60 replies to this topic

[Wes350]

   An increased call for additional safety for drivers in F1 has been made after Justin Wilson’s death.

 

What seems to have been overlooked is that while still tragic, Justin Wilson was driving in an inherently more dangerous formula.

 

If you look at the number of driver deaths in Indycar vs. F1 over the last 33 odd years or so (the modern era of cars); A driver is twice as likely to die racing in Indycar, than racing in F1.

 

Mostly due to the high speed oval racing (80% of Indycar deaths occurred whilst racing on ovals.)

 

 

These are just the deaths that happened during Races & Quali:

 

 

Gordon Smiley[96]          15-May-82          USAC     Indianapolis Motor Speedway Indianapolis 500

 

 Jim Hickman      31-Jul-82              CART     Milwaukee Mile               Provimi Veal Tony Bettenhausen 200

 

Jovy Marcelo     15-May-92          USAC     Indianapolis Motor Speedway   Indianapolis 500

 

 Scott Brayton    17-May-96          USAC     Indianapolis Motor Speedway   Indianapolis 500

 

Jeff Krosnoff[    14-Jul-96              CART     Toronto street circuit     Molson Indy Toronto

 

 Gonzalo Rodríguez 11-Sep-99    CART     Mazda Raceway Laguna Seca      Honda Grand Prix of Monterey

 

Greg Moore       31-Oct-99            CART     Auto Club Speedway      Marlboro 500

 

 Paul Dana           26-Mar-06           IndyCar Homestead-Miami Speedway    Toyota Indy 300

 

 Dan Wheldon   16-Oct-11            IndyCar Las Vegas Motor Speedway        IZOD IndyCar World Championship

 

Justin Wilson      23-Aug-15           IndyCar Pocono Raceway              ABC Supply 500

 

33yrs     10 Deaths            Avg:  1 death every 3.3 years

 

 

F1 DEATHS

 

Gilles Villeneuve              8-May-82             F1           Circuit Zolder     1982 Belgian Grand Prix

 

Riccardo Paletti                 13-Jun-82            F1           Circuit Gilles Villeneuve 1982 Canadian Grand Prix

 

Roland Ratzenberger     30-Apr-94            F1           Autodromo Enzo e Dino Ferrari 1994 San Marino Grand Prix

 

Ayrton Senna    1-May-94             F1           Autodromo Enzo e Dino Ferrari 1994 San Marino Grand Prix

 

Jules Bianchi       5-Oct-14               F1           Suzuka Circuit    2014 Japanese Grand Prix

 

33yrs     5 Deaths              Avg:  1 death every 6.6 years

 

 

To repeat:

 Open wheel drivers were twice as likely to die racing in Indycar as opposed to racing in F1.

 

And if you had a fatal incident in Indycar there was an 80% chance it would be on an oval.

 

But, some might say…

 

"You attempt to blame oval track racing for fatalities that could have occurred on many high-speed tracks..

Especially since 7 out of the 15 combined fatalities you listed occurred on road courses!"

 

You want to combine both series, ok then. Let’s see what the trend is:

 

From 1982 to 2015 Indycar and F1 ran a combined 1289 races. (Including all CART, Champcar, and IRL races.)

 

1289  Total; Indycar & F1.

 

942   Road/Street  -  73% of all races run

 

347   Ovals.             -  27% of all races run

 

 

So 7 of the 15 fatalities, or 47% of total deaths, occurred on Road Courses which make up 73% of all the races.

 

The remaining 8 fatalities, or 53% of total deaths, occurred on Ovals which make up only 27% of all races run.

 

Over half of the fatalities occurred on Ovals which make up less than a third of the combined race schedule.

 

If the deaths "could have occurred on many high-speed tracks", then we would see a much more even split between Oval and road courses.

 

Oval racing presents a significant and measureable added risk, than if open-wheel / open-cockpit cars ran only on road/street courses.

 

Just for reference, Le Mans has had four deaths in the last 33 years.

 

But comparing different series is difficult as it is hard to quantify those types of 'apples to oranges' comparisons.

 

If fact  when comparing F1 to Indycar there are other differences between the two series, that one could make the case that everything I have written above is also an 'apples to oranges' comparison.

 

But I thinks it is still useful as a frame of reference.

 

I am very far from a proper statistics guy. In fact I would hope that someone better in statistics and probabilities than me would take a look at things like this and give racing fans some factual talking points when it comes to safety.

 

It would be nice if the FIA could do a statistical study encompassing all levels of motorsport and especially the F1 ladder to give us a more solid idea of the real safety trends over the last several decades.

