That's what oval racing is, you'll never change this without ruining the sport. You could have 10 cars on a 10 mile oval, they'll still all be on one clump wheel to wheel. It's the whole point of the sport.
F1 - Indycar safety.
- Thread starter Danthus
- Start date
That's what oval racing is, you'll never change this without ruining the sport. You could have 10 cars on a 10 mile oval, they'll still all be on one clump wheel to wheel. It's the whole point of the sport.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 2,981
- Location
- Herts, UK
It was also at about 70-80mph not 200mph though.
The monocoque of an F1 is no stronger than the monocoque of an Indycar I'd suggest, both also have side protection and both had roll over hoops that could fail with such an incident. If the exact same accident happened but they were in F1 cars the results I fear would have been the same. There were to many cars on track, it was an oval with no run offs and the cars we travelling at 220mph, none of those aspects form part of any F1 race these days so making a judgement on how much safer an F1 car would have been is pointless, for it wouldn't. Look at Gregg Moores crash and look how well the moncoque stood up to the incident, though sadly he still lost his life due to the fact that a solid wall at 230mph doesn't take prisoners. If anyone can tell me why an F1 car has a safer safety cell with empirical evidence I'll listen, to just say well it's safer because less people have died is to miss the point completely.
The walls aren't so much as an issue that everyone thinks they are, they actually deflect the cars down the track as they never hit the wall at a 90 degree angle. It's the catch fences and their supporting beams that cause the sudden deceleration.
http://twitter.com/#!/tiff_tv/status/126246233009438720
http://twitter.com/#!/tiff_tv/status/126258767993114625
The safety glass idea is the only feasible method I've heard so far.
http://twitter.com/#!/tiff_tv/status/126246233009438720
http://twitter.com/#!/tiff_tv/status/126258767993114625
The safety glass idea is the only feasible method I've heard so far.
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 2
Actually that was Wouter van Eewijk and he's Dutch (big difference!!
). Also in the initial accident his breathing was affected, but this recovered against expectations, but remains paralised from the sholders down.Actually that was Wouter van Eewijk and he's Dutch (big difference!!
Yes, sorry about that, my mistake.
Back to the Indy crash: those were oil fires, gearboxes crumple by design during a collision and that usually ruptures oil lines. Although that should be looked at as well, as two drivers suffered burns to their hands recently (Simona de Silvestro and now Pippa Mann).
Last edited:
Lots of accidents have occured in F1 in recent years where a driver could quite easily have died, no matter how much you improve safety when you're driving at 180mph+ it's only a matter of time before someone gets unlucky... if the drivers don't want to risk their lives then stay at home - they could just as easily get killed during the car journey to the circuit.
The more safety conscious a sport like Indycar becomes the worse it becomes, just look at F1 and all the anti-racing rules, marshalls punishing contact, huge run-offs etc. it's an overpoliced joke of a sport compared to 20-30yrs ago, safety might have improved but that's primarily because drivers are all too scared to race one another for fear of a penalty.
The more safety conscious a sport like Indycar becomes the worse it becomes, just look at F1 and all the anti-racing rules, marshalls punishing contact, huge run-offs etc. it's an overpoliced joke of a sport compared to 20-30yrs ago, safety might have improved but that's primarily because drivers are all too scared to race one another for fear of a penalty.
The other difference is Indycar is struggling to make ends meet (the damage of the Champcar\IRL split in the early 2000s was lasting, not to mention other mismanagement).
Reading through this thread it seems apparent that any crash in any formula is multi-factorial. If this happened this way and this contacted this, this would happen. However one area that has not been suggested yet, which I think is quite important is the safety around the track. By this, I do not mean the walls or the track layout, but the medical doctors, paramedics etc.
JRS and others, I think I am qualified in talking about this subject as I have been a motorsport doctor for many years and indeed even a F1 doctor at Silverstone for a couple.
