51 replies to this topic

[Dan333SP]

Not trying to be overly morbid, but I was just watching a tribute video to some drivers who've been killed in F1 crashes over the years and an interesting fact dawned on me that is perhaps obvious to everyone else but hadn't occurred to me. Mclaren has never had a driver killed in an F1 crash. Ferrari, Williams, and Lotus have all had deaths over the years, though despite fielding a team through the deadliest era of F1 (late 60s until the early 80s), Mclaren never lost a driver to a fatal crash. Anyway, no commentary on the respective quality of cars as so much of what caused fatalities in the past was due to luck and circumstance rather than anything about one car being safer than another, just an interesting outcome and perhaps somewhat ironic considering Bruce Mclaren died testing one of his own Can Am cars not long after the team became a consistent participant in the sport. Maybe he's offering some sort of karmic protection to the drivers who compete for his team?

[WhiteBlue]

I think it is more the MP4/1 that made a big difference to life and death from 1981. Andrea de Crasheris would certainly be dead if Barnard had not invented the carbon fibre sandwich monocoque that jear.

[Crafty]

Just coincidence, I'm sure there are quite a few teams who never lost a driver.

[Craven Morehead]

They were very, very lucky not to lose Mika tha year in Aus.

[zold]

no HRT drivers have died either

[Boing 2]

Craven Morehead, on Dec 3 2010, 17:41, said:

They were very, very lucky not to lose Mika tha year in Aus.

True, i remember watson hitting the wall in Monza with the new carbon tub and the car disintigrating, that could have been a nasty one.


Maybe Bruce wasn't as big a risk taker as others though? (just a guess i know next to nothing about him) I know that Chapman was almost criminally irresponsible with his cars engineering, he pushed things so close to the edge that death was almost inevitable, one of the reasons Stewart never drove for him ( i think he advised Rindt to do the same) Meanwile Enzo used to purpposley pit drivers against one another to get more from them, i guess in such a heated political environment you'll get more than average driver errors.

[PayasYouRace]

I suppose McLaren were just lucky in the pre-carbon fibre days. Obviously the MP4 increased safety levels quite a bit. Still, an accident like Senna's could have happened in any of the cars of the time.

zold, on Dec 3 2010, 19:56, said:

no HRT drivers have died either

Actually Dallara haven't had any F1 fatalities, though they came into the sport the first time in 1988.

[midgrid]

WhiteBlue, on Dec 3 2010, 16:29, said:

I think it is more the MP4/1 that made a big difference to life and death from 1981. Andrea de Crasheris would certainly be dead if Barnard had not invented the carbon fibre sandwich monocoque that jear.

Not to mention John Watson at Monza.

[Tufty]

midgrid, on Dec 3 2010, 18:18, said:

Not to mention John Watson at Monza.

The burning bit split from his cockpit so it was a fairly tame crash, to be fair. It just LOOKED spectacular - and scary.

[ryan86]

I think two questions need to be asked.

One: Is there any accidents that should have been fatal that you can say that McLaren themselves avoided through their cars?
Two: How many of the fatal accidents were unavoidable or unsurvivable, and how many were due to either mechanical or structural deficiencies on the car?

For instance, no "blame" could be placed on Shadow for Pryce's demise.

[johnmhinds]

Has there been any F1 fatality that was blamed on a cars design.

Most of the deaths in F1 have been caused by upper body injuries through drivers either rolling the car, hitting the barriers, hitting debris or being hit by other cars.

I can't think of any off the top of my head that involve a design flaw that led to the drivers death.

[Rob G]

johnmhinds, on Dec 4 2010, 12:42, said:

Has there been any F1 fatality that was blamed on a cars design.

Most of the deaths in F1 have been caused by upper body injuries through drivers either rolling the car, hitting the barriers, hitting debris or being hit by other cars.

I can't think of any off the top of my head that involve a design flaw that led to the drivers death.

That's a tricky question. One could say that many drivers' deaths could be attributed to design flaws. For instance, Roger Williamson would not have died if there had been no fire, and there most likely would have been no fire if the fuel tanks had been designed with today's standards. Riccardo Paletti probably would not have been killed rear-ending Didier Pironi's Ferrari on the grid at Montreal if the cars in that era had been designed with the driver sitting further back in the car. The fire that consumed Jo Schlesser's life was fed by not only full fuel tanks but the flammability of its magnesium body.

