Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Racing and Danger.


  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

#1 Tsarwash

Tsarwash
  • Member

  • 13,725 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 01 September 2015 - 02:49

There have been many comments and threads which have touched on the idea of the importance or lack of, danger and racing. I'm wondering what people's views are about the importance of the element of danger of injury and death in motor racing ? Some people don't want to ever see another person die in a racing car and some people think that it's important to have this risk present for the sport. I'm sort of torn between to two viewpoints. While I don't want to be the bloodthirsty spectator demanding pain and sacrifice for my entertainment, I think that if you remove all elements of danger, some essence of the sport is lost, and additionally, I fundamentally think that people have the right to take rational choices with literally their own lives. I suspect that opinions are derived from peoples own philosophical viewpoint of mortality, but I'm very interested in any moral stances that people can bring up.

Advertisement

#2 whitewaterMkII

whitewaterMkII
  • Member

  • 7,073 posts
  • Joined: November 05

Posted 01 September 2015 - 03:07

Danger will always be part of it, things break, especially highly stressed, ultra lite race car items. But really, it's a case now of keeping about 2 square feet in the drivers face safe and I'd be happy, they are way, way more safe now than even ten years ago, it's the last chink in the armor that remains.

The simplest way would be to make damn sure nothing big enough comes off the car big enough to clock someone.



#3 ViMaMo

ViMaMo
  • Member

  • 6,513 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 01 September 2015 - 04:01

Freak accidents shouldn't be taken as a sign of general weakness in the sport. F1 right now has a very good safety record.

 

https://en.wikipedia...Mans_fatalities

https://en.wikipedia...torcycle_racing

https://en.wikipedia...SCAR_fatalities

 

What I miss is how they used to race in rain, saw some great races during downpours :)



#4 Radoye

Radoye
  • Member

  • 3,364 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 01 September 2015 - 04:04

The only way to completely eliminate all danger from motorsports is not to race. No human activity exists which has 0% danger, we cannot eliminate all risk from our lives. And especially with racing, where human body travels at speeds far beyond those it was designed for - any sudden change of direction carries a risk of injury or worse.

 

https://en.wikipedia...onary_contusion

https://en.wikipedia...rdial_contusion

https://en.wikipedia...bdominal_trauma

https://en.wikipedia...ic_brain_injury

 

It's basic physics - even if cockpit intrusion is 100% eliminated (which is in itself impossible, but it is a goal to strive for), we cannot eliminate inertia. As long as the Newtonian Laws of Motion exist in their current form, it is not possible to eliminate all danger of injury in motorsports. Things break and fail. People make mistakes. Random stuff happens.

 

Now, having established that it is impossible to eliminate all risk, the question remain what is the acceptable level of risk. Where do we draw the line?

 

Not that long ago, it was considered acceptable to have a fatality on average each month. Drivers raced with very little protection from crashes (helmets, belts) or fire (firesuits). The cars were flimsy, they would twist and bend when crashing trapping the drivers inside, the fuel tanks would rupture and leak. By modern standards, the racing machines of 50 years ago were not much more than death traps. Add to this the racetracks of the day lined with trees and houses and sheer rocky cliffs.

 

But on the other hand, they did not go nearly as fast as modern racecars do. Not in the straight line, and especially not through the corners. This meant that the margin of error was somewhat bigger than today and gave the drivers a fighting chance when things go wrong. It was still humanely possible to catch and correct a slide. To steer away. To break to a halt. Stuff happened fast, but the speeds were still within the normal operating range of the human brain. Today when stuff hits the fan, the driver is in lots of cases the last one to find out.

 

My fascination with motorsport begun in early childhood, some of my earliest memories involve watching racing on TV with my grandfather. He was a big racing fan, having raced motorbikes before WW2, on open roads with gravel and crushed stone surface, he stopped doing it after he ended up with a compound leg fracture. What got me hooked - and i was a mere toddler at the time - was the Lauda accident. It was a big deal for me because Lauda was grandpa's favorite driver, and grandpa made sure he was mine too. I vividly remember in the weeks following his crash pestering my mother every day for news about "mr. Lauda" and when he came back for me this was the absolute proof that racecar drivers are superheroes with true superpowers. From that day on, my three favorite superheroes were Batman, Spiderman and Niki Lauda. I honestly believed racecar drivers are immortal and impervious to fire.

 

Then Ronnie died. This was the first fatal accident that i was aware of. I didn't see it, i read about it in grandpa's racing magazines.

 

Then Jules, the first one i saw on TV. I still remember exactly where i was and what was i doing.

 

Then many more, in different forms of racing.

 

An uncle of mine who did rallies and hillclimbs had a close call wrapping his brand new car around a tree on its first outing. My dad crashed testing his pal's new racing bike. He didn't wore a helmet, since his head was too big for his friend's one and he wasn't prepared so he didn't bring his own, so ended up in a coma for a month. He never fully recovered, but at least he survived.

 

So yes, i was very much aware of the danger. But that wasn't what fascinated me. for me the draw was always the skill. Seeing people controlling machines with insane amount of power, far beyond anything that me or the racing members of my family ever got involved with. Fighting with acceleration and cornering forces that are more to be expected in a military plane than a car, bringing it to the very edge and sometimes even beyond trying to extract that final hundredth of a second, at the very edge of grip through corners. It wasn't the crashes what draw me to racing, it was in fact not crashing despite the cards being heavily stacked the drivers.

