54 replies to this topic

[Andrew Hope]

Because we need a break from the endless threads about the same thing, and it's an interesting debate.

What do you think? Should we be doing everything possible to make racing as safe as possible, or are you of the belief that racing should be dangerous and that 'if it's too hot, get out of the kitchen'? That you can always play a safe sport instead, so don't ruin it for the 'real men'?

What are your thoughts on this subject? Should we be making the tracks safer, or the cars? Both? Neither? What, if any, safety equipment should be mandatory? Should it be down to the driver's decision to use something like the HANS device? What would you do, if anything, to change racing with regards to safety? Does ballsyness and courage count for less these days than it used to? Should it matter at all, or should all that the perfect driver needs is speed and precision?

Just looking for general thoughts on this subject, and with regards to whatever kind of racing you prefer (circuit racing, rallying, etc.).

Don't be shy!

[Watkins74]

While I believe in all the safety changes made in F1 over the years I think something has been lost. While F1 doesn't have as much passing as other series I think it historically has had precision driving.

While it is safer, I think it is to easy for a driver to make a mistake, go 100 feet off the track and just drive back on with no real ramifications. To a lesser degree the same thing with the kitty litter, it seems to be to easy to just drive over it.

I don't really have an answer. I don't know if a 30 foot "out of bounds" line that would result in a drive through would work or not.

[Longtimefan]

Safe is good, no one wants to see drivers hurt, injured or killed. I've had far enough of that from watching in the 70's and 80's BUT.. there has to be some danger, they get their thrill and buzz partly from the risk and I agree with the likes of Moss when he says if theres no risk there is no point racing.

[Risil]

Read this story today, which seems to go along with your thread.

Is Guy Martin accident-prone or what? The would-be TV star and part-time road racer had barely recovered from crashing at 170mph at the TT when he had another body-altering encounter while filming for his new BBC show.

His TT accident ended up with his bike a ball of fire and Martin with serious back injuries. This time the irrepressible Lincolnshire truck mechanic pushed his luck with water when jumping from a barge and not quite making it to the other side. Well, his face did make it but not the rest of him requiring lengthy sessions with a dental surgeon.

He was fished out of the water by BBC roadies, thereby avoiding drowning, but his injuries from that simple slip sounded horrific - bone grafts and teeth implants are ensuring that a burgeoning tv career has not been brought to a premature end.

No one is quite sure what his tv show is about - filming resumed when he had falsies fitted - but in the meantime Guy surprised everyone including, it seemed, himself by signing for TAS Suzuki, to do the three big road races. The maverick became a team player.

Well, good luck to him. In a world of dullards he is a character. And his favourite drink is tea. Just stay away from water.

No comment, except to say that without the guys and gals who make risk-taking into a sort of artform, the world would be a slightly less interesting place.

[Risil]

Which is not to say, I think, that racing is danger. If the most important element of racing is the risk, then why is it that Valentino Rossi commands so much more respect than some stupid kids walking on railway lines? Or, for that matter, the seriously brave men and women who race at the Manx TT every year? If being a 'racer' is to take risks with your life, to put yourself into danger's hands, then is Jeremy Burgess not 'a racer'? Or Filippo Preziosi? Or Chad Knaus? That kind of attitude would be equally demeaning to what motor racing is.

[Buttoneer]

Lewis Hamilton mentioned in the pre-race show last weekend that the element of danger was part of it (while discussing Senna and the '88(?) McLaren he drove for Top Gear. So while it's exciting for us to watch something dangerous, it's exciting for him to be doing it.

[cheapracer]

Actually F1 racing isn't safer than before although the car's ability to withstand and absorb impacts has greatly improved (Kubica Canada) and there is less things to hit trackside.

But the main reason we are going through a "safe spell" is because of the lack of passing/passing attempts and when/if it ever gets back to real racing then accidents will start to happen again.

[Gareth]

It's a balance.

F1 should be as safe as possible without compromising the racing. I would expect most people would agree with that. Danger for the sake of danger seems pretty pointless to me and adds little to my enjoyment.