[Rob]

Craven Morehead, on Dec 3 2010, 17:41, said:

They were very, very lucky not to lose Mika tha year in Aus.

If I remember rightly, the medics performed an emergency tracheotomy at the trackside. That was what saved his life.

I didn't watch qualifying live but I remember being told that there had been a serious accident. Finding out it was Mika made it worse. He'd had such a good year up to that point (in racing terms only, ignoring his appendix troubles), in such a dog of a car. It makes you wonder why Benetton went for Alesi and Berger for '96 when you had Mika getting second places in an MP4/10 which really didn't deserve them.

[David M. Kane]

The bloke following atson did some fairly spectacular stunt driving to avoid the wreckage!!

[ReWind]

David M. Kane, on Dec 4 2010, 20:44, said:

The bloke following Watson did some fairly spectacular stunt driving to avoid the wreckage!!

It was Michele Alboreto.

[Longtimefan]

johnmhinds, on Dec 4 2010, 17:42, said:

Has there been any F1 fatality that was blamed on a cars design.

Most of the deaths in F1 have been caused by upper body injuries through drivers either rolling the car, hitting the barriers, hitting debris or being hit by other cars.

I can't think of any off the top of my head that involve a design flaw that led to the drivers death.

I'm tempted to say Jochen Rindt for that one.

[Ellios]

Longtimefan, on Dec 4 2010, 20:04, said:

I'm tempted to say Jochen Rindt for that one.

made all the more poignant by the Austrians letter to Chapman in 1969, after the rear wing collapsed of his Lotus 49

but, they were building cars to win races...

[Longtimefan]

Ellios, on Dec 4 2010, 21:32, said:

made all the more poignant by the Austrians letter to Chapman in 1969, after the rear wing collapsed of his Lotus 49

but, they were building cars to win races...

Indeed, I've read that and its very sad.. I miss Jochen

[scheivlak]

Rob G, on Dec 4 2010, 19:06, said:

That's a tricky question. One could say that many drivers' deaths could be attributed to design flaws. For instance, Roger Williamson would not have died if there had been no fire, and there most likely would have been no fire if the fuel tanks had been designed with today's standards. Riccardo Paletti probably would not have been killed rear-ending Didier Pironi's Ferrari on the grid at Montreal if the cars in that era had been designed with the driver sitting further back in the car. The fire that consumed Jo Schlesser's life was fed by not only full fuel tanks but the flammability of its magnesium body.

Excellent answer.

And let's not forget poor Piers Courage's De Tomaso, another magnesium bomb.

[WhiteBlue]

johnmhinds, on Dec 4 2010, 18:42, said:

Has there been any F1 fatality that was blamed on a cars design. I can't think of any off the top of my head that involve a design flaw that led to the drivers death.

I'll go out on a limb and say that Gilles Villeneuve would not have died in an MP4/1 as Watson's and De Cesaris accidents show, but Ferrari did not have this technology for many years. So one could say that McLaren was actively protecting their drivers with state of the art technology. Others like Ferrari were indifferent enough to the fate of their drivers to adopt these things with delays.

Edited by WhiteBlue, 05 December 2010 - 01:16.

[Watkins74]

johnmhinds, on Dec 4 2010, 18:42, said:

I can't think of any off the top of my head that involve a design flaw that led to the drivers death.

I thought there was some composites in the Ferrari that killed Villeneuve. It was a carbon fiber/ aluminum chassis.

From what I recall from that horrid season was that they found there was a flaw in the carbon fiber originally used in F1. Carbon fiber was incredible strong when it came to surviving initial impacts but they discovered that it then became brittle and would lose it's strength for secondary impacts.

IIRC they said that when GV was killed the nose of his car land in either sand or soft ground and he cartwheeled and when he hit again the carbon fiber just broke apart and the car flew into pieces.

This is how I remember it from almost 30 years ago. So don't pound me if I am wrong.

[WhiteBlue]

Watkins74, on Dec 5 2010, 05:05, said:

I thought there was some composites in the Ferrari that killed Villeneuve. It was a carbon fiber/ aluminum chassis.

From what I recall from that horrid season was that they found there was a flaw in the carbon fiber originally used in F1. Carbon fiber was incredible strong when it came to surviving initial impacts but they discovered that it then became brittle and would lose it's strength for secondary impacts.