 

I have zero with to watch a bloodsport in which people are routinely killed or maimed. I really couldn't care less to find out who is the one guy with the biggest balls and the smallest brains. I'm not interested in a glorified game of chicken where the only skills needed for success are a lack of imagination.

 

Stuff happens in racing, and it happens in random and unpredictable ways. It will always remain dangerous. But i want my heroes when things go wrong to be able to come back next weekend and do it all over again. And i believe that the whole racing community owes them that much to give them a fighting chance. Justin Wilson had no chance. He never set a foot wrong, never made a mistake, and he never saw it coming, never had a chance to react. In a moment he was gone.

 

The problem of head protection in open cockpit cars has been highlighted since the incidents involving Massa and Henry Surtees some six years ago. In the meantime, the racing community has lost several good people due to head injuries, and a number of other had close calls. I believe the time has come to address this issue, like years ago when some other tragedies spawned safety improvements we today take for granted - crash helmets, safety harnesses, firesuits, HANS devices, improved fuel containment, standardized driver survival cells, improvements on and around tracks, to marshaling and medical services...

 

All these safety improvements have been paid for in blood. I believe we have already paid more than enough for this new coming revolution.


Edited by Radoye, 01 September 2015 - 04:07.


#5 Tsarwash

Tsarwash
  • Member

  • 13,725 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 01 September 2015 - 04:30

Snip.

The problem of head protection in open cockpit cars has been highlighted since the incidents involving Massa and Henry Surtees some six years ago. In the meantime, the racing community has lost several good people due to head injuries, and a number of other had close calls. I believe the time has come to address this issue, like years ago when some other tragedies spawned safety improvements we today take for granted - crash helmets, safety harnesses, firesuits, HANS devices, improved fuel containment, standardized driver survival cells, improvements on and around tracks, to marshaling and medical services...

 

All these safety improvements have been paid for in blood. I believe we have already paid more than enough for this new coming revolution.

I'm not talking about the current calls for head protection, we already have a lengthy, relevant thread for that. I'm thinking about the general concept of danger of injury and death in motor sports and it's importance or lack of. 



#6 BlinkyMcSquinty

BlinkyMcSquinty
  • Member

  • 862 posts
  • Joined: October 14

Posted 01 September 2015 - 04:59

I wish I could remember his name, but one Formula One driver in the 50's was asked if he thought it was dangerous, drivers being killed each year. His response was that just a few years earlier he was fighting in WW2, and racing seemed very tame in comparison. So that is where it started, a casual attitude because those involved didn't know better, or just didn't care. And we now let out a collective shudder because those cars in those days were not only lethal, they had horrific ways to kill a driver. In the front engine cars the driver sat ahead of a huge aluminum fuel tank, in rear engine cars even worse, the driver was surrounded by fuel. Loranzo Bandini and Roger Williamson both died in such a horrible fashion.

 

It took Bandini three days to die, and in the next ward his wife suffered a miscarriage.

 

This is very important to be aware of, that a serious injury or death is never tidy, it leaves a wake of destruction and pain for many, many people. And in many cases, when a driver dies it is not at home quietly surrounded by his loved ones, it is in front of thousands, with millions watching, a form of public execution in a violent manner.

 

I'm a safety nut, I even was heavily involved in work and other organizations. I always tried to carry a balance of common sense, but my philosophy is that no serious injury or death should ever be the result of one mistake or failure of one component. So in the case of Bianchi I understand it was a freak event coupled with a freak event coupled with a freak event, and I'm not as disturbed as in the case of Wilson.

 

That I have a lot of trouble reconciling because in hindsight, we know parts fly off cars when they crash, and that the head is still exposed.

 

OK, back to the topic, some fans watch Formula One because of many reasons, including the perceived danger. Fast cars competing on the edge of control.

 

But for me, it is the incredible skill and talent on display, brave young men showing off. I sim race a lot, and one thing for certain, going fast is a developed science, one where the fast drivers have spent years learning a heck of a lot in pursuit of their hobby/profession. And this is where my opinions diverge from others, because just like tennis or football, you can spend time as a spectator enjoying the skill on display, you don't need the risk of bodily harm to enjoy a sport.

 

Racing is dangerous, always was, and always will be. Unless we limit top speed to 2 kph and place the drivers in an impenetrable tank filled with bubble wrap, death and injuries will always be there. It's dangerous, I do understand. But does it have to be unnecessarily dangerous? If there is a risk, close it off, give the driver better odds of surviving. Because there will always be driver deaths, and we should try to at least save a few of them.



#7 Rocket73

Rocket73
  • Member

  • 2,285 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 01 September 2015 - 05:34

Personally I think danger of injury or death is a major part of the appeal of motor racing. Such as it is with many sports. Anyone seen those videos of the wingsuit base jumpers? Flying down mountain sides trying to get as close as possible to the terrain at 100 mph...it's nuts and 'kin awesome at the same time. And people die doing it.

