F1 - Indycar safety.

[dannyjo22]

F1 had it's Ayrton Senna Moment, Nascar had it's Dale Earnhardt Senior moment and I think Indycar had it's moment last night. There is no excuse for racing with a 7 year old Chassis and the fuel that they use in Indycar.

I don't think so tbh, Greg Moore was far far bigger and seen as a much bigger talent than Wheldon and that really didn't push on changes in the way Cart/Indy went racing.

They just seem to be far more accepting of the risks of racing 4 wide at 225mph than we are. I mean some F1 drivers will think of nothing moving a car out of road of directing them to a wall. I think everyone has become so used to how safe F1 has become. Thankfully circuits have been changed or dropped although some would argue they went too far.

I'd much prefer to see ovals ran with 50m run offs, too many drivers are hurt along various oval walls. Would that then see a change in how they went racing though, would they also edge a driver out knowing there was a run off?

 

[Skeeter]

No different to open cockpit landing on its top.

Not so.

The role hoop and the surround of the cockpit are designed that if the car is upside down, providing the roll hoop hasn't dug into the ground, there will always be a gap big enough to access the driver.

Yes, closed cars are an option, I'm just saying you aren't making them much safer, you are just replacing one risk with another.

 

[Glaucus]

That's just not the case. Closed cockpit is inherently safer. There's different risks, but those risks are so much smaller. It's the same tiered arguments used over and over they just don't hold any weight.
Closed cockpit is always safer, i can see why people don't won't it and it would change the sport. So you have to accept the risks of open cockpit.

 

[hp7909]

Anyone remember Ralf Schumacher's crash at Indianapolis? IMO no amount of safety features can counter the nature of the oval tracks with no run off areas, etc.

 

[Housey]

People who think Dan in an F1 car would have survived are misguided I feel. Fluke accidents will kill drivers no matter what car they are in. When you have so much speed, so much angle of attack and a driver hitting the wall with his head no roll over hoop would protect you. I will be astonished if the investigations show that the hoop failure was in anyway involved in his death, there have been similar failures in F1 too.

 

[helpimcrap]

take away the risk and you take away some of the excitement. no one likes to see anybody get hurt but it's that 'potential' that keeps you on the edge of the seat.

The crashes these guys (and gals) can go through in motorsport - be it motorbike/cars and the way they can come back from it makes them appear superhuman and it gives inspiration to others hence why fans of motorsport are more grounded and have the ability to respect others achievements more.

In other sports (i am generalising) it can be a thug mentality which for me ruins it... football or rugby (not so much rugby) for example.

People can appreciate someone who appears so superhuman but gets taken away from us and it's a genuine loss.... not like the seemingly equivilant heartache that goes with losing a cup final it sems....

RIP Dan Wheldon

 

[snowball1]

Totally different rules, so you can't compare them.

 

[Skeeter]

take away the risk and you take away some of the excitement. no one likes to see anybody get hurt but it's that 'potential' that keeps you on the edge of the seat.

No it doesn't, and anyone who has this mentality is messed up. I have no desire to watch something just because someone might die.

 

[Weebull]

I'd say that people who think Formula 1 is some kind of safety paradise are in a bit of a dream land. It's all very well looking at Webber's crash last year as the last time we saw an F1 car airborne to the extent those Indy Cars did, but the fact is he was very lucky to land the right way up, and have sufficient run-off for his car to eventually just nose-dive into the barriers. So many small variations in what happened could well have seen him no longer with us. Likewise Massa two years ago. Or Kubica in 2007.

F1 has an excellent safety record, but in some ways it's been very lucky.

I'd much prefer to see ovals ran with 50m run offs, too many drivers are hurt along various oval walls. Would that then see a change in how they went racing though, would they also edge a driver out knowing there was a run off?

How would you manage that though, what with them having banked curves? A flat run-off area would mean cars still going airborne, probably quite often too, as simply going too wide would see you fly off. Whereas a 50m extra width of curve would be near-impossible to build.

 

[dannyjo22]

How would you manage that though, what with them having banked curves? A flat run-off area would mean cars still going airborne, probably quite often too, as simply going too wide would see you fly off. Whereas a 50m extra width of curve would be near-impossible to build.

Yeah granted it would take a whole new redesign on new tracks so won't happen. The walls are fine when you just lose it and run along then. Run off wouldn't have helped in this accident anyway.

I alwasy wanted to see F1 cars run the full indy circuit instead of the format they used. I'd still like to see it happen.