IIRC they said that when GV was killed the nose of his car land in either sand or soft ground and he cartwheeled and when he hit again the carbon fiber just broke apart and the car flew into pieces.

This is how I remember it from almost 30 years ago. So don't pound me if I am wrong.

1982 Formula1 Ferrari 126 C2. You can see that the wings and the chassis were from aluminum. http://www.ultimatec...ari-126-CK.html

Quote

British chassis expert Harvey Postlethwaite was hired to construct a better chassis for 1982. He replaced the old-fashioned sheet aluminium with a honeycomb construction, which offered far more rigidity without a weight penalty. The 126 C2 was a great improvement, but the others had made progress as well. McLaren used a new carbon composite monocoque.

For structural strength Postlethwaite used aluminum honeycombe whith the body panels above made from fibre composite. This design was hugely inferior to the carbon composite monocoque of the MP4/1B.

[Victor]

WhiteBlue, on Dec 5 2010, 01:15, said:

I'll go out on a limb and say that Gilles Villeneuve would not have died in an MP4/1 as Watson's and De Cesaris accidents show, but Ferrari did not have this technology for many years. So one could say that McLaren was actively protecting their drivers with state of the art technology. Others like Ferrari were indifferent enough to the fate of their drivers to adopt these things with delays.

You make it sound as if McLaren were using carbon fiber to protect their drivers: Poor McLaren, accepting such a technical handicap just to make their cars safer, while others took the advantage of not using carbon fiber in order to run faster...

[stevewf1]

Well, McLaren did die in a McLaren. Of course, it wasn't an F1 car...

(which gets me to thinking- is he the only prominent driver to die in a car bearing his own name?)

Edited by stevewf1, 06 December 2010 - 09:28.

[Rob]

stevewf1, on Dec 6 2010, 09:23, said:

Well, McLaren did die in a McLaren. Of course, it wasn't an F1 car...

(which gets me to thinking- is he the only prominent driver to die in a car bearing his own name?)

I can think of Marcel Renault for one.

[Rob G]

stevewf1, on Dec 6 2010, 04:23, said:

Well, McLaren did die in a McLaren. Of course, it wasn't an F1 car...

(which gets me to thinking- is he the only prominent driver to die in a car bearing his own name?)

Jean Behra was another. His car was known as the Behra-Porsche.

[mgs315]

Tufty, on Dec 4 2010, 01:05, said:

The burning bit split from his cockpit so it was a fairly tame crash, to be fair. It just LOOKED spectacular - and scary.

Amazing how similar that was to Lewis in 2009. Lewis' accident was pretty violent but yet the car didn't even seem that damaged and Lewis didn't seem that bothered.

Amazing how much tech has moved on.

[Tufty]

mgs315, on Dec 6 2010, 18:48, said:

Amazing how similar that was to Lewis in 2009. Lewis' accident was pretty violent but yet the car didn't even seem that damaged and Lewis didn't seem that bothered.

Amazing how much tech has moved on.

The Survival Cell did its job, exactly as it's designed to do.

[frp]

Rob G, on Dec 6 2010, 18:17, said:

Jean Behra was another. His car was known as the Behra-Porsche.

The Behra-Porsche was the F2 car which he'd entered for the GP, but his fatal accident occurred when he was driving his RSK in the sportscar race.

[Rob G]

frp, on Dec 6 2010, 20:38, said:

The Behra-Porsche was the F2 car which he'd entered for the GP, but his fatal accident occurred when he was driving his RSK in the sportscar race.

Whoops, yes, you're right. Thanks for setting the record straight.

[lustigson]

Watkins74, on Dec 5 2010, 05:05, said:

From what I recall from that horrid season was that they found there was a flaw in the carbon fiber originally used in F1. Carbon fiber was incredible strong when it came to surviving initial impacts but they discovered that it then became brittle and would lose it's strength for secondary impacts.

Wasn't that exactly what broke both Olivier Panis' legs in Montréal 1997?

[svxdriver]

Ellios, on Dec 4 2010, 21:32, said:

made all the more poignant by the Austrians letter to Chapman in 1969, after the rear wing collapsed of his Lotus 49

but, they were building cars to win races...

However, it was his choice to not wear a harness which apparently was the cause of the fatality. (Not trying to be controversial)

[ysgol2]

scheivlak, on Dec 4 2010, 22:15, said:

Excellent answer.

And let's not forget poor Piers Courage's De Tomaso, another magnesium bomb.