There's a line in the Rush film, I've no idea if Hunt actually said this but it goes 'the closer you are to death the more alive you feel/are'. It's totally true and while a few decades ago the level of risk was too great in motorsport these days it is extremely low. We should also remember that 1 person in 100 will die every year statistically...it's a fact of life.

I also think this age of information and media accessibility, social and corporate, the ratio of the frequency of incidents that occur compared with the amount of motorsport that takes place is greatly distorted. I think it's too easy for people to believe that it's getting out of hand. It isn't...it's just life, **** happens and people die.

God knows here in the UK health and safety is bloody everywhere and there are large groups of people who seems to be hell bent on finding the next thing to 'clamp down on'. I only hope we can keep motorsport, and other sports, as they are to give us an opportunity to still feel alive and not completely wrapped up in cotton wool.

#8 Collombin

Collombin
  • Member

  • 8,589 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 01 September 2015 - 05:51

There's a line in the Rush film, I've no idea if Hunt actually said this but it goes 'the closer you are to death the more alive you feel/are'.


Probably not, but this tired old cliche does seem to turn up somewhere in nearly every racing film ever made.

#9 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 4,709 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 01 September 2015 - 07:16

I think it's clear, if you read the track limits thread, that there's a problem when the sport changes in a way that reduces the possibility of crashing. This is obviously done with safety in mind, but it's a real sporting problem when there's no real penalty for making mistakes. Some of us liked the fact that small errors used to end people's races, whereas now it generally takes a fairly major for a driver to put himself out on most tracks.

 

Personally, when I look back at the history of the sport, the fact that the drivers then took such a lot of risk does only add to the admiration one has for the drivers of past eras, but it wasn't right that there was so much avoidable risk. And, in my view, it is good that the strides in car design, helmet design, head and neck protection and, to some extent, track design have been made.

 

So that's the distinction I would try to make: I regard risk of crashing as important, but I think everything that can be done to mitigate the risk that people will be injured or killed in crashes, ought to be done.



#10 ViMaMo

ViMaMo
  • Member

  • 6,513 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 01 September 2015 - 11:08

Let's not equate danger to death. What is being discussed is drivers are not driving on the limit like they used to. So more bhp to machines, more speed, danger increases right?

#11 ronsingapore

ronsingapore
  • Member

  • 103 posts
  • Joined: November 14

Posted 01 September 2015 - 12:57

I think it speaks very well of our modern society when even one loss of life can lead to soul-searching and a drive for improvement in safety. There used to be a time when fatalities and injuries in motorsports were commonplace - and I think that was part of the attraction; racers were seen as the modern-day equivalent of gladiators or chariot drivers. It was all a part of the thrill and death-seeking experience that spectators admired. 

 

But we live in a different society and world now and racing has to adapt to it.



#12 Radoye

Radoye
  • Member

  • 3,364 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 01 September 2015 - 13:49

I'm not talking about the current calls for head protection, we already have a lengthy, relevant thread for that. I'm thinking about the general concept of danger of injury and death in motor sports and it's importance or lack of

 

I believe i have covered that topic pretty good, no?

 

So that's the distinction I would try to make: I regard risk of crashing as important, but I think everything that can be done to mitigate the risk that people will be injured or killed in crashes, ought to be done.

 

I think i understand where you're coming from, but please allow me to rephrase: Not necessarily danger is what is needed, but driver errors to be penalized.

 

I'm not talking about stewards making arbitrary decisions about issuing driver A with a drivetrough for going off track (and then letting driver B scot-free for doing the same), what we need is an automated process that will electronically detect and punish driver mistakes (and "mistakes") akin to the way it used to be before paved runoffs became omnipresent. The technology exists which can tell us if a driver has left the track, with use of modern sensors we can unambiguously determine in real time if a car has left the track with all four wheels or not.

 

In the days of old, this would've often mean a violent crash with dire consequences to those involved. In some more recent times, it would usually mean ending up beached in a gravel trap.

 

So here's what i propose: if a car is detected to go off the track, a signal is sent to the ECU to engage the pit speed limiter. A warning light is turned on in the cockpit to notify the driver of this. The driver will be unable to disengage the pit limiter until he finds a safe spot off-track and brings the car to a complete halt for a certain amount of time (like, several seconds) which would be indicated by the warning light going off. After this, he would be able to engage 1st gear and drive off as normal.

 

OK, this is certainly not as harsh as crashing out of the race, but in most cases would mean losing a lot of time thus ruining one's chances for a good result. This should then discourage the drivers from abusing the track limits. What is best is that the process is fully automated removing any arbitrary decision for a human factor.

 

If a driver was forced off track by another driver, he would still suffer the same penalty (like in the old days - the gravel traps don't forgive), but then the other driver would still have to be dealt with by the stewards the way any other incident on the race track is being usually handled.



#13 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 7,292 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 01 September 2015 - 14:27

Motorsport is dangerous and we know people can and will die doing it whatever safety features are implemented.

 

But that doesn't mean we should actively leave areas of the cars and tracks unsafe so that the risk of that death is higher to make it in some twisted way "more exciting" for the blood thirsty rubber necking viewers.

 

If someone gets seriously hurt the fun of the race is over as it normally gets red flagged. Why would any sport fan want that, how is it more exciting when the race stops and for the rest of the day you're concerned for the drivers wellbeing?