Then there are safety decisions that do or may compromise the racing. And then you come into the balancing part of it. A small increase in safety for a large decrease in the enjoyment of the racing is not worth it, IMO. The converse probably is. Each decision should revolve around its own merits.

So to me the answer to the answer to both questions posed (Should we be doing everything possible to make racing as safe as possible, or are you of the belief that racing should be dangerous and that 'if it's too hot, get out of the kitchen'? That you can always play a safe sport instead, so don't ruin it for the 'real men'?) is "no". Racing should be neither as safe as possible nor should safety be disregarded: an appropriate balance should always be struck.

[King Six]

I'm not a fan of drivers like Rubens Barrichello who constantly complain about how dangerous everything is ALL THE TIME, I understand that he's a committed family man so if that's the case he needs to make some decisions in his life instead of constantly trying to belittle the sport, in which he has achieved little apart from longevity, which I suppose provides a dark irony about it all.

F1 needs less Sunday dad drivers is all I'm saying.

Aside from that, what the FIA have done over the past few decades is nothing short of awesome in terms of safety.

[nomeg1]

in which he has achieved little apart from longevity, which I suppose provides a dark irony about it all.

Aside from that, what the FIA have done over the past few decades is nothing short of awesome in terms of safety.

+ 1 x 2
Why am I even posting here ?

Edited by nomeg1, 10 November 2010 - 16:04.

[Crafty]

Safety is a good thing, things like HANS avoid death/serious injury.

Combined with this is the ability to deal with an emergency - proper medical facilities, doctors and the like. You can get the Sid Watkins books that cover the subject quite well for a few quid off amazon, worth reading.

I think where it has maybe gone a bit wrong is the cars are much easier to drive - we used to see drivers totally exhausted after a race - it wasn't unknown for a driver to have to be lifted out of the car. Drivers would have a blister from the gearshift after 300-400 gear changes in a race and so on. This is quite different from safety but I think the two things get confused sometimes.
Some would say its all because the drivers are much fitter nowadays, thus more able to handle the strain - I think its a bit of both (easier cars to drive/fitter drivers).

[Villes Gilleneuve]

Aside from that, what the FIA have done over the past few decades is nothing short of awesome in terms of safety.

From a technical perspective, the FIA has embraced all the right aspects of safety.

However, the single biggest threat to driver safety in F1 today is the behavior of F1 drivers. The FIA needs to address this before there is a fatality from a stupid Schumacher-like stunt.

Bad driving penalties are currently a joke.

[Villes Gilleneuve]

oh, and thanks for starting a thread that does not involve some ******** conspiracy, driver hate, or race scenario into Adu Dhabi. Or anything to do with Kimi Raikkonen.

Edited by Villes Gilleneuve, 10 November 2010 - 16:30.

[Fastcake]

I think where it has maybe gone a bit wrong is the cars are much easier to drive - we used to see drivers totally exhausted after a race - it wasn't unknown for a driver to have to be lifted out of the car. Drivers would have a blister from the gearshift after 300-400 gear changes in a race and so on. This is quite different from safety but I think the two things get confused sometimes.
Some would say its all because the drivers are much fitter nowadays, thus more able to handle the strain - I think its a bit of both (easier cars to drive/fitter drivers).

That's an improvement, races that went on for several hours and had drivers retiring as they couldn't cope isn't really fun. I don't personally believe cars are that easier to drive, the higher speeds count for alot.

[Alfisti]

Safety s not really what's killing us, it's these aenemic cars with WAY too much grip and not enough power or frankly, noise.

They should be angry, snarling things but instead come across as being too scared to come off the road.

[FlatOverCrest]

While I understand the principle of the extra tarmac areas on tracks as being the safest means to slow cars down when going off, it certainly gets abused by many drivers.

Therefore I would propose that if your car ends up with all four wheels outside of the white lines of the track boundry, then you will be served a 'drive through' penalty. That would stop some pretty idiotic moves pretty quick, as the risk could easily outweigh the potential reward. This way the drivers stay safe by having plenty of run off area, but they understand that it can only be used in moments of emergency and not a a means to try and keep a position having gone off!