I've read so much about Piers's sense of style, for example Frank Williams has written he spoke in a unique way which therefore died with him. Is there any film or tape of him actually speaking ?

[Longtimefan]

Several lives would have been saved also if the tracks fitted and maintained their armco better.

Namely Jochen Rindt, Francois Cevert and Helmut Koinigg.

[johnmhinds]

The armco that killed those drivers was all up to spec at the time.

It was designed for glancing blows and keeping the cars inside the track, and not designed for heavy impacts.

[Amphicar]

johnmhinds, on Dec 4 2010, 17:42, said:

I can't think of any off the top of my head that involve a design flaw that led to the drivers death.

The Italian authorities (eventually) concluded that Ayrton Senna's fatal crash at Imola in 1994 was due to the steering column on his Williams breaking, causing him to veer off the track. At Senna's own request the column had been lengthened. This was done by cutting the column, inserting a piece of tubing and welding it back together with reinforcing plates.

The Williams team was charged with manslaughter and the legal proceedings lasted many years. Patrick Head was eventually found guilty by the Italian Court of Appeal in April 2007, some 13 years after the accident: "It has been determined that the accident was caused by a steering column failure. This failure was caused by badly designed and badly executed modifications."

[MonzaF1]

Amphicar, on Mar 20 2011, 04:40, said:

The Italian authorities (eventually) concluded that Ayrton Senna's fatal crash at Imola in 1994 was due to the steering column on his Williams breaking, causing him to veer off the track. At Senna's own request the column had been lengthened. This was done by cutting the column, inserting a piece of tubing and welding it back together with reinforcing plates.

The Williams team was charged with manslaughter and the legal proceedings lasted many years. Patrick Head was eventually found guilty by the Italian Court of Appeal in April 2007, some 13 years after the accident: "It has been determined that the accident was caused by a steering column failure. This failure was caused by badly designed and badly executed modifications."

Since the day he began in racing, Frank Williams along with Ron Dennis' preparation and quality of work has been sound. Patrick Head would have never signed off on something which compromised a drivers'afety even if it was Senna asking, like that steering column. Alan Jones is the best evidence and Jonesy-boy's view is ace with me.

Senna's car hit a bump on the road and the car lifted and there was no control.

In Italy it is standard procdure to prosecute because there is no such thing as an accident. A lot was learnt by the f1 people and the Italian authority's approach to the British teams following the Rindt tragedy.

[MonzaF1]

Longtimefan, on Mar 20 2011, 04:29, said:

Several lives would have been saved also if the tracks fitted and maintained their armco better.

Namely Jochen Rindt, Francois Cevert and Helmut Koinigg.

I think that is an unfair comment because it is not possible to know defiitely what may not have happened. Formula 1 used to be like aeronautical research and the drivers similar to test pilots because it has always been cutting edge technology.

There was also not at all the technology available to do standard testing. so judging with today's mindset is not fair to what was 40 years ago. Thats my view.

Definitely Bernie always supported the drivers as far as safety was concerned. He always held Niki Lauda's view in high regard and he did have a practice session delayed based on Lauda's objection.

I think one of the best debates is the Stirling Moss view versus Jackie Stewart. Two of the sports greatest drivers with totally opposite approaches.

[paulogman]

Longtimefan, on Dec 4 2010, 16:04, said:

I'm tempted to say Jochen Rindt for that one.

Jochen Rindt didn't buckle all of his available seat belts and was killed by submarining upon impact.

[bonneville]

I'm surprised nobody mentioned Mika Hakkinen. His crash in Adelaide in 1995 looked pretty damn serious at first and he was lucky to escape it.

His injuries were similar to what killed Dale Earnhardt in February 2001.

Here is what GrandPrix.com wrote about it at the time (medical details in bold below):

Quote

Grandprix.com

NOVEMBER 13, 1995
Hakkinen hurt in Adelaide

MCLAREN driver Mika Hakkinen is in the hospital in Adelaide, Australia, following a severe accident during qualifying for the Australian Grand Prix last Friday.

The 27-year-old Finn appears to have suffered a punctured tire in the high-speed Brewery Bend. The car arrived in the corner sideways in fifth gear.

As the car spun, it hit the kerbing backwards and was launched into the air. It then hit the ground just before hitting the wall. As a result, little of the speed was wiped off. The 120mph impact was side-on - with the left front fractionally hitting first. There was virtually no deflection of energy, the car stopping where it hit the wall at a point where there was only one layer of tires protecting the wall.