Edited by johnmhinds, 01 September 2015 - 14:30.


#14 BlinkyMcSquinty

BlinkyMcSquinty
  • Member

  • 862 posts
  • Joined: October 14

Posted 01 September 2015 - 14:29

I think it's clear, if you read the track limits thread, that there's a problem when the sport changes in a way that reduces the possibility of crashing. This is obviously done with safety in mind, but it's a real sporting problem when there's no real penalty for making mistakes. Some of us liked the fact that small errors used to end people's races, whereas now it generally takes a fairly major for a driver to put himself out on most tracks.

 

Personally, when I look back at the history of the sport, the fact that the drivers then took such a lot of risk does only add to the admiration one has for the drivers of past eras, but it wasn't right that there was so much avoidable risk. And, in my view, it is good that the strides in car design, helmet design, head and neck protection and, to some extent, track design have been made.

 

So that's the distinction I would try to make: I regard risk of crashing as important, but I think everything that can be done to mitigate the risk that people will be injured or killed in crashes, ought to be done.

 

 

This safety nut has no problem with making the cars more difficult to keep under control and less driver-friendly. That is why I am such a fan of Gilles Villeneuve, he was always over the line as far as keeping the car neat and under control. Less driver aids, more power, cars and drivers really battling to keep control.

 

Another issue that spills over into this topic is enforcement. If a driver puts his wheels in an out-of bounds area, the enforcement should never be arbitrary or even challenged, an automatic penalty of some sort. For Spa, on lap one Hamilton took the lead, charged down to Eau Rouge, and cut inside the left turn at the top of the hill. But then, almost everyone else did it too. So it wasn't an issue with the driver, the stewards had decided to relax their standards and not enforce that corner. That should never be allowed.



#15 HeadFirst

HeadFirst
  • Member

  • 6,121 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 01 September 2015 - 14:34

I am impressed enough by the skill of the drivers to the point that I would be perfectly happy, if the only danger attached to an error was the risk of being caught in a gravel trap, or suffering a penalty for exceeding the track limits.



#16 ANF

ANF
  • Member

  • 29,055 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 01 September 2015 - 14:39

If there was a superpower pill that would make a driver immortal and immune to any injuries, and if every driver had to take that pill, would you still enjoy motor racing? I know I think I would.



#17 HeadFirst

HeadFirst
  • Member

  • 6,121 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 01 September 2015 - 18:03

If there was a superpower pill that would make a driver immortal and immune to any injuries, and if every driver had to take that pill, would you still enjoy motor racing? I know I think I would.

 

Me too.



#18 Tsarwash

Tsarwash
  • Member

  • 13,725 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 01 September 2015 - 18:08

I believe i have covered that topic pretty good, no?

You did, but I just wanted to steer the thread away from the specific topics that other threads have been covering recently. Wanting to protect drivers heads from obvious risks is not necessarily the diametrically opposite stance as suggesting that racing ought to have some element of danger.

#19 anneomoly

anneomoly
  • Member

  • 863 posts
  • Joined: October 14

Posted 01 September 2015 - 20:15

There have been many comments and threads which have touched on the idea of the importance or lack of, danger and racing. I'm wondering what people's views are about the importance of the element of danger of injury and death in motor racing ? Some people don't want to ever see another person die in a racing car and some people think that it's important to have this risk present for the sport. I'm sort of torn between to two viewpoints. While I don't want to be the bloodthirsty spectator demanding pain and sacrifice for my entertainment, I think that if you remove all elements of danger, some essence of the sport is lost, and additionally, I fundamentally think that people have the right to take rational choices with literally their own lives. I suspect that opinions are derived from peoples own philosophical viewpoint of mortality, but I'm very interested in any moral stances that people can bring up.

 

Element of risk, yes. Element of death, no.

 

I'll always accept that there's a risk that several unforseen circumstances can converge together to create a fatality. What I don't want to accept is that forseeable circumstances are ignored to artificially create a greater risk of death. If nothing else, how is that better than DRS?

 

I'm of the opinion that motorsport would be richer if some of the unfulfilled legends had lived to fulfil their potential. I think Senna vs Schumacher 1994 version could have been truly epic, and I wish we could have seen what Bruno Senna was truly capable of, had he not lost ten of the most important years of his karting education because his mother was too traumatised by her brother's death. Because people always talk about what we gain from from the deaths - the legend status - but I'm not awed when I think what they could have achieved, I'm sorry that we didn't see it.



Advertisement

#20 rhukkas

rhukkas
  • Member

  • 2,764 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 01 September 2015 - 20:18

People say they watch purely for the skill, but I don't see anyone tuning into any of the major sim racing leagues which have a far greater skill level than any other motorsport. You can't BUY your way into the big leagues for example.

 

If people truly watched JUST for the skill, then there is no difference between reality and sim. The inputs are exactly the same.



#21 Radoye

Radoye
  • Member

  • 3,364 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 01 September 2015 - 20:38

If people truly watched JUST for the skill, then there is no difference between reality and sim. The inputs are exactly the same.

 

Not really, at least not on equipment that is available to us average folk. Even with the commercially available force feedback technology you can't really stimulate the human inner ear the way the real thing does. A lot of what separates a really good racer from just good comes from a very sensitive sense of balance, the ability to feel the minute movements that the car is making under you and to use this to judge how far you can push without losing control. Only professional multi-million dollar simulators can come close to accurately replicate this.