[Dunder]

It is a tough question.

I never want to see another Imola 1994

but

The huge improvements in safety of the cars and the tracks does detract somewhat from the challenge that F1 has always been. If huge tarmac run off areas are really necessary, then I would at least like that tarmac to be highly abrasive. Mistakes need to be sufficiently penalised otherwise the driving will drift more and more to being like a playstation game.

[Risil]

Therefore I would propose that if your car ends up with all four wheels outside of the white lines of the track boundry, then you will be served a 'drive through' penalty. That would stop some pretty idiotic moves pretty quick, as the risk could easily outweigh the potential reward. This way the drivers stay safe by having plenty of run off area, but they understand that it can only be used in moments of emergency and not a a means to try and keep a position having gone off!

I recall something like that happening at the 1993 Detroit Indycar GP. Sure enough, later that race Danny Sullivan pushed Al Unser over the 'white line' while Little Al was trying to overtake! Ain't no substitute for a proper wall...

Edited by Risil, 10 November 2010 - 18:00.

[BullHead]

IMO driving open wheel machines at the sort of speeds we see is dangerous enough. We don't need actual risk of injury from getting it wrong... The sport is about the driver being punished by not being able to carry on the race / losing position etc, not about being hurt as punishment. I watch F1 in awe at what they are actually doing and the skills involved to do it. Failure is punishment enough without physical harm needing to play a part for my entertainment.

[whitewaterMkII]

Racing is dangerous

Whether it's in F-1 or on the backroads.

I believe that organized, sanctioned racing has done a fabulous job over the last twenty years of mitigating some aspects of
egregious dangers involved with the cars and tracks, at all levels, yet it's still a dangerous enough undertaking that no organization will ever eliminate
the possibility of death while racing. Even at the highest levels and most rigorous inspection of circuits or cars, the black crow is ever present
Personally, my involvement in a particularly dangerous form of racing, Drag Boats, led to me leaving racing altogether after years
of being on one circuit or another as a wrench. Unfortunately, and for no reason we could determine afterwards, our driver died
during a crash at over 200mph. Although the sponsor stepped up and replaced everything that was destroyed and urged us to not give up,
we finished out the season and didn't return to racing the next year. Nor have I returned to any racing since, even though I had offers to.
Racing was/is all fun and games, and I had a blast doing it, wrecked stuff many many times, but once that happened it just didn't have the same flavor.
I've followed racing for decades now and there are some accidents that happened and took a drivers life that took the heart out of racing for me, and I'm sure it will happen again. I'm still addicted to it though, but not because it's dangerous, I really enjoy it more now than in the past for just the technical aspects and strategies.

[Ross Stonefeld]

When you make a mistake on track, you should be punished for it. So I prefer gravel to runoff. Or at least a large chunk of gravel before the runoff, to slow you down significantly. Plus it would remove a lot of issues over people straightlining corners and keeping their speed up.

But in terms of walls and car design, everything should be done to make impacts surviveable.

[Willow Rosenberg]

Actually F1 racing isn't safer than before although the car's ability to withstand and absorb impacts has greatly improved (Kubica Canada) and there is less things to hit trackside.

But the main reason we are going through a "safe spell" is because of the lack of passing/passing attempts and when/if it ever gets back to real racing then accidents will start to happen again.

I can't think of many (actually any, since 1980 at at least) fatalities that happened during, or as a result of, an overtake. I admit I don't know the circumstances of *every* death ever, but none of the ones I do know of happened that way.

[pingu666]

there are some items that puzzle me with the f1. no f1 track has the safer barrier, which would be fine apart from the growing amount of tracks with concreate walls and armco. its simple and cheap aswell, i just dont understand why it isnt used.

for those that dont watch oval racing where its used alot, at the back you have your concreate wall, then some polystrien or similer triangle shaped pieces, and then a steel flat wall, which can move. car hits the wall at it "gives", but the steel wall is made in sections that can move around abit, like a snake, and it stays together while it deforms and the car will slide along the wall

[Risil]

I can't think of many (actually any, since 1980 at at least) fatalities that happened during, or as a result of, an overtake. I admit I don't know the circumstances of *every* death ever, but none of the ones I do know of happened that way.