In such an accident a driver's head and neck is very exposed, because while the body - strapped tightly in the car - stops moving, the head does not stop. In such circumstances neck, chest and head injuries are likely because of the wrenching effect of the impact. Recent crash-testing conducted for the FIA Advisory Expert Group shows that lateral G-forces on the driver's head in such accidents can peak at 150G, which is much more than the human body can tolerate without injury.

Hakkinen was immediately unconscious although he had not hit his head on the wall or the cockpit surround. If he had done so the Finn would almost certainly be dead. The medical crews were very quick and a tracheotomy was being performed - to clear his air passage - as the medical car, carrying F1 doctor Professor Sid Watkins, arrived at the scene. Mika was taken out of the car, and was worked on beside the car for 15 minutes before being put into an ambulance and driven the few hundred yards from Brewery Bend to the Royal Adelaide Hospital.

It took several hours before any official medical bulletin was released and there were all manner of rumors in the paddock. The official statement, however, was a lot more hopeful than expected. It said that Hakkinen had suffered "a head injury" and was under "sedation and ventilation" in the hospital's Intensive Care Unit. It was also announced that x-rays revealed "no evidence of other serious injuries".

Hakkinen suffered no leg injuries despite the fact that the rear arm of the lower left front wishbone had been punched through the chassis in the impact and had passed beneath Mika's knees.

It later emerged that Mika had suffered a fracture around the base of his skull and some internal bleeding as a result of this. Medical reports during the weekend, however, gave cause for optimism. Doctors were initially worried that Hakkinen's brain might swell inside the skull and cause brain hemorrhaging. This is what killed American F1 racer Mark Donohue two days after he crashed in Austria in August 1975. In fact, this was not a problem, and in the course of Saturday Hakkinen regained consciousness. He was reported to be talking and moving his limbs on command.

The long-term effects of the skull fracture will not be known for some weeks. Hakkinen was still in the Intensive Care Unit on Sunday night, but was expected to be moved to a normal room on Monday, although he will remain in the hospital for some time yet.

The effects of the accident are less clear than the cause of the crash. A few hours after the accident McLaren team boss Ron Dennis revealed that: "Having studied the data and inspected the car, there is absolutely no doubt that the left-hand rear tire suffered a rapid deflation as the result of a cut tire, which was almost certainly caused by Mika running over some track debris."

Goodyear admitted that the left rear tire had a four inch long puncture which had caused the deflation, and agreed that a piece of debris was the likely cause, because there were similar - but less disastrous - punctures for Pedro Lamy and Johnny Herbert in the same period leading up to Hakkinen's crash.

The accident is a terrible setback for McLaren which is about to embark on its winter testing program, with Hakkinen expected to have been the leading tester. David Coulthard will join the team shortly but he cannot test for another fortnight which means that Jan Magnussen will have to do most of the work, although Alain Prost may also be drafted in.

source: http://www.grandprix...ns/ns00359.html

Edited by bonneville, 20 March 2011 - 09:23.

[PayasYouRace]

MonzaF1, on Mar 20 2011, 02:27, said:

Since the day he began in racing, Frank Williams along with Ron Dennis' preparation and quality of work has been sound. Patrick Head would have never signed off on something which compromised a drivers'afety even if it was Senna asking, like that steering column. Alan Jones is the best evidence and Jonesy-boy's view is ace with me.

Senna's car hit a bump on the road and the car lifted and there was no control.

In Italy it is standard procdure to prosecute because there is no such thing as an accident. A lot was learnt by the f1 people and the Italian authority's approach to the British teams following the Rindt tragedy.

Yet the car didn't behave like that in the crash. It behaved like it suffered a steering failure. If it had been the bump, he would have regained control after passing it or spun. The car continued on it's four wheels in a straight line.

I don't think Williams did shoddy work, but components on racing cars are known to break. Accidents happen and you can't predict everything. But you must learn from them.

[Chezrome]

Some loose points: However frail the Lotuses were in the 60's, for example, Jochen did not die in 1970 because of the car but because he did not use crotch belts. He submarined during the crash (slipped down and forward in his belts). He might very well have survived the accident otherwise.