 

Personally, I find it rather odd that no one has done it yet.

 

 

.

Edited by Wes350, 09 May 2016 - 19:51.

[Marklar]

The FIA has an own big accident database, I wouldnt be surprised if they have all the data, but they dont publish everything.

[PayasYouRace]

Statistics are all well and good but the details of each incident must be analysed too for any meaningful conclusions to be drawn.

Either way I'm going to keep an eye on this thread because it feels like a "response" thread that could easily be merged into an existing one.

[ANF]

As we can see from the data, none of the fatal accidents happened at the Monaco Grand Prix. One has to say that Monte Carlo is a very safe circuit.

[Marklar]

As we can see from the data, none of the fatal accidents happened at the Monaco Grand Prix. One has to say that Monte Carlo is a very safe circuit.

Nice try.

 

Out of a sample of just 33 races....hardly the same as the assumption that the sport is generally safe based that out of thousands of races just a ridicolous low number is having fatalitiest.

 

However, I partially agree with PayasYouRace. Purely statistic wouldnt make that much sense, we know that the number is very low anyway. It is just important to see if we could prevent any of those accident types without causing a new type of accident. I don't believe it though.

Edited by Marklar, 09 May 2016 - 18:30.

[RacingXO]

Statistics are all well and good but the details of each incident must be analysed too for any meaningful conclusions to be drawn.

Either way I'm going to keep an eye on this thread because it feels like a "response" thread that could easily be merged into an existing one.

 

Actually it could, but it would be a very bad idea. Maybe in this thread it could be based on facts and real arguments. The other thread is all feelings and two camps shouting at each other.

 

This could actually be a thread with real discussions about the topic "safety".

[myattitude]

I'd say the data does have some statistical significance, ovals are dangerous, because of the layout - think Ralf Schumacher at Indy '04, and someone nearly collected him too in typical Indycar pileup fashion.

[RainyAfterlifeDaylight]

IMO, that list is only perfect when near misses are included too.

[Marklar]

I'd say the data does have some statistical significance, ovals are dangerous, because of the layout - think Ralf Schumacher at Indy '04, and someone nearly collected him too in typical Indycar pileup fashion.

I think this is well known, it helps to set priorities though.

IMO, that list is only perfect when near misses are included too.

As we are talking about statistics, the number will probably just marginally higher and wouldn't affect the conclusion which forms are more dangerous and whether they are dangerous

Edited by Marklar, 09 May 2016 - 18:50.

[AlexS]

How about deaths per kilometer? how about deaths per median speed, how about deaths with crash with another car? only lost control? bizarre situation? 

[DampMongoose]

You'd need to attribute the cause to driver error, car safety, track safety, regulations issues etc etc. Hiding to nothing.

[Izzyeviel]

Is Indycar even part of the FIA? I don't think I've ever seen them interfere in the running of the sport.

[Prost1997T]

Is Indycar even part of the FIA? I don't think I've ever seen them interfere in the running of the sport.

 

Through ACCUS, and the tracks Indycar races on usually have FIA grades (eg Barber Motorsports Park is 1T).

[Wes350]

Statistics are all well and good but the details of each incident must be analysed too for any meaningful conclusions to be drawn.
 

 

True, statistics present a narrow view - and any individual accident must be placed in context. 

 

But statistics are good for seeing an overall trend.

 

One thing I take is that in all the deaths at Lemans, most of them took place on the mulsanne straight.

 

You take into consideration the nature of the deaths I've shown above, and its easy to see why F1 has a maximum length for its straightaways. And why the FIA puts in hated chicanes on certain tracks.

 

I really wish the FIA would publish its big accident database. It would give us a better understanding of why they make some of the decisions that they do.

 

.

[DampMongoose]

I really wish the FIA would publish its big accident database. It would give us a better understanding of why they make some of the decisions that they do.

.

I bet its about as complicated as an episode of Dora the Explorer.

[Radoye]

 

 

 

And how about going back a bit further, to include 1970's as well? The picture would be much different:

 

IndyCar 4:

 

1972 - Jim Malloy

1973 - Bob Criss, Art Pollard, Swede Savage

 

F1 11:

 

1970 - Piers Courage, Jochen Rindt

1971 - Jo Siffert

1973 - Roger Williamson, Francois Cevert

1974 - Peter Revson, Helmuth Koinigg

1975 - Mark Donohue

1977 - Tom Pryce

1978 - Ronnie Peterson

1980 - Patrick Depailler

 

And you're missing Elio de Angelis 1986, and (arguably) Maria de Villota (2013, from injuries sustained in an accident 2012).