Gilles Villeneuve is the famous one.

Most of the fatalities I can think of that happened because of 'close racing' happen in the lower formulae of car racing, throughout history.

[MotorsportARTIST]

we see some terrible driving standards from drivers nowadays because there are'nt the consequences there once was in having an accident, no one wants to see a driver hurt but second class drivers with no ability to race wouldnt pull such stupid moves if there was the danger that there was 15+ years ago

[Scotracer]

Actually F1 racing isn't safer than before although the car's ability to withstand and absorb impacts has greatly improved (Kubica Canada) and there is less things to hit trackside.

But the main reason we are going through a "safe spell" is because of the lack of passing/passing attempts and when/if it ever gets back to real racing then accidents will start to happen again.

Erm...then it is safer

Consider if Gilles Villeneuve's accident had happened in a 2010 car. What would have been the likely outcome? Billions of examples.

I honestly thing the cars are safe enough considering that the speeds of the cars have been pretty much static over the last decade...and I don't see them increasing any time soon.

[Willow Rosenberg]

Gilles Villeneuve is the famous one.

Most of the fatalities I can think of that happened because of 'close racing' happen in the lower formulae of car racing, throughout history.

Villeneuve and Mass weren't racing.

[zepunishment]

oh, and thanks for starting a thread that does not involve some ******** conspiracy, driver hate, or race scenario into Adu Dhabi. Or anything to do with Kimi Raikkonen.

I agree. It seems though that currently the biggest threat to racing safety comes from a hateful conspiracy to throw Raikkonen onto the track during the Abu Dhabi GP.


Being serious, part of me thinks that the spectacle of F1 is waning a bit, but then again I don't want people to get hurt for my entertainment. I think it is becoming clear though that street races can be hosted safely, so we could do with slightly more interesting track layouts again.

[CSquared]

Actually F1 racing isn't safer than before although the car's ability to withstand and absorb impacts has greatly improved (Kubica Canada) and there is less things to hit trackside.

Doesn't that mean it's safer?

But the main reason we are going through a "safe spell" is because of the lack of passing/passing attempts and when/if it ever gets back to real racing then accidents will start to happen again.

I don't believe that at all. Someone would have to show some research/numbers of % of fatal or injury accidents caused during overtaking. Just reviewing some high-profile ones off the top of my head:
Schumacher's leg - no.
Panis's legs - not sure.
Wendlinger - not sure, but don't think so.
Senna - no.
Ratzenberger - no.
De Angelis - no.
Villenueve - kind of. He was trying to go around a slower car, I think.
Peterson - not sure. Likely, since it was at the start.
Lauda (not fatal, but close) - no.
Cevert - no.
Rindt - no.
Clark - no.
Le Mans 1955 - kind of. Lapping slower cars.
Ascari - no.
(Last three are not F1, I know. Just high-profile accidents off the top of my head).

[BRG]

I agree. It seems though that currently the biggest threat to racing safety comes from a hateful conspiracy to throw Raikkonen onto the track during the Abu Dhabi GP.

Now look, let's get it quite clear, Kimi has said several times that he hasn't yet made up his mind whether to be thrown onto the track at Abu Dhabi or onto a Wales Rally GB stage.

And there is no clear evidence as yet whether it will be Renault, Ferrari, Citroen or Ford who do the throwing, or perhaps even Mercedes or Mini, although Kimi is very annoyed that Renault claimed to have got his agreement to be thrown onto a GP track despite the fact that he hadn't ever spoken to them, except of course for the occasions when he had spoken to them.

I hope that clears things up.

As for the issue of safety, I have no real problem with any of the current safety measures, but I agree absolutely with those who have said that leaving the track needs to be made more of a disadvantage, and that driving standards need to be drastically improved. Giving Buemi and Alguesauri penalties for their antics in Brazil might have been a start (as would have been banning a certain multiple WDC for his appalling driving in Hungary)

[RSNS]

Safe is good, no one wants to see drivers hurt, injured or killed. I've had far enough of that from watching in the 70's and 80's BUT.. there has to be some danger, they get their thrill and buzz partly from the risk and I agree with the likes of Moss when he says if theres no risk there is no point racing.