 

 

EDIT: What i do find fascinating though is AI sim racing, where no humans are involved but the "cars" are controlled by programs developed by different people - so basically a competition between computer programmers.


Edited by Radoye, 01 September 2015 - 20:43.


#22 PlatenGlass

PlatenGlass
  • Member

  • 4,648 posts
  • Joined: June 14

Posted 01 September 2015 - 21:00

I don't think motor racing can be "too safe" or that it somehow requires being dangerous. Obviously with cars travelling at the speeds they do, you're never going to eliminate all the risk, but that's not the point. The point is that we should strive to make it as safe as we reasonably can.

People have said that the danger is an important element for viewers, but I don't think it really is. Maybe for some viewers, but F1 went for about 20 years without a death, so does anyone think it would lose viewers if it reached a point where it was 1-death-per-50-years dangerous or 1-per-100-years dangerous? You wouldn't even know anyway because you'd have to wait decades to get enough statistics, so eliminating as much danger as possible should always be the aim.

Also, I think the view that it should be dangerous is just a historical hangover because it used to be so dangerous. Tennis, for example, was never particularly dangerous - even when Fred Perry was whacking balls around with a wooden racket without a care in the word! - so no-one would ever suggest that it would be better if it was somehow more dangerous. There's this thing about drivers in the past being "real men". We've progressed. We don't want people to die. Move into the 21st century. Also, people don't apply this logic elsewhere. Life used to be more risky - back in the past with no antibiotics, something we would now consider to be a non-event could have killed you. No-one ever says that antibiotics make life too safe. "Oh man, where's the risk of getting an infection? It's what makes life worth living!"

Also, I think some people want to have their cake and eat it. They want the danger to be there, but they don't want anyone to actually die or get seriously injured. Well you can't have it both ways. Where you have a certain statistical risk, with enough events, you will get the number of deaths and serious injures you'd expect. The more danger, the more deaths. It's that simple. We don't (shouldn't) want people to die, so let's see what we can do to make motor racing safer.

#23 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 17,074 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 01 September 2015 - 21:27

As I've said before, I don't want to see drivers risking physical harm or death. But I do want to see errors of judgement (or lack of talent) being punished. I want to see drivers risking their whole race to get a faster lap than the other guy. This is why I hate the way off-track excursions are currently not being punished. I want to see some drivers fear taking a corner too fast because they'll lose the entire race and at the same time see others relishing the thought of getting that same corner right and leaving the field behind.

 

That's what tthe 'danger' should be and it can be done simply by applying penalties.



#24 ANF

ANF
  • Member

  • 29,055 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 01 September 2015 - 22:24

As I've said before, I don't want to see drivers risking physical harm or death. But I do want to see errors of judgement (or lack of talent) being punished. I want to see drivers risking their whole race to get a faster lap than the other guy. This is why I hate the way off-track excursions are currently not being punished. I want to see some drivers fear taking a corner too fast because they'll lose the entire race and at the same time see others relishing the thought of getting that same corner right and leaving the field behind.

 

That's what tthe 'danger' should be and it can be done simply by applying penalties.

Change "can be done" to "cannot be done" and I'll click the like button. :)



#25 PlatenGlass

PlatenGlass
  • Member

  • 4,648 posts
  • Joined: June 14

Posted 02 September 2015 - 00:03

Change "can be done" to "cannot be done" and I'll click the like button. :)

I agree. We need the tracks to do the "punishing", not some tennis umpire.

#26 BlinkyMcSquinty

BlinkyMcSquinty
  • Member

  • 862 posts
  • Joined: October 14

Posted 02 September 2015 - 00:43

People say they watch purely for the skill, but I don't see anyone tuning into any of the major sim racing leagues which have a far greater skill level than any other motorsport. You can't BUY your way into the big leagues for example.

 

If people truly watched JUST for the skill, then there is no difference between reality and sim. The inputs are exactly the same.

 

 

OK, I must change your opinion on that one. At this very moment ( I took the time to check) there are 30 people watching different iRacing races. Just spectating.

 

Take a look at this, the 2011 All Star Race, over 19,000 views.

 

 

On Saturday I watched Huttu win again, at Spa, and in less than 20 minutes there will be a good race to watch, all on http://www.iracing.com/live/

 

Sp lease understand this, all fans are different with various perceptions and expectations. While some may be drawn to the danger, others like myself do watch this sport for the skill.



#27 Tsarwash

Tsarwash
  • Member

  • 13,725 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 02 September 2015 - 03:33



OK, I must change your opinion on that one. At this very moment ( I took the time to check) there are 30 people watching different iRacing races. Just spectating.

 

Take a look at this, the 2011 All Star Race, over 19,000 views.

 

 

On Saturday I watched Huttu win again, at Spa, and in less than 20 minutes there will be a good race to watch, all on http://www.iracing.com/live/

 

Sp lease understand this, all fans are different with various perceptions and expectations. While some may be drawn to the danger, others like myself do watch this sport for the skill.

Thirty whole people ? F***ing hell, somebody tell a media mogul of these sheer numbers. There's probably more than thirty people worldwide watch the same Alan Partridge clip at any time. I've seen local, low level, online poker matches with five people watching. 