 

So, does this mean IndyCar was somehow safer than F1 during the 1970's? Not really. If anything, they were just luckier. They dodged a few bullets, and likewise F1 dodged a few of their own since. As you can see, the numbers could easily be reversed.

 

Both series have made great strides to improve safety recently, and continue to do so, but stuff can still happen in either.

Edited by Radoye, 09 May 2016 - 22:34.

[Tsarwash]

Including serious injuries as well, might fill out the statistics and perhaps give a more rounded picture, as fortunately deaths on track are rare enough to not present enough of a recognizable pattern. 

Also, measuring deaths / injuries per miles driven would give a much better indicator.

 

I applaud the idea about talking of motorsport safety from a factual basis, rather than an emotional one. 

[AustinF1]

Actually it could, but it would be a very bad idea. Maybe in this thread it could be based on facts and real arguments. The other thread is all feelings and two camps shouting at each other.

 

This could actually be a thread with real discussions about the topic "safety".

Actually, no. It's not all feelings & shouting. If you look at my posts and those of a few others, you'll see lots of real-world knowledge about safety. Of course, you may choose to ignore such posts...

[AustinF1]

And how about going back a bit further, to include 1970's as well? The picture would be much different:

 

IndyCar 4:

 

1972 - Jim Malloy

1973 - Bob Criss, Art Pollard, Swede Savage

 

F1 11:

 

1970 - Piers Courage, Jochen Rindt

1971 - Jo Siffert

1973 - Roger Williamson, Francois Cevert

1974 - Peter Revson, Helmuth Koinigg

1975 - Mark Donohue

1977 - Tom Pryce

1978 - Ronnie Peterson

1980 - Patrick Depailler

 

And you're missing Elio de Angelis 1986, and (arguably) Maria de Villota (2013, from injuries sustained in an accident 2012).

 

So, does this mean IndyCar was somehow safer than F1 during the 1970's? Not really. If anything, they were just luckier. They dodged a few bullets, and likewise F1 dodged a few of their own since. As you can see, the numbers could easily be reversed.

 

Both series have made great strides to improve safety recently, and continue to do so, but stuff can still happen in either.

Yeah, I was wondering about that too. Before carbon fiber, tubs in both Indy racing and F1 were made from aluminum, right? If we're talking about safety differences based on track type, then why limit ourselves to looking at the carbon fiber era?

 

I, too, am thinking that if we include the 70s & early 80s, then that would change significantly the way this would look. As you say, F1 deaths far outnumbered Indy deaths ... during a period when Indy cars raced over 90% of the time on ovals.

Edited by AustinF1, 10 May 2016 - 06:25.

[YoungGun]

Ignoring the "apples vs oranges" debate, the connection I made with the stats including Radoye's is that all those great drivers perished within my life time. 

 

I think that's where the disconnect is in this debate? 

Edited by YoungGun, 10 May 2016 - 08:17.

[7MGTEsup]

I, too, am thinking that if we include the 70s & early 80s, then that would change significantly the way this would look. As you say, F1 deaths far outnumbered Indy deaths ... during a period when Indy cars raced over 90% of the time on ovals.

 

Maybe it's due to the fact that they raced on ovals that there were less fatalities? Shorter tracks with safty officials posted every few 100 meters. Potentially the cars were stronger due to them racing mostly ovals? Methanol fuel used instead of gasoline? Lots of these things could contribute towards the statistics.

[Prost1997T]

Well in 1978 they raced at Ontario and Michigan twice, and Texas World Speedway was also a 2 mile track. Pocono was also on the USAC and\or CART schedule from 1971-1989. So thats 7 superspeedway races. Not to mention the several year USAC\CART split near-doubling the number of races.

Edited by Prost1997T, 10 May 2016 - 09:44.

[Tsarwash]

Yeah, I was wondering about that too. Before carbon fiber, tubs in both Indy racing and F1 were made from aluminum, right? If we're talking about safety differences based on track type, then why limit ourselves to looking at the carbon fiber era?

 

I, too, am thinking that if we include the 70s & early 80s, then that would change significantly the way this would look. As you say, F1 deaths far outnumbered Indy deaths ... during a period when Indy cars raced over 90% of the time on ovals.

But I would argue that safety has changed so much since say the early seventies, that looking at deaths in that era would have little relevance to modern racing. I think (and am hoping) that lessons have been learnt from the motorsport deaths from the 50's 'til the 80's. Could any of those accidents happen these days ? I think we have to ask that question. 