I agree. I'd say I prefer danger to be absent to ever present.

[Clatter]

It is a tough question.

I never want to see another Imola 1994

but

The huge improvements in safety of the cars and the tracks does detract somewhat from the challenge that F1 has always been. If huge tarmac run off areas are really necessary, then I would at least like that tarmac to be highly abrasive. Mistakes need to be sufficiently penalised otherwise the driving will drift more and more to being like a playstation game.

I don't want to see another Imola either, but really it could happen again at any time despite the extra safety features. F1 has been lucky in the last few years. Kubicas crash in Canada could easily have been fatal and the fact that the car ended up facing away from the wall was sheer luck and not design. Webbers flip this year could very easily have seen him head into the fencing.

[Clatter]

there are some items that puzzle me with the f1. no f1 track has the safer barrier, which would be fine apart from the growing amount of tracks with concreate walls and armco. its simple and cheap aswell, i just dont understand why it isnt used.

for those that dont watch oval racing where its used alot, at the back you have your concreate wall, then some polystrien or similer triangle shaped pieces, and then a steel flat wall, which can move. car hits the wall at it "gives", but the steel wall is made in sections that can move around abit, like a snake, and it stays together while it deforms and the car will slide along the wall

I'm not an expert but I think that system works well on ovals due to angle the cars normal hit the wall which causes them to run along it, but on a normal track the impact angles are different and it's not so effective.

[BullHead]

Considering what is actually being done these days in high end motorsport (speeds, fragility etc), it is relatively safe. But as Jackie Stewart said at Monza, it can't be too safe. To think that motorsport or F1 is too safe is a crazy way of thinking. How can anything be too safe? Safety or put literally less risk of injury is and should be paramount in any sport, otherwise it isn't a viable sport, it is just blood letting, like gladiators....

[CSquared]

I'm not an expert but I think that system works well on ovals due to angle the cars normal hit the wall which causes them to run along it, but on a normal track the impact angles are different and it's not so effective.

There are variations on that idea that would work even in head-on impacts. You just need barriers that absorb more energy. I agree it seems it's an area of "low-hanging safety fruit" and it's very curious there hasn't been more done in that area.

[BullHead]

Actually after his accident at Valencia I seem to remember Mark commenting on how he was glad it wasn't those new flexi barriers ala Singapore that he hit. Can't understand that....

[Clatter]

There are variations on that idea that would work even in head-on impacts. You just need barriers that absorb more energy. I agree it seems it's an area of "low-hanging safety fruit" and it's very curious there hasn't been more done in that area.

Barriers that are best for absorbing energy tend to deform and are only good for one hit. Not much use in a race situation if your the second one to crash.

[Clatter]

Actually after his accident at Valencia I seem to remember Mark commenting on how he was glad it wasn't those new flexi barriers ala Singapore that he hit. Can't understand that....

I can see why, but I still think he was lucky that the car didnt end up in the fencing on RH side of the track when he was airborne.

[BullHead]

I can see why, but I still think he was lucky that the car didnt end up in the fencing on RH side of the track when he was airborne.

Agree on that, obviously, but that was the first time I heard a driver speak against the "Tec-Pro(?)" barrier system.

[CSquared]

Barriers that are best for absorbing energy tend to deform and are only good for one hit. Not much use in a race situation if your the second one to crash.

So it's better to just leave concrete or Armco? What you point out is indeed a problem, but I don't think it's an unsolvable one.