Andrea de Cesaris driving his first two years in a non-carbon fibre car? Brrrr.... Still, if Gilles Villeneuve would have had the same accident in a McLaren Mp4 he would have been dead also. The impact and diving into the ground with the nose of the car was that big...

Regarding Aerton Senna's accident: Michael Schumacher stated that Aerton almost lost controll of the car several times before at the same corner. Whatever happened with the car, I've always felt that Senna - under pressure from himself and the disappointing season so far - just took the wrong decision. Being: bringing the speed down, at the risk of being overtaken.

EDIT: I found at quote by Damon Hill which after the accident which states it perfectly: 'No-one other than Ayrton Senna and I know what it was like to drive that car, through that corner, in that race, on that day, on cold tyres. He was identified with pushing to the limit and beyond. It was not the fault of anyone else that he kept his foot flat when he could have lifted.'

To be clear, I do not want to start another discussion on Aertons accident again. All I am trying to say is that AND the drivers, AND the governing body, AND the trackbuilders have a part in safety - or not. Even with the current rules a driver can do something very stupid (like pushing another driver into a wall) and someone can get killed.

Edited by Chezrome, 20 March 2011 - 10:58.

[PayasYouRace]

Chezrome, on Mar 20 2011, 11:40, said:

To be clear, I do not want to start another discussion on Aertons accident again. All I am trying to say is that AND the drivers, AND the governing body, AND the trackbuilders have a part in safety - or not. Even with the current rules a driver can do something very stupid (like pushing another driver into a wall) and someone can get killed.

This

Ayrton's accident has many unknowns and all we can offer are our own opinions. It's not likely any new information is suddenly going to come to light now.

[george1981]

I think McLaren are very fortunate not to have had a driver killed in all the years they've been racing, especially in the 60s & 70s when driver safety was much less of an issue and cars weren't designed to crash as they are now.
Having said that Williams were very unfortunate that Senna died driving one of their cars in a 90s when cars were significantly safer than before. Had wheel tethers been introduced earlier Senna probably would have survived that crash.

[johnmhinds]

george1981, on Mar 20 2011, 12:15, said:

I think McLaren are very fortunate not to have had a driver killed in all the years they've been racing, especially in the 60s & 70s when driver safety was much less of an issue and cars weren't designed to crash as they are now.
Having said that Williams were very unfortunate that Senna died driving one of their cars in a 90s when cars were significantly safer than before. Had wheel tethers been introduced earlier Senna probably would have survived that crash.

Bruce McLaren was killed in a McLaren racing car...

[zold]

johnmhinds, on Mar 20 2011, 12:34, said:

Bruce McLaren was killed in a McLaren racing car...

A can-am car though

[Amphicar]

Rob G, on Dec 4 2010, 18:06, said:

That's a tricky question. One could say that many drivers' deaths could be attributed to design flaws. For instance, Roger Williamson would not have died if there had been no fire, and there most likely would have been no fire if the fuel tanks had been designed with today's standards. Riccardo Paletti probably would not have been killed rear-ending Didier Pironi's Ferrari on the grid at Montreal if the cars in that era had been designed with the driver sitting further back in the car. The fire that consumed Jo Schlesser's life was fed by not only full fuel tanks but the flammability of its magnesium body.

The Honda RA302 in which Jo Schlesser died had at least two other questionable design features in addition to its magnesium-skinned monocoque:
1) it was an early example of the "cab forward" design, with the driver's feet ahead of the front axle-line;
2) it used an air-cooled engine, which in testing had proved prone to serious overheating and oil loss after only a few laps

Although the cause of Schlesser's crash has never been determined, one strong possibility is that the engine seized, pitching him off the wet road.

[Andrew Hope]

I'm unsure how much blame that you can really put on the cars.. a race car is only ever as unsafe as you make it, and as circumstances make it. You can't have a go at one car or team for being unsafe if the same could be said of every other car that season. I'm not even sure if I'm comfortable with people having a go at designers for cutting corners with regards to safety to try and produce a winning design - the drivers don't have to drive an unsafe car, they're free to go play a safe sport instead.

I think car design (in perspective, relative to the general thinking of the era an accident happened in) always plays at least a part, it's just that off the top of my head, I can't think of a fatality in F1 where car design played the biggest part, was most to blame. I don't know a whole lot about the fatalities in F1 - all the accidents that were caught on film I've seen four or five times each in my life, just out of simple curiosity, and likewise for pictures of other crashes. I can't pretend to be very knowledgeable on the subject, I'm just wondering how great an argument can really be, if you can use that argument to some degree for every driver fatality the sport's ever seen.

