

I think it was a decision by Mercedes. The last three years with the factory in F1 + this years DTM season (beaten by a newcomer

) were too much.

codename_47 · PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 1:20 am

Bernie's been flapping his gums saying there's still too many teams in F1.....

He must enjoy being that inconsistent with his opinions, anything to get more publicity I guess.

I might be the only one but for me, the more cars the merrier.
I don't care if they're that slow either, the more backmarkers for the leaders to deal with and make the races that little bit more exciting, the better.
Plus the lower level teams are a great breeding ground for talent of the future. The more seats the more having seven thousand seperate feeder systems seems worth it.
At the moment it seems to be the case that you win WSBR or GP2, then sit on the bench doing the occasional test or Friday morning run for a year, THEN if you're lucky you might get a shot.
Better run for a full season at the back of the grid than sit on the sidelines imo.

The more cars in a race the more "stories" and areas of interest the race can have.

So, NO Bernie, 20 is not the perfect number. It's the bare minimum.

RtN · PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 1:37 am

The trick with Bernie is not to look at what he's saying but why he's saying it.

He's saying that 20 cars is the perfect number. Why? Because that's how many will be on the grid in Australia.

Marussia have not been given a copy of the new Concorde Agreement to sign.

Gaara · PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 2:00 am

They're being forced out?

kals · PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 4:18 am

Oh I really hope that's not the case.

TBK-Light.com

2012 Random F1 Discussion

Who is online