[Radoye]

The thing is - you can't really look at the various single seater series entirely separately from each other, as if they exist in vacuum. Granted, there are some differences (as in - IndyCar races ovals, FF is smaller / lower performance than F1, etc) but what happens in one might as easily happen in any of the other series. IndyCar was not inherently safer than F1 during the 1970's, only a fool would use these statistics and try to make such a conclusion. If we would include serious crashes and close calls which only by pure dumb luck didn't result in a fatality (but sometimes did in serious, even career ending injuries) the numbers would suddenly even up and be much less skewed towards one or the other. Same for the period post - 1982. In 1994 alone, where F1 lost two drivers, that number could've very easily be four. Just that one season alone.

 

Motorsport is dangerous, and it will remain to be dangerous as long as we have human bodies traveling at a great rate of speed, which at the slightest unpredictable turn of event might be brought to a sudden and complete halt. Unless there is a way to go around the fundamental laws of physics, this will always carry a risk of serious injury or worse. So those among us who need to know they're watching something dangerous or even deadly to be entertained, can sleep easily - nobody is going to take that away from them.

 

On the other hand, i do believe that the risk should be minimized as much as possible. Granted, the drivers today are better protected already than those of years past, especially since the mid 1990's, which might be a logical cutoff date for the current "modern" era of motor racing. But also the cars today are faster than those of 1980's, 1970's, 1960's etc. While crashing back in the day would often have dire consequences, lower speeds also meant that often crashing could've been avoided, the drivers would have time to react to trouble ahead or a problem on their car before they end up hitting something. Nowadays the time available to react to a problem has drastically reduced, beyond what's humanly possible. Due to this, it is a must to keep up with introducing additional safety measures, even though motorsport is comparatively safe® today than 40 years ago, and even though we know we can't ever make it 100% safe.

 

The latest spat of fatal and near-fatal accidents in single-seater cars have almost all resulted from foreign objects coming into contact with driver's helmet (one notable exception being last year's Indy 500 practice crash of James Hinchcliffe where his legs were pierced by a suspension member and he almost bled to death). Henry Surtees (F2), Felipe Massa (F1), Dan Wheldon (IndyCar), Maria de Villota (F1, testing), Dario Franchitti (IndyCar), Jules Bianchi (F1), Justin Wilson (IndyCar). There were other head strikes which resulted in less severe injury (mild concussion, no missed races) in addition to these listed. There was also a number of occasions where the result was a near miss.

 

What motorsport always did in the past is to identify the problem and deal with it. Unfortunately often to identify the problem it needed someone to die first. I believe we have passed that hurdle already, now it is time to act.

 

EDIT: fixed a typo 1992 -> 1982.

Edited by Radoye, 10 May 2016 - 14:16.

[uffen]

There are many factors influencing safety.

It makes sense that Monaco is a "safe" place because it has the lowest average speed. It makes sense that ovals are more dangerous because they have higher average speeds which are sustained longer. We've all read driver comments about oval racing.

 

Is methanol safer than gasoline? Methanol burns without a visible flame but can be extinguished with water. Gasoline burns with a visible flame but is more difficult to extinguish. Which is more dangerous? Perhaps someone like AustinF1 could comment on that. Then again on another "safety" thread some poo-poo fire as a danger these days (at least in F1).

 

To answer Tsarwash's question, yes, the accidents can still happen, but the outcome is far different these days. Improvements in safety today come from going deeper and deeper into the long odds. The big issue remains, though - when a human body stops from a high speed in a very short distance.

[Kalmake]

Yeah, I was wondering about that too. Before carbon fiber, tubs in both Indy racing and F1 were made from aluminum, right? If we're talking about safety differences based on track type, then why limit ourselves to looking at the carbon fiber era?

 

I, too, am thinking that if we include the 70s & early 80s, then that would change significantly the way this would look. As you say, F1 deaths far outnumbered Indy deaths ... during a period when Indy cars raced over 90% of the time on ovals.

Piers Courage died in a magnesium car fire. I don't know about the others. At some point the material was banned.

 

Maybe Indycars had better fire response thanks to shorter tracks.

[Radoye]

Piers Courage died in a magnesium car fire. I don't know about the others. At some point the material was banned.

 

Yes, the problem was identified and finally it was fixed. No more magnesium, despite it offering many advantages to the race car designers (light yet strong) over more conventional materials.

 

Similarly, after Lorenzo Bandini died in Monaco 1967, higher roll hoops were installed on the cars and firesuits made mandatory. Up until then, rollhoops were merely for show, because everyone wanted them to be as low as they could get away with, to keep the car CoG as low as possible, and firesuits were frowned upon by many drivers who viewed them as uncomfortable and something of an indicator for a lack of courage.