Roger Williamson might not have died if there hadn't been a fire. He also wouldn't have died if..

- the armco hadn't catapulted his car into the air (whether it was properly installed or not, that is what it did)
- the fire truck had been 300 feet closer to the scene of his accident
- the marshals had been given more fire extinguishers
- the car had come down on its wheels, not its back
- the roll hoop had been bigger, he'd've been able to climb out on his own
- the airbox had been smaller, he might've been able to climb out on his own
- the deflating tyre had exploded two seconds before, or two seconds afterwards

..and if we want to get a little crazier..

- two or three drivers had stopped to help right the car, instead of just David Purley
- the car had come to rest 10 feet to the left of where it did, on the racing line, forcing others to stop too
- the car had come to rest 10 feet to the right of where it did, possibly hitting the other armco and righting itself
- the police hadn't done such an admirable job stopping spectators who wanted to help
- the accident had been more violent, he might've been thrown out of the car and survived because of it
- the armco hadn't been there at all, perhaps the dunes would've treated him more kindly than they did Piers Courage

etc, etc. there's 13 of what, possibly 50, variables that went into what happened. Any one of those things happening might've saved him, but a serious of unlucky events conspired and he died one of the most terrible ways to go imaginable. Whether he actually burned to death or was asphyxiated (I believe asphyxiated, and from photos I've seen of the car once it was righted, though most of the car is burned Williamson himself does not look to be badly burned, but I am just recognizing the fact that 'asphyxiated' sounds a lot better to the families and the press than 'burned to death' does, so who really knows) doesn't really matter now, as there is really no way to spin it to sound any less appalling than it actually was, and it's immensely disrespectful to pretend it wasn't as bad as it was. I think it's almost always the height of disrespect to paint anything in brighter colors than it really was.

The point is that car design always plays a role, but we need to keep things in perspective. We can't apply what we know today to 30 or 40 years ago, whether or not we think (and rightly, sometimes) that 'they' perhaps should've known better back then. We also can't get too doe-eyed and bleeding hearted about issues like this - of course it's very sad when someone dies, particularly someone that we as fans admire and look up to, but I'd think it doubly sad to want with all your heart to be a racing driver and never get the chance to be one. That, in my eyes, is just as sad as dying doing what you love. We should treat topics like this with the respect they deserve, but we shouldn't try to rewrite history to paint anyone in a better light than they painted themselves, or exaggerate how great someone was (as a person or as a racing driver) simply because they were one of the unlucky ones. The pages of motor racing history are splattered with a lot of things - fuel, burnt rubber, little shreds of carbon fiber, a blank page for Nascar's invisible debris, and sadly, quite a lot of blood. It is what it is, and proportioning blame will get us nowhere. The tears that shined in my eyes, the sickening lack of feeling in my stomach and the helpless wave of my hands that happened the first time I saw the video of Roger Williamson's accident would've still been that way if I'd known beforehand the blame was neatly cut into 10% for March for designing an unsafe car, 10% for Roger for not noticing a tyre deflating, 30% to Zandvoort officials for not taking more precautions, etc. Whatever, I don't know where I'm going with this.

(p.s. - I'm not trying to discourage any discussion - one of the most annoying things about this place sometimes is the people that add nothing to a thread but their thoughts on how a discussion 'doesn't change anything', and that's not what I'm trying to do. This has been an interesting thread so far, I'm merely wondering out loud how much good proportioning blame to anything (the cars among them, as is the idea of the thread) really does us).

[FenderJaguar]

Jochen Rindts car - something broke when he hit the brakes. Whatever it was it wasn't driver error?

[TecnoRacing]

While certainly someone could have been killed in an F1 McLaren during the early, dangerous years, I don't think it's incorrect to say McLarens were (from the very beginning) always robustly designed, properly engineered and most importantly properly tested machinery...

Fabricating bigger wings and just slapping them on the cars with no practice before a race would not have been the McLaren way, as it was with a more aggressive Lotus, who were more willing to push the limits for ultimate speed, sometimes sacrificing safety in the process.

Quote

I can't think of any off the top of my head that involve a design flaw that led to the drivers death.

I can think of lots or probables...Courage(maybe?), Rindt, Siffert (maybe?), Revson, Depailler (maybe?)