When we have a F1 event, and I am led to believe the FIA impose stringent rules Worldwide, we have multiple (at least 3 medical cars), on average 20 medically trained doctors (all of whom specialise in Emergency trauma - so Anaesthetists/Emergency Docs) stationed around the track, separate extrication teams (3 in total) and a huge number of medical doctors at the Medical centre. All for the drivers, not for the public!
Now I have no idea what the medical backup situation was at the Indycar, but the response time for emergency responders seemed lacklustre and there didn't seem to be many around. I definitely am not suggesting that having more doctors would have made any difference to the outcome of Dan, but actually from where I am sitting it is a little difficult to even compare F1 to Indycar racing. For all the people saying the Indycar chassis from 2003 is as safe as a current F1 car I may suggest that this is far from the truth. The amount of money, R&D that has gone into protecting drivers in F1 is massive and it shows in crashes like Webber's & Kubica's.
Accidents will always happen, some will be horrific, some will be tragic, all we can do is try and make the odds for the drivers better. If you want an insight into what F1 has achieved in terms of safety may I suggest you invest in Dr Gary Hartstein's book 'Medicine in Motor Sport.' He happens to be a FIA doctor and FIA delegate that goes to all the races.
JRS and others, I think I am qualified in talking about this subject as I have been a motorsport doctor for many years and indeed even a F1 doctor at Silverstone for a couple.
When we have a F1 event, and I am led to believe the FIA impose stringent rules Worldwide, we have multiple (at least 3 medical cars), on average 20 medically trained doctors (all of whom specialise in Emergency trauma - so Anaesthetists/Emergency Docs) stationed around the track, separate extrication teams (3 in total) and a huge number of medical doctors at the Medical centre. All for the drivers, not for the public!
Now I have no idea what the medical backup situation was at the Indycar, but the response time for emergency responders seemed lacklustre and there didn't seem to be many around. I definitely am not suggesting that having more doctors would have made any difference to the outcome of Dan, but actually from where I am sitting it is a little difficult to even compare F1 to Indycar racing. For all the people saying the Indycar chassis from 2003 is as safe as a current F1 car I may suggest that this is far from the truth. The amount of money, R&D that has gone into protecting drivers in F1 is massive and it shows in crashes like Webber's & Kubica's.
Accidents will always happen, some will be horrific, some will be tragic, all we can do is try and make the odds for the drivers better. If you want an insight into what F1 has achieved in terms of safety may I suggest you invest in Dr Gary Hartstein's book 'Medicine in Motor Sport.' He happens to be a FIA doctor and FIA delegate that goes to all the races.
Just because it is a risky sport does not make it less boring. Unless you are watching just for crashes, which ironically is the only thing that is pretty interesting in it to the average spectator.
Horses for course and all but I cannot think of anything more boring than oval racing when it comes to motorsport and about the only footage of it I can watch is crash/highlight compilations. Why the necessity for such solid barriers. Are people suggesting it is beyond the ability of human engineering to design oval tracks with run-offs or more forgiving barriers? Is the current design simply not a case of getting spectators as close as possible to the action?
Last edited:
Did you even watch the replay? There were teams on-track before the cars had stopped rolling.
Also, you might want to look up the Zanardi 2001 crash and tell me the response there didn't save his life.
Compare that to the 2005 Ralf Schumacher crash at Indy where the FIA made the medical car do a whole lap first...
It never ceases to amaze me that, even when the contributor is so involved that he could even have been part of the situations being described, some armchair experts still have the stupidity to question them.
Sorry, sr4470, but I'm going to take the Motorsport Dr's opinion on Motorsport Medical care above yours.
Sorry, sr4470, but I'm going to take the Motorsport Dr's opinion on Motorsport Medical care above yours.
I was talking about the response time on that's visible on camera. You're welcome to disagree in which case there's not much more for me to add.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 46,279
This is seeming more and more likely now - http://crave.cnet.co.uk/cartech/fia-tests-fighter-jet-canopy-on-f1-cars-but-teams-object-50004454/
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 46,279