 

Maybe Indycars had better fire response thanks to shorter tracks.

 

Maybe. The longest oval tracks IndyCar raced on were ~ 4km long, most of the tracks F1 raced back then were longer than this.

 

But i certainly would not dare to consider 1970's IndyCar racing safer than F1 in the same period based on the number of fatal accidents alone. Neither would i consider post-1982 IndyCar inherently more dangerous than contemporary F1 based on the same cherrypicked statistic.

[DampMongoose]

Piers Courage died in a magnesium car fire. I don't know about the others. At some point the material was banned.

 

Maybe Indycars had better fire response thanks to shorter tracks.

 

Schlesser's Honda at Rouen in '68 was magnesium also.  Although I've seen it suggested that Courage was most likely dead before the fire as they think he was struck by one of his wheels as both his helmet and the stray wheel emerged from the wreck together.

 

If you're looking at the 60's, 70's and 80's you have to consider that most ovals don't have trees or badly fitted armco.  There aren't many F1 deaths from the late 60's onwards that you couldn't attribute to faults of the circuits or the manner in which marshalls and medical crews operated.

[F1matt]

A database that was available online to all relevant parties has to be some help in learning from the incident, making better cars, run off areas, fencing and training marshals, medics, and extraction crews to help make the sport safer for all parties concerned even if every accident is different. It may even help road car manufacturers make their every day products safer and that is the real reason the FIA is there for.

[AustinF1]

There are many factors influencing safety.

It makes sense that Monaco is a "safe" place because it has the lowest average speed. It makes sense that ovals are more dangerous because they have higher average speeds which are sustained longer. We've all read driver comments about oval racing.

 

Is methanol safer than gasoline? Methanol burns without a visible flame but can be extinguished with water. Gasoline burns with a visible flame but is more difficult to extinguish. Which is more dangerous? Perhaps someone like AustinF1 could comment on that. Then again on another "safety" thread some poo-poo fire as a danger these days (at least in F1).

 

To answer Tsarwash's question, yes, the accidents can still happen, but the outcome is far different these days. Improvements in safety today come from going deeper and deeper into the long odds. The big issue remains, though - when a human body stops from a high speed in a very short distance.

I can't give specifics about burning temperatures, flash points, or anything like that right now, but the big problem with methanol, as you point out, is always that you can't see it burning. Either should be pretty easy to extinguish if you have the right extinguishing agent and can get that onto the fire. Again, a problem there with methanol.

[Radoye]

I can't give specifics about burning temperatures, flash points, or anything like that right now, but the big problem with methanol, as you point out, is always that you can't see it burning. Either should be pretty easy to extinguish if you have the right extinguishing agent and can get that onto the fire. Again, a problem there with methanol.

 

The switch to methanol was made after the 1964 Indy 500 disaster, and one of the reasons was that gasoline packs about twice the energy per unit of volume compared to methanol. Since there is a physical limit to the size of fuel tank one can fit to a car, and if this tank is filled to the brim with methanol, the total energy capacity will be around 1/2 (actually, slightly less than 1/2) of the same amount of gasoline. And it also burns at a slower rate / does not tend to explode like gasoline does.

 

The downside, as mentioned, is that you can't see it burning.

[Collombin]

Wasn't the invisibility of a methanol fire actually seen as a positive in light of the 1964 Indy tragedy?

Edit - weird how my post makes a perfect follow on from the post above it even though I was replying to the one before that!

Edited by E.B., 10 May 2016 - 16:15.

[AustinF1]

The switch to methanol was made after the 1964 Indy 500 disaster, and one of the reasons was that gasoline packs about twice the energy per unit of volume compared to methanol. Since there is a physical limit to the size of fuel tank one can fit to a car, and if this tank is filled to the brim with methanol, the total energy capacity will be around 1/2 (actually, slightly less than 1/2) of the same amount of gasoline. And it also burns at a slower rate / does not tend to explode like gasoline does.

 

The downside, as mentioned, is that you can't see it burning.

Yeah, as I wrote that I was wondering about the explosive characteristics of methanol, upper & lower explosive limits, etc.

 

Wasn't the invisibility of a methanol fire actually seen as a positive in light of the 1964 Indy tragedy?

Edit - weird how my post makes a perfect follow on from the post above it even though I was replying to the one before that!

 

What benefit would there be in the invisibility of the fire? Not saying there can't be one, but I don't know what it would be. From where I sit, a fire I can't see, even if burning at lower temps, will be much more dangerous than a hotter one that I can see.