As for F1 being a safety paradise I agree with what you are saying, they are though controlling the corner speeds so well that they have taken the risk out of the drivers hands and have cars that are not longer a choice between bravery and lifting. All the tough corners are well controlled speed wise and the grip levels so good that on the really fast corners they are flat.

I'd prefer it to be about bravery but I don't want anyone to die either.

 

[DBT85]

No it doesn't, and anyone who has this mentality is messed up. I have no desire to watch something just because someone might die.

We have seen that view here before though skeeter, And i've no doubt it's prevalent in a lot of people.

I'd love to see some actual comparisons of an F1 and Indy chassis being put through identical tests.

F1 has been lucky in some respects, but that luck all came on the back of spending a fortune on designing safer cars and tracks. To attribute the lack of F1 deaths since Senna to luck is I think being a little disingenuous to those that have worked so hard to stop killing drivers for no damned reason when there are always ways of making the sport safer.

That Indy was one race away from introducing the new safer chassis is proof that it could be improved. So why did it take them 7 years between chassis to introduce the changes?

 

[Skeeter]

Unfortunately the opinion that death means excitement is a lot more prominent in the USA, so they simply haven't wanted to bother making things safer.

Hopefully they will now learn and progress.

 

[rexmedorum]

... he was very lucky to land the right way up, and have sufficient run-off for his car to eventually just nose-dive into the barriers.

Well size of the the run-off is not down to luck of course. However I think we shouldn't unerestimate the money factor. F1 spends a lot of money on safety and expects the circuits to comply with whatever is thrown at them, I don't think Indycar is in a financial position to be able to do the same.

Ovals are inherintly more risky though, which even with a massive budget will be hard to fix. On the other hand the SAFER barrier shows that there are still some things that can be done.

 

[Jono8]

I actually feared Webber wouldnt walk away from that crash last year. Amazing that he wasnt even really hurt after an accident like that! I mean he took off at close to 200mph, did a flip in he air, landed upside down and then flipped and smashed into a tyre wall.

 

[Jono8]

It's all very well looking at Webber's crash last year as the last time we saw an F1 car airborne to the extent those Indy Cars did, but the fact is he was very lucky to land the right way up

Webber landed upside down.

 

[DBT85]

Webber landed upside down.

yes he did.

However I don't know how well he would have fared had he got more height and the cockpit had caught the fence.

 

[One]

Why are people saying that the racing should be completely changed?

I mean, so what if this guy dies, sure it's a sad loss like any other death, but it's hardly an inherent fault of IndyCar that killed him. It's a 200mph+ wheel to wheel, open cockpit, open wheel oval racing. Crashes will happen, and unfortunately some people will die in a few of those crashes. It's the name of the game. Which ever person above suggested turning open-cockpit racing into a car with a full roll bar is retarded. May as well just ban opencockpit racing and only allow clio cup racing.

Everyone going on about how F1 hasn't had a death since Senna, well tbh Massa was incredibly lucky and it was only helmet tech that saved him rather than F1 safety tech.

 

[teejay73]

I think one thing that determines F1 safety over Indycar safety, Is driver related. If you have a look through the standard of drivers in the current IZOD Indycar series and compare that to The current F1 drivers, then you get an idea of just how weak the Indycar field is.

If you match up the best driver from Indycar (Dario Franchitti) and F1`s best (Michael Schumacher) and then look through their respective History, It shows just how poor the driver talent is compared to F1, I mean what the hell is someone like Pippa mann doing racing in a top tier motorsport formula, Judging by her career she has done nothing to earn a drive in Indycar, The trend does not stop there, It carries on through all the drivers.

This for me, Contributed to the accident that involved Dan Wheldon and no matter what safety features are introduced, These accidents will always happen when drivers are out of there depth. Good racecraft is something that is earned over years of honing your skills against the very best drivers not mediocre drivers. Lewis Hamilton for example has a world class pedigree when it comes to career history and not just F1, If you look beyond his F1 career you will see that he was nearly unbeatable in the lower formulas, That is as near perfection as you can get and he acheived this against highly rated drivers.

A lot of Indycar drivers have next to nothing in terms of real racing pedigree and yet you will get Americans claiming Indycar drivers are real racers because they race ovals, When in essence, all It is, is simplified techniques at very crazy speed, couple that with overated drivers and you are asking for trouble.

 

[teejay73]

Why are people saying that the racing should be completely changed?