[pingu666]

i cant really think of a area where a safer barrier isnt better than a solid wall if your hitting it, the downside areas would be the transition from bare wall to safer barrier (it pops out if your going really fast...) and if you need to replace the cusioning material mid race. but there are ways around that...

lime rock has some unique saftey features
not sure if it was meant to in this case or not, but the tyre barrier front line isnt backed against a wall, and can be pushed back by the car absorbing energy more slowly (safer)

ive also seen blocks of tires used in the same where there

[whitewaterMkII]

IIRC, the first 'pseudo' safer barrier was at the CART era Rio oval.
Instead of overlaid steel sheeting though they used old conveyor belts and some sort of crushable structure behind them, which had the effect of grabbing the cars or bunching up the belts and causing long yellows to fasten everything down again.
The safer barrier would only be effective on few areas on a street or road course. If was an effective solution I'm sure it would be in use at tracks like Laguna Seca, Sonoma or Watkins Glen.
Don't get me wrong, the safer barrier has added tons of safety to a lot of ovals, and has saved lots of guys some serious hurt.

Edited by whitewaterMkII, 11 November 2010 - 04:05.

[Clatter]

So it's better to just leave concrete or Armco? What you point out is indeed a problem, but I don't think it's an unsolvable one.

I've seen a variety of different systems used over the years and they always seem to return to the tried and tested system. It may not be unsolvable, but it seems to be more difficult than you might think.

[stevewf1]

Doesn't that mean it's safer?


I don't believe that at all. Someone would have to show some research/numbers of % of fatal or injury accidents caused during overtaking. Just reviewing some high-profile ones off the top of my head:
Schumacher's leg - no.
Panis's legs - not sure.
Wendlinger - not sure, but don't think so.
Senna - no.
Ratzenberger - no.
De Angelis - no.
Villenueve - kind of. He was trying to go around a slower car, I think.
Peterson - not sure. Likely, since it was at the start.
Lauda (not fatal, but close) - no.
Cevert - no.
Rindt - no.
Clark - no.
Le Mans 1955 - kind of. Lapping slower cars.
Ascari - no.
(Last three are not F1, I know. Just high-profile accidents off the top of my head).

Jochen Mass. If I remember correctly, It was a qualifying session and Mass was on a slow-down lap while Villeneuve was on a hot lap. At the back of the Zolder circuit, there was a left-hand kink followed by a right-hand bend. Mass saw Villenueve coming up as both swept out of that left-hand kink. Mass moved to the right in order to allow Villeneuve the correct line for the upcoming right-hander. At the same instant, Villeneuve apparently decided to pass Mass on the right...

[Risil]

What was that foam-like substance they used in front of the barriers at Suzuka in the 500GP days? Any relation to the things that cover trees and lampposts in road racing? Polishing a real safety turd, clearly.

[svxdriver]

IMO driving open wheel machines at the sort of speeds we see is dangerous enough. We don't need actual risk of injury from getting it wrong... The sport is about the driver being punished by not being able to carry on the race / losing position etc, not about being hurt as punishment. I watch F1 in awe at what they are actually doing and the skills involved to do it. Failure is punishment enough without physical harm needing to play a part for my entertainment.

I absolutely agree with this comment. You only have to look at the Valencia incident this year when the car went airborne and although it landed right side up, he still hit that tyre wall at speed. That could easily had been fatal. A driver was killed at Thruxton this year in GT racing (in a Ferrari) and he ( I believe) was wearing a HANS device and had the benefit of a safety cage. Motorsport is dangerous enough. We all take it for granted, even boring, when we see a car travelling at speed on a track. It's when it comes off that track you actually see the consequences of speed/mass/obstacle meeting. If in doubt just look at the Seat in the WTCC and the Superleague crash at Brands this year - both on Youtube.

[goldenboy]

I never had a chance to watch when it was extremely dangerous so cant comment on the affect safety has had entertainment wise. but Ive found F1 the most entertaining sport by far and thats without the danger.

I think F1 has been unbelievably lucky not to have a fatality over the last decade.

[Henrytheeigth]

Let's not forget the two poor souls who died at Monza and Melbourne this decade k..

[Longtimefan]

Let's not forget the two poor souls who died at Monza and Melbourne this decade k..

Yes, I'm not sure if I remember their names 100% right or spell them but I believe it was Paulo Gislimberti at Monza and Graham Beveridge at Melbourne.

[pacificquay]

To be pedantic they were not this decade, but last