[Radoye]

It was seen as an advantage because the fire and smoke in 1964 completely obscured the track so the cars that followed could not see where to go to avoid the accident. It was argued that if the cars were running on methanol it would be easier to avoid the carnage for those that were coming to the scene of an accident at a great rate of speed and were unable to stop because they would see where they're going. With the gasoline fire all they could do was to pick a line through a wall of fire and pray they guessed right.

[AustinF1]

It was seen as an advantage because the fire and smoke in 1964 completely obscured the track so the cars that followed could not see where to go to avoid the accident. It was argued that if the cars were running on methanol it would be easier to avoid the carnage for those that were coming to the scene of an accident at a great rate of speed and were unable to stop because they would see where they're going. With the gasoline fire all they could do was to pick a line through a wall of fire and pray they guessed right.

Ha, yeah again I was thinking about that aspect immediately after posting. That would be a benefit on the track, but in the pits when there's a fire nobody can see where it is to avoid it or put it out. Difficult to balance the safety aspects, for sure. Can't argue with the switch.

Edited by AustinF1, 10 May 2016 - 16:33.

[alfa1]

For an examination of how dangerous each series is, and how far safety has come over the years, it is worth looking at each death and seeing if it could ever happen again.

 

Gilles Villeneuve - modern cars are so much safer and would not fly apart after rolling a few times, flinging the driver out. This same death could never happen again.

 

Riccardo Paletti - modern cars are stronger and fuel systems are safer.  This same death could never happen again.               

 

Roland Ratzenberger - modern cars are stronger, more head protection, HANS devices mandatory. This same death could never happen again.

 

Ayrton Senna- modern cars are stronger, more head protection, HANS devices mandatory. This same death could never happen again.

 

Jules Bianchi - broken car removal, yellow flag, safety car procedures are changed. This same death could never happen again.

 

How does Indy fare when making these comparisons?

[Collombin]

By the way, USAC did not actually ban gasoline (as is often claimed), they merely put rules in place (eg mandatory minimum number of pitstops) that negated all its advantages.

[AustinF1]

Incidentally, Bandini died of his injuries 49 years ago today...

[uffen]

For an examination of how dangerous each series is, and how far safety has come over the years, it is worth looking at each death and seeing if it could ever happen again.

 

Gilles Villeneuve - modern cars are so much safer and would not fly apart after rolling a few times, flinging the driver out. This same death could never happen again.

 

Riccardo Paletti - modern cars are stronger and fuel systems are safer.  This same death could never happen again.               

 

Roland Ratzenberger - modern cars are stronger, more head protection, HANS devices mandatory. This same death could never happen again.

 

Ayrton Senna- modern cars are stronger, more head protection, HANS devices mandatory. This same death could never happen again.

 

Jules Bianchi - broken car removal, yellow flag, safety car procedures are changed. This same death could never happen again.

 

How does Indy fare when making these comparisons?

I'm hesitant on those, Alfa1. I'd say the deaths are far less likely, but not impossible. Unless you were talking about those specific accidents, and not just similar accidents. For example (re the GV accident) modern cars do fly apart, they do so to dissipate energy. Hopefully the seatbelts remain intact. But a piece of flying carbon fibre could still pierce a driver's chest as everything is twirling around.

Edited by uffen, 10 May 2016 - 16:54.

[ExFlagMan]

I would suggest that the claimed 'advantage' of methanol burning with an invisible flame is rapidly negated in any fire by the fact that the initial fire rapidly spreads to the other things around it such as tyres/bodywork/oil etc and it is these that tend to generate the smoke rather than the initial source. No doubt our friendly firefighter will be better able to comment on that.

 

Having had the opportunity to fight fires at marshals training sessions with both methanol and petrol (though only a very limited amount of methanol, given the cost), I know which one I would prefer - I would much rather tackle petrol, even if it burns hotter, as the temperature of either is too high to want to get too close - the whole marshals fire training rational is to tackle it at the appropriate distance - 'if you a close enough for it to be too hot, you are too close!'.

Edited by ExFlagMan, 10 May 2016 - 17:43.

[uffen]

Speaking of factual data and that approach, is it not obvious that the more cars we have on track the more likelihood, statistically, that a car will fail, or contact another car? The Haas team is new for 2016. That is just eight more wheels that could fly off and hit another car or driver (not meant to knock Haas). Two more drivers at risk of being hit by flying bits and pieces. More mechanics who could be plowed down by a car pitting. Twenty-one races in the season? Just one more opportunity (compared to a twenty race season) for crashes, injury, etc.