 

Not many people want to say it, but the danger is important. It makes people watch. Why did over 8 million watch Felix Baumgartner jump out of a balloon live on Youtube ? Watching a parachute jump is not the most exciting thing in the world. We knew what was going to happen, unless something went wrong.  We're macabre. 



#28 HeadFirst

HeadFirst
  • Member

  • 6,121 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 02 September 2015 - 03:44

Thirty whole people ? F***ing hell, somebody tell a media mogul of these sheer numbers. There's probably more than thirty people worldwide watch the same Alan Partridge clip at any time. I've seen local, low level, online poker matches with five people watching. 

 

Not many people want to say it, but the danger is important. It makes people watch. Why did over 8 million watch Felix Baumgartner jump out of a balloon live on Youtube ? Watching a parachute jump is not the most exciting thing in the world. We knew what was going to happen, unless something went wrong.  We're macabre. 

 

A one shot deal sure, but how many would watch a second time, or 16th. Now think of how many watch multiple soccer matches every weekend of the year, not much danger there.



#29 Tsarwash

Tsarwash
  • Member

  • 13,725 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 02 September 2015 - 03:50

As I've said before, I don't want to see drivers risking physical harm or death. But I do want to see errors of judgement (or lack of talent) being punished. I want to see drivers risking their whole race to get a faster lap than the other guy. This is why I hate the way off-track excursions are currently not being punished. I want to see some drivers fear taking a corner too fast because they'll lose the entire race and at the same time see others relishing the thought of getting that same corner right and leaving the field behind.

 

That's what tthe 'danger' should be and it can be done simply by applying penalties.

I do want the guys risking harm or death (a little bit) *. I do also want to remove any obvious and pressing dangers, and I am in favour of continuing to improving safety, but I think the risk of life or limb is an important aspect of how many of us perceive motorsport. 

People who follow climbing or mountaineering are not seen as bloodthirsty, yet that sport is far more dangerous than motorsports. 

 

*I genuinely risk life or limb a very little bit on my daily travel through the city. I'm not sure If I really want motorsports stars to statistically be less likely to get injured than myself during my daily commute. That would seem weird. 



#30 andrewf1

andrewf1
  • Member

  • 2,775 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 02 September 2015 - 04:09

People say they watch purely for the skill, but I don't see anyone tuning into any of the major sim racing leagues which have a far greater skill level than any other motorsport. You can't BUY your way into the big leagues for example.

 

If people truly watched JUST for the skill, then there is no difference between reality and sim. The inputs are exactly the same.

 

That's an absolutely ridiculous argument. People will always be more impressed by the real deal, by the culmination of a team's and driver's efforts than by a simulated virtual construct, which by definition, cannot match reality entirely. It's always an approximation and a certain level of abstraction. 

 

If I knew that F1 drivers could never possibly get hurt, I would still watch and support the sport with the same enthusiasm. "Danger" as in the risk of injuries or death has absolutely no appeal to me. That's not to be confused though with the "danger" of pushing too far, going off or having a spin, ie. performance related risks.



#31 Radoye

Radoye
  • Member

  • 3,364 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 02 September 2015 - 04:09

I do want the guys risking harm or death (a little bit)

 

But that's not going anywhere, it is not possible to fully eliminate it. The fact that a human body travels at 300+ kph and at any moment can be brought to sudden halt guarantees there will always be danger of injury or worse. Unless they somehow find a way to break the basic laws of physics. It will be a part of motorsport as long as it exists in its current form.

 

And as someone said earlier, millions of people watch soccer and basketball and all sorts of sports where danger is minimal compared to motorsport. Then again, you have some very ordinary professions which are incredibly dangerous, like coal mining for example where each year you have dozens of fatalities, and nobody cares to know about it. If it was really danger what makes us humans tick, and it was such a key ingredient influencing what we like and what we find entertaining, then i would expect that coal mining would have significantly greater viewership numbers than soccer and that people across the world would idolize miners rather than soccer players.

 

So i guess it is indeed something else than danger that motivates all of us to tune in into racing broadcasts every weekend.



#32 Tsarwash

Tsarwash
  • Member

  • 13,725 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 02 September 2015 - 04:26

 

So i guess it is indeed something else than danger that motivates all of us to tune in into racing broadcasts every weekend.

I think it is folly to presume that you are speaking for anybody else but yourself. You might not be remotely interested in any danger element, but that is not to say that nobody else is. Personally, I think it is self evident that many people will happily spectate dangerous events and always have done. Not indiscriminately, but pastimes with a high element of both danger and skill will often attract many viewers. 



#33 Radoye

Radoye
  • Member

  • 3,364 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 02 September 2015 - 04:32

I don't know, i'm still waiting for the live broadcasts from the Ukrainian and Chinese coal mines to be convinced, because if sheer danger is indeed such a draw for all of us then this would be without a doubt one of the most watched programs in the history of television!



#34 BlinkyMcSquinty

BlinkyMcSquinty
  • Member

  • 862 posts
  • Joined: October 14

Posted 02 September 2015 - 05:13

I don't know, i'm still waiting for the live broadcasts from the Ukrainian and Chinese coal mines to be convinced, because if sheer danger is indeed such a draw for all of us then this would be without a doubt one of the most watched programs in the history of television!