I mean, so what if this guy dies, sure it's a sad loss like any other death, but it's hardly an inherent fault of IndyCar that killed him. It's a 200mph+ wheel to wheel, open cockpit, open wheel oval racing. Crashes will happen, and unfortunately some people will die in a few of those crashes. It's the name of the game. Which ever person above suggested turning open-cockpit racing into a car with a full roll bar is retarded. May as well just ban opencockpit racing and only allow clio cup racing.

Everyone going on about how F1 hasn't had a death since Senna, well tbh Massa was incredibly lucky and it was only helmet tech that saved him rather than F1 safety tech.

What are you on about mate!? Indycar should shoulder most of the blame for his death IMO, Safety is not just about car design, How about the fact that they allowed 34 cars, racing at 220mph on a 1.5 mile oval, Not only that, they also allowed poor and inexperienced drivers to take part in a race that they had no place being in, When the flag was dropped, the crash was unavoidable but with a little more thought for safety as opposed to money and spectacle, then this death could have been saved.

As for Massa`s helmet design saving him, The same design did not stop Henry Surtess from losing his life and at slower speeds. Massa, as you put it was just incredibly lucky.

 

[JRS]

Unfortunately the opinion that death means excitement is a lot more prominent in the USA, so they simply haven't wanted to bother making things safer.

Oh, **** off Skeeter. Of course they don't think like that. Hell, IndyCar has had an extremely good safety programme running for many years now, one result of which is the car that Dan Wheldon himself tested in August this year. Doubtless you know about this, since you feel able to make statements like the above quote....

The 2012 season will see the implementation of Indycar's new ICONIC Plan (Innovative, Competitive, Open-Wheel, New, Industry-Relevant, Cost-Effective), the biggest change to the sport in recent history. The existing car used through 2010, a 2003-model Dallara IR-05, and naturally aspirated V8 engines (required since 1997) will be permanently retired. The ICONIC committee was composed of experts and executives from racing and technical fields: Randy Bernard, William R. Looney III, Brian Barnhart, Gil de Ferran, Tony Purnell, Eddie Gossage, Neil Ressler, Tony Cotman and Rick Long. IndyCar accepted proposals from BAT Engineering, Dallara, DeltaWing, Lola and Swift for chassis design. On July 14, 2010, the final decision was made public, with organisers accepting the Dallara proposal.

Under the new ICONIC regulations, all teams will compete with a core rolling chassis, called the "IndyCar Safety Cell", developed by Italian designer Dallara. Teams will then outfit the chassis with separate body work, referred to as "Aero Kits", which consist of front and rear wings, sidepods, and engine cowlings. Development of Aero Kits is open to any manufacturer, with all packages to be made available to all teams for a maximum price. ICONIC committee member Tony Purnell gave an open invitation to car manufacturers and companies such as Lockheed Martin and GE to develop kits.

The IndyCar Safety cell will be capped at a price of $349,000 and will be assembled at a new Dallara facility in Speedway, Indiana. Aero Kits will be capped at $70,000. Teams have the option of buying a complete Dallara safety cell/aero kit for a discounted price.

On May 12, 2011, Dallara unveiled the first concept cars, one apiece in oval and road course Aero Kit configuration.

On April 30, 2011, IndyCar owners voted 15–0 to reject the introduction of multiple Aero Kits for the 2012 season, citing costs. Owners expressed their desire to introduce the new chassis/engines for 2012, but have all participants use the Dallara aerodynamic package in 2012, and delay the introduction of multiple aero kits until 2013. On August 14, 2011, IndyCar confirmed that the introduction of multiple Aero Kits would be delayed until 2013 for "economic reasons". Chevrolet and Lotus had already announced their intention to build aero kits.

2011 Indianapolis 500 winner Dan Wheldon carried out the first official test of the Dallara chassis at Mid-Ohio Sports Car Course in August 2011.

The engines will be 2.2 L V6 turbocharged engines, tuned to produce a range of 550–700 horsepower (410–520 kW) with a 12,000 RPM limit. All engines will run E85 fuel; from 2007–2011, the series utilized 100% fuel grade ethanol. The "push to pass" feature in 2012 will allow a limited horsepower gain up to 100 HP as opposed to the current "overtake assist" which only provides 10 to 20 HP.

But as I say, you know all about this because you know enough to say that they don't give a **** about making things safer....

**** me sideways....







***edit***

Bit harsh? Maybe. Right now I'm not overly enamoured with this section of the forums anyway, so maybe that's spilling over. Still, I shall leave this here. If it draws an adverse reaction from Skeeter....oh well!