 

Is there more to the safety debate than just passive driver protection? What is the "safe" number of cars that should compete? Should we wish for the return of 26 car grids?

More down force? Doesn't that risk more violence when something fails?

 

It has been said that when we have canopies the drivers will take more risks. Should we tighten the rules around driving standards?

[Radoye]

 

 

Yes, there have been no F1 deaths since Gilles in 1982 where a car disintegrated around the driver, yet once again that is mostly due to sheer dumb luck. Because cars kept falling apart and drivers being exposed for long afterwards. Just ask Martin Donnelly:

 

Spoiler

 

 

Or even martin Brundle, who was lucky enough to escape unharmed:

 

 

Right there, two bullets dodged. The fact that nobody died in F1 in the same manner since 1982 does not mean it could not have happened ever again.

 

After Paletti perished in fire at the Canadian Grand Prix 1982, same happened to Elio de Angelis in 1986 during testing at Paul Ricard. So, it did happen again but our resident statisticians tend to gloss over and forget about poor Elio.

 

After Ratzenberger and Senna there was Hakkinen at Australia 1995 who luckily survived a basilar skull fracture. Another dodged bullet.

 

If we count Barrichello at Imola 1994 (a much heftier crash than either Ratzenberger's or Senna's) and the career ending crash of Wendlinger at Monaco the same year, that's two more.

 

Then there was Massa in Hungary 2009.

 

Any and all of these could've been fatal, and it is pure luck that they were not.

 

You really shouldn't be so confident claiming it could not have happened again.

Edited by Radoye, 10 May 2016 - 17:23.

[Wes350]

... The longest oval tracks IndyCar raced on were ~ 4km long, most of the tracks F1 raced back then were longer than this.

 

But i certainly would not dare to consider 1970's IndyCar racing safer than F1 in the same period based on the number of fatal accidents alone. Neither would i consider post-1982 IndyCar inherently more dangerous than contemporary F1 based on the same cherrypicked statistic.

 

Yeah, I was wondering about that too. Before carbon fiber, tubs in both Indy racing and F1 were made from aluminum, right? If we're talking about safety differences based on track type, then why limit ourselves to looking at the carbon fiber era?

 

I, too, am thinking that if we include the 70s & early 80s, then that would change significantly the way this would look. As you say, F1 deaths far outnumbered Indy deaths ... during a period when Indy cars raced over 90% of the time on ovals.

 

 

 This is the type of thing I am getting at!  (and the kind of data where we need to dive into details to see why the safety trend seemed to switch.)

 

Statistically Indycar oval racing was safer during the 60's and 70' than F1.

 

So why do we see the Flip after 1980 or so...???

 

Especially since there was no real difference in the cars.

 

I think perhaps two reasons:

 

1: The nature of the tracks in the 60's and 70's, was different in relation to the abilities of the cars:

 

F1 track safety during the 60's-70's era was non existent; If you went off you most likely got hurt.

 

Indycar Oval racing was not the ultra high-speed game in the 60's and 70's that we see now. Dirt tracks were still part of the championship. While 'high speed' for the time, the cars were not faster than the tracks could handle, as was getting to be the case in F1.

 

 

 

2: From around 1980 on; F1 went on a track safety binge, and Oval racing changed and got really dangerous:

 

 F1, in addition to improving the safety of the cars - really looked at the safety of the tracks, and on the whole this worked really well. As evidenced by the big gap between the deaths of Senna and Bianchi. 

 

Indycar, the cars just got too fast with too much downforce for the tracks to handle. In 1979 the fasted speed posted at the Indy 500 in quali, was 193mph. (the race was not run as fast)

 

 Even today with the cars slowed down most oval races take place at over 210mph+. (You wreck or get hit by anything at those speeds - it's only a matter of time before someone gets a serious injury/death.)

 

The additional down force put on the cars in the late 1980's onwards also led to pack racing, which made crashes at full racing speed more likely. (Note the cluster of Indycar deaths in the 90's)

 

 these days, Indycar has tried to mitigate the danger by specifying the downforce on the cars to limit pack racing on ovals, but at the end of the day the races are still taking place at over 200+mph, and there are only so many wrecks  people can survive at those speeds. (The nature of open cockpit cars heightening the risk.)

 

 

So when we come across these statistical difference between different eras - and then take the time to see what the differences were that cause the change - we get a better understanding of why the numbers are what they are.