 

That argument falls flat on it's face when you consider that more people watch Formula One than MotoGP. And more people in Britain watch football, rugby, tennis, and cricket than motor racing.



#35 BlinkyMcSquinty

BlinkyMcSquinty
  • Member

  • 862 posts
  • Joined: October 14

Posted 02 September 2015 - 05:24

Thirty whole people ? F***ing hell, somebody tell a media mogul of these sheer numbers. There's probably more than thirty people worldwide watch the same Alan Partridge clip at any time. I've seen local, low level, online poker matches with five people watching. 

 

Not many people want to say it, but the danger is important. It makes people watch. Why did over 8 million watch Felix Baumgartner jump out of a balloon live on Youtube ? Watching a parachute jump is not the most exciting thing in the world. We knew what was going to happen, unless something went wrong.  We're macabre. 

 

Actually, 30 is a decent number when you consider that iRacing is a participation activity, and to see anyone watching another is an indication they are enjoying racing.  When anyone gets into the iRacing membership side of the website, they are there to click on the "race now
 button. iRacing is an incredibly small fraction of the online gaming world, a recognized fact.

 

Every day many people play games on their consoles or computers, in fact, huge numbers.



#36 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 7,836 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 02 September 2015 - 06:06

But on the other hand, they did not go nearly as fast as modern racecars do. Not in the straight line, and especially not through the corners. This meant that the margin of error was somewhat bigger than today and gave the drivers a fighting chance when things go wrong. It was still humanely possible to catch and correct a slide. To steer away. To break to a halt. Stuff happened fast, but the speeds were still within the normal operating range of the human brain. Today when stuff hits the fan, the driver is in lots of cases the last one to find out.

 

(...)

Stuff happens in racing, and it happens in random and unpredictable ways. It will always remain dangerous. But i want my heroes when things go wrong to be able to come back next weekend and do it all over again. And i believe that the whole racing community owes them that much to give them a fighting chance. Justin Wilson had no chance. He never set a foot wrong, never made a mistake, and he never saw it coming, never had a chance to react. In a moment he was gone.

 

Very nice post. I picked out one thing, and that is your assertion that today racing is either IN or totally OUT of control of racing drivers. If something happens, they can't collect or save the day because the speeds are too high for the human brain.

 

In the case of Justin Wilson's accident and that of Alex Zanardi I think that is true. However, isn't it the case that because racing is so safe nowadays that drivers always drive on THEIR absolute limit and hence, when the poop hits the fans they are beyond catching a slide, avoiding another car, keep it on the track?

 

Juan-Manuel Fangio has said that after his legendary drive at the Nürburgring (1957) he could not sleep the whole night, because he had taken risks he never had taken before nor would he ever take again. * Niki Lauda said that he hated driving on the limit, which he called Chaos-Runden (Chaos Laps). He said something in the effect of: 'With normal driving, you spin, you come on the grass, you turn around and then you look: oh, where am I again? With chaos-laps you bounce of kerbs, run over bumps, throw the car around... there is only a very slight line between driving and crashing, hard.'

 

That is why Lauda often drove around at Monaco - yes also during the couple of times he won there - AWAY from the kerbs... while all his rivals clanged over them... While nowadays... look how Vettel and many others at Spa flew over the kerbs at Eau Rouge. It could be done, it gave more speed, and hey, we will find out if it damages something, right?

 

In short, I think that Stewart, Fangio, Lauda, Prost and even Petterson always had a margin left when they drove. It was just too dangerous not to. While the current drivers always drive on the maximum of their talent and the maximum of adhesion. In the ill-conceived idea that nothing can happen. Really...

 

Edit: * I found the quote: After the race, Fangio commented, "I have never driven that quickly before in my life and I don't think I will ever be able to do it again". Later on, Fangio was also quoted as saying: "Nürburgring was my favourite track. I fell totally in love with it and I believe that on that day in 1957 I finally managed to master it. It was as if I had screwed all the secrets out of it and got to know it once and for all. . . For two days I couldn't sleep, still making those leaps in the dark on those curves where I had never before had the courage to push things so far."[1]


Edited by Nemo1965, 02 September 2015 - 06:13.


#37 Rocket73

Rocket73
  • Member

  • 2,285 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 02 September 2015 - 06:09

I don't know, i'm still waiting for the live broadcasts from the Ukrainian and Chinese coal mines to be convinced, because if sheer danger is indeed such a draw for all of us then this would be without a doubt one of the most watched programs in the history of television!


There are any number of industrial accident/fatal crash/extreme danger videos on yt. It's macabre but people want to see it. The other thing is that with dangerous sports it's the fact that they are dicing with danger and it's their skill that is required to avoid it. That makes it infinitely more appealing than the danger posed by coal mining.

#38 chipmcdonald

chipmcdonald
  • Member

  • 1,824 posts
  • Joined: November 06

Posted 02 September 2015 - 06:16

Danger is not the same as risk.



#39 chipmcdonald

chipmcdonald
  • Member

  • 1,824 posts
  • Joined: November 06

Posted 02 September 2015 - 07:07

Max and the Alien practicing at Spa.  No danger here, so this will be of zero interest, including the Blanchimont bits...

