The chicanes were put in after the Grand Prix Drivers Association demanded more safety features in the tracks and the cars. Seems ironic that the drivers themselves don't want faster cars doesn't it?
Toyota will quit F1, Ferrari may quit F1 . . .
- Thread starter stockhausen
- Start date
The chicanes were put in after the Grand Prix Drivers Association demanded more safety features in the tracks and the cars. Seems ironic that the drivers themselves don't want faster cars doesn't it?
Yes, but gone are the days where the drivers safety was second to the cars performance (I remember an interview with Patrick Head who admitted that).
I'm quite sure no-one really wants to go back to the days where drivers and spectators are at risk of dying.
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Jul 2007
- Posts
- 5,511
- Location
- London
LOL, coming from the person who thought Brawn were leading the championship after a few weeks of hard work, and a on meagre budget.
Up the tech specs and up the driver/spectator safety specs - easy.
80's? 97 the winning team ran a budget of less than 40 million. Inflation has not gone up that much. I agree 40 from day one is far too low though, depending on what they eventually agree goes in the budget.
Yes and 24 million to run two cars shows just how stupid it's gotten.
Atleast Ferrari, BMW and Renault have said they want to cut costs in the recent past. What your suggesting will cost more money. No one wants that.
Theres constant rumours Renault and toyota have been looking to leave anyway with costs rising and car sales plummeting.
The speed increase you are wanting to happen, no chance. The circuits don't have big enough run off areas and so many circuits either wouldn't be up to it or more money would need to be spent. Most circuits make nothing from holding a race so I doubt there would be many people too impressed if they had to redesign circuits.
As I have said many, many time here, the single greatest achievment of F1 in the last 30 years is driver safety. However, the cars already do 200MPH now. All I'm saying is do it more often.
This is a different issue to vehicle and track safety.
Bernie can have all the contacts he wants, but if F1 has teams like prodrive and super aguri, and a new breakaway championship has Toyota, Ferarri, BMW, Red Bull, STR, Renault (and i think McLaren will jump ship too) Then who do you think will have the clout??
Bernie - 'Let Ferarri, BMW, red bull etc race here and i wont bring super aguri, force india, prodrive, USGP...'
Track bosses - 'Ok bernie, find somewhere else to hold your races'
Bernie - 'ehhh that didn't go to plan'
I want the days when drivers are at the risk of dying tbh!
Even Mansell says back in his day you needed balls to race, but everything is too safe now, where is the danger?
Driver might lose 0.5s if he makes a mistake or driver might die if he makes a mistake, what is more exciting?
So you regulate "car must withstand an impact at the MAXIMUM speed into a solid wall without the cockpit dis-integrating", and you let the teams work out how to do it - and how fast they want their cars to go.
Drivers are still at risk of dying today, the fact that you want that is kinda morbid. Even if the risk of dying has been greatly reduced, drivers can still get seriously injured - you find that a turn on too?
it might not of, but other costs have. wages for one. The cost of developing new technology .
And as for we can't increase speed due to danger, rubbish. you can increase the speed and maintain the safety.
But that's going to cost lots money, and the circuits will also need to be redesigned to accommodate these speeds - these extra costs are exactly the issue that everyone is trying to curb.
Which is why they are trying to change f1 into a sport it is not. which is why so many of us are against it.
All the circuits need are tyre barriers of a sufficient size in case of "head on" to 45 degree collisions - walls are fine for side on impacts.
If the cockpit survives a head on impact into a solid wall (thus keeping driver safe), it should survive any other impacts as well.
Teams can already control spending - Brawn are winning this year despite spending far less (even with Honda money) than Ferrari, or Toyota spent before.
No-one forces the teams to spend, spend, spend.
Without moving vast parts of the tracks they are not going to increase the speeds of the cars, either in a straight line or cornering speeds. The stupid chicanes become a feature to try to reduce corning speeds. They are hardly likely to let them corner much faster.
Whenever I've been to a Gp I've never once been in awe or wanted more speed. Its always been the acceleration, braking and speed or direction change that's always been impressive. You don't need to watch a race where the cars are going faster.
They all want to cut costs. Ferrari included. If they don't there will soon only be 4 teams and 8 cars running. Who wants that?
Todt said years ago that cost cutting was needed to ensure the survival of F1 and Ferrari.
You don't need to change the tracks. And No you don't need it for pure spectator. But as f1 is about technology is should go hand in hand. Gradual speed increase year to year. with increased car safety.