 

I really wish the FIA would make their big accident database public - then someone with a proper background in statistics and motorsport history can do some real analysis.  I just did a quick bit of research to satisfy my own curiosity - no way do I have the time to catalogue every injury or event.

[DampMongoose]

For an examination of how dangerous each series is, and how far safety has come over the years, it is worth looking at each death and seeing if it could ever happen again.

Gilles Villeneuve - modern cars are so much safer and would not fly apart after rolling a few times, flinging the driver out. This same death could never happen again.

Riccardo Paletti - modern cars are stronger and fuel systems are safer. This same death could never happen again.

Roland Ratzenberger - modern cars are stronger, more head protection, HANS devices mandatory. This same death could never happen again.

Ayrton Senna- modern cars are stronger, more head protection, HANS devices mandatory. This same death could never happen again.

Jules Bianchi - broken car removal, yellow flag, safety car procedures are changed. This same death could never happen again.

How does Indy fare when making these comparisons?

4 of those 5 are circuit safety issues rather than car safety.

[Collombin]

You can't lump the 1960s and 1970s together when you look at Champcar racing - there was a seismic shift in track types, safety and speed. The 1960s still had dirt tracks, hillclimbs, road courses and paved ovals. From 1971 to mid 1977, every race was on a paved oval. And in safety terms, the 1960s were way more lethal than the 1970s. Five seconds of watching champ cars on dirt should be enough to convince most people that the cars were plenty fast enough for the tracks!

[DampMongoose]

You can't lump the 1960s and 1970s together when you look at Champcar racing - there was a seismic shift in track types, safety and speed. The 1960s still had dirt tracks, hillclimbs, road courses and paved ovals. From 1971 to mid 1977, every race was on a paved oval. And in safety terms, the 1960s were way more lethal than the 1970s. Five seconds of watching champ cars on dirt should be enough to convince most people that the cars were plenty fast enough for the tracks!

Puke hollow: dirt.

[AustinF1]

So what was that like...sprint cars?

 

ETA: Never mind. Yep, pretty much like sprint cars on much bigger tracks.

 

Edited by AustinF1, 10 May 2016 - 19:29.

[Radoye]

Puke hollow: dirt.

 

Langhorne was paved over 1965. Champcars still raced there until 1970 (track was closed 1971).

[Wes350]

You can't lump the 1960s and 1970s together when you look at Champcar racing - there was a seismic shift in track types, safety and speed. The 1960s still had dirt tracks, hillclimbs, road courses and paved ovals. From 1971 to mid 1977, every race was on a paved oval. And in safety terms, the 1960s were way more lethal than the 1970s. Five seconds of watching champ cars on dirt should be enough to convince most people that the cars were plenty fast enough for the tracks!

 

I gave a very general overview.

 

During the 60's and 70's, Indycar was statistically less dangerous than F1 in both decades. The 60's was a more lethal era for both F1 and Indycar than the 70's.

 

Statistically safer/less dangerous, does not = it still wasn't fast and dangerous...

 

The shift in lethality from the 60's to the 70's in Indycar and F1 probably deserves its own analysis.

 

But I feel my last post still stands; that from 1980 onward there was an emphasis on safety in F1 in relation to the cars increase in performance, that caused F1 to switch places with Indycar for the first time in several decades, as to which was the more inherently dangerous formula to drive in.

 

 

 

 

.

[F1matt]

Yes, there have been no F1 deaths since Gilles in 1982 where a car disintegrated around the driver, yet once again that is mostly due to sheer dumb luck. Because cars kept falling apart and drivers being exposed for long afterwards. Just ask Martin Donnelly:

Spoiler

Or even martin Brundle, who was lucky enough to escape unharmed:



Right there, two bullets dodged. The fact that nobody died in F1 in the same manner since 1982 does not mean it could not have happened ever again.

After Paletti perished in fire at the Canadian Grand Prix 1982, same happened to Elio de Angelis in 1986 during testing at Paul Ricard. So, it did happen again but our resident statisticians tend to gloss over and forget about poor Elio.

After Ratzenberger and Senna there was Hakkinen at Australia 1995 who luckily survived a basilar skull fracture. Another dodged bullet.

If we count Barrichello at Imola 1994 (a much heftier crash than either Ratzenberger's or Senna's) and the career ending crash of Wendlinger at Monaco the same year, that's two more.

Then there was Massa in Hungary 2009.

Any and all of these could've been fatal, and it is pure luck that they were not.

You really shouldn't be so confident claiming it could not have happened again.

Totally agree with your post, we have been so lucky on several occasions, Massa was incredibly lucky to survive his head injury, while Senna and Bianchi were not.