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=0Y5-DZNjBOg



Advertisement

#40 CSquared

CSquared
  • Member

  • 674 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 02 September 2015 - 07:30

My question for those of you who say you wouldn't be interested in racing without danger: when you go to those indoor kart places, with the 4-cycle karts with big rubber bumpers that barely break 25 mph on a track that is surrounded by rubber and it's really hard to hurt yourself and completely impossible to get killed: you don't have fun?

#41 Radoye

Radoye
  • Member

  • 3,364 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 02 September 2015 - 13:39

There are any number of industrial accident/fatal crash/extreme danger videos on yt. It's macabre but people want to see it.

 

I'm sure there are "people" in this world who enjoy torturing kittens as well.



#42 Myrvold

Myrvold
  • Member

  • 15,853 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 02 September 2015 - 13:43

My question for those of you who say you wouldn't be interested in racing without danger: when you go to those indoor kart places, with the 4-cycle karts with big rubber bumpers that barely break 25 mph on a track that is surrounded by rubber and it's really hard to hurt yourself and completely impossible to get killed: you don't have fun?


For 30 min once a year, yup I have fun.
More than that, it gets boring. Really boring.

#43 CSquared

CSquared
  • Member

  • 674 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 02 September 2015 - 18:14

For 30 min once a year, yup I have fun.
More than that, it gets boring. Really boring.

Interesting. And if the track were surrounded by 20 foot sheer drops instead of barriers and every once in a while you saw someone getting carried out on a stretcher, it would then be more fun?



#44 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 7,292 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 02 September 2015 - 18:47

Most racing fans would still be excited by this remote control car race where nobody is in any danger.

 



#45 Tzaca

Tzaca
  • New Member

  • 10 posts
  • Joined: July 15

Posted 02 September 2015 - 18:51

People say they watch purely for the skill, but I don't see anyone tuning into any of the major sim racing leagues which have a far greater skill level than any other motorsport. You can't BUY your way into the big leagues for example.

 

If people truly watched JUST for the skill, then there is no difference between reality and sim. The inputs are exactly the same.

I disagree, in sim racing you still need money to get in top/major leagues . All that skill it's mainly composed by expensive wheel,pedals,cockpit,monitors,computer, etc. Then come in equation, the insane number of hours of practice done by any top sim-driver. Also any top sim-driver require a top sim-team backing, plus unreal setups, scripted macros and so on.

 The inputs my be the same but the consequences are Not ! Crash in a simrace and you just press escape , in real life you may die.



#46 Rocket73

Rocket73
  • Member

  • 2,285 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 02 September 2015 - 19:21

Interesting. And if the track were surrounded by 20 foot sheer drops instead of barriers and every once in a while you saw someone getting carried out on a stretcher, it would then be more fun?

 

Oooohhh puh-lease!

 

What like those downhill mountain bike tracks they make? You know the ones where they make wooden bridge sections which are really narrow and have, funnily enough, a 20 ft (or so) drop to the ground? There's a whole fraternity of people who love that sh!t.

 

What's fun or appealing about walking? Sweet F A ! But if you tight rope across the Niagra Falls then you'll have the whole world watching.

 

Rubbish argument...try again.



#47 ThisIsMischaW

ThisIsMischaW
  • Member

  • 174 posts
  • Joined: July 15

Posted 02 September 2015 - 19:27

This debate is confusing for me because there are plenty of dangerous parts of the sport that no one would seriously suggest should be got rid of.

 

I mean, oval racing is dangerous. Very dangerous, up there with some of the f1 tracks that were abandoned in the 70s. 



#48 CSquared

CSquared
  • Member

  • 674 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 02 September 2015 - 19:49

Oooohhh puh-lease!

 

What like those downhill mountain bike tracks they make? You know the ones where they make wooden bridge sections which are really narrow and have, funnily enough, a 20 ft (or so) drop to the ground? There's a whole fraternity of people who love that sh!t.

 

What's fun or appealing about walking? Sweet F A ! But if you tight rope across the Niagra Falls then you'll have the whole world watching.

 

Rubbish argument...try again.

I think you're missing my point entirely. My point is that racing (not spectating) is fun, challenging and exciting, even when there's no danger. When there is danger it is, at best, a distraction from the racing that you're trying to do. Myrvold is the first racing enthusiast I've ever heard say he didn't find karting crazily fun and challenging, even in slow, safe karts.



#49 ANF

ANF
  • Member

  • 29,055 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 02 September 2015 - 19:52

I agree. We need the tracks to do the "punishing", not some tennis umpire.

Yes. It would be a terrible mistake to turn every circuit into a wide open tarmacked space. I'm not a racing driver, but I imagine that it would be a huge mental difference if there was a total lack of gravel or grass that can damage your perfectly set up car and ruin your race. White lines, video reviews, time penalties... It's just not the same.



#50 Myrvold

Myrvold
  • Member

  • 15,853 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 02 September 2015 - 19:56

Interesting. And if the track were surrounded by 20 foot sheer drops instead of barriers and every once in a while you saw someone getting carried out on a stretcher, it would then be more fun?

Nopes, but if it had more speed, it would be better - and also quite more dangerous as a side-effect.