83 replies to this topic

[wegmann]

I don't know how feasible it is, but to me it makes some amount of sense. I'm not a big safety nut, but I think punctured tires at 200mph is just a little bit dangerous. Plus I hate the safety car, whether it makes for exciting races or not.

Another reason to ban it is that it's expensive, and really doesn't add much to the sport. Having heavier bodywork and suspension would slow the cars down a bit, too. Both of these reasons seem to be goals of the current F1 administrators.

What good reasons for carbon fibre am I overlooking?

[BMW4life]

I say we take the drivers out of the car and control them remotely!

[RJL]

crashworthiness

[MrSlow]

I have been thinking the same. I guess there is parts where carbon fibre should be allowed. for safety reasons, but other parts where it should not be allowed. For safety reasons.
There has been some lucky escapes now. Altough I am not sure how lucky it was for Ralf, he has still not been in a racing car since the accident. I think they must find a solution for the carbon fibre debris. As I see it there is only two solutions:
1. After an accident with debris they red flag the race and everybody has to come in and put on new tyres while they clean the track, then they make a rolling restart with safety car.

2. Ban carbon fibre in wings, bargeboards and other things that usually brakes in an impact.

#1 would be terribly expensive, it could delay races quite a while and TV might stop broadcasting.
#2 would lead to less ballast weights being used, but that is not a bad thing. They could increase minimum weight by some kilos as well.

[wegmann]

Quote

Originally posted by RJL
crashworthiness

The cars would still have to meet the crash requirements, so what difference does it make?

[GhostR]

During the telecast of Spa there was talk about an idea to coat all carbon fibre parts in Kevlar. Something about doing this potentially preventing the carbon fibre parts from breaking into sharp shards. Not sure I understand how that might work, myself ... but it does seem that the "powers that be" know they have a problem with regards carbon fibre.

I personally like the option mentioned above about reducing the amount of CF used on the cars. Reduce costs, increase weight ... that's what we want, isn't it?

[Group B]

Quote

Originally posted by wegmann


The cars would still have to meet the crash requirements, so what difference does it make?

Because having the same strength in aluminium would require a 30' long nose and sidepods big enough to live in. You'd then need a small Tumansky turbofan in order to make the whole contraption move about.

[RJL]

thankyou

[RJL]

Quote

Originally posted by MrSlow

2. Ban carbon fibre in wings, bargeboards and other things that usually brakes in an impact....
[this] would lead to less ballast weights being used, but that is not a bad thing. They could increase minimum weight by some kilos as well.

Not a bad idea. Could be quite workable, and would address some of the concerns outined in wengmann's opening post.

[wegmann]

Quote

Originally posted by Group B


Because having the same strength in aluminium would require a 30' long nose and sidepods big enough to live in. You'd then need a small Tumansky turbofan in order to make the whole contraption move about.

Are there no other materials in the world besides carbon fibre and aluminum (or aluminium as you Brits say) that could be used?

[bira]

except the tyre blow ups this weekend were not due to debris.

[mudpuppy]

Why do you assume the blowouts were due to carbon fiber, when only the Michelins were affected? I didn't see any Bridgestones blow out.

BTW, Button's accident was REALLY scary. I think he's lucky Baumgartner was there to stop his BAR from going off track and spearing into a tree.

Although addressing carbon fiber debris is a smart thing to do, I think there were tire design or construction problems to blame.

[w00t]

Quote

Originally posted by bira
except the tyre blow ups this weekend were not due to debris.

So what was it due to?

[mclarensmps]

michelin's fragile construction... we've had accidents that have left shards of carbon on the track before, most of the time they havent caused tyre explosions, debris is a weak excuse seeing that it was only michelins that blew up.

[CONOSUR]

Yep, I say we ban carbon fiber and go back to metal rods that can pierce helmets and kill drivers...

[GhostR]

Dupasquier is saying that it wasn't structural failure of the tyres. Source. He states that DC's tyre had been cut. They don't mention debris as a possible culprit, however, indicating instead that they're investigating the possibility of damage from kerbing.

IMO I think it's a cop-out. Whenever there's issues with tyre failures this year, it's always Michelin having problems. Indy, Spa ... if the problems are drainage grates, kerbing, debris then why aren't we seeing Bridgestone failures as well?

[cheesy poofs]

Just ban the whole car altogether

[FCYTravis]

Ban carbon fiber?

If you wish to return to the days of aluminum honeycomb tubs you'll see far more drivers injured or killed through structural integrity failure than you'd ever see hurt due to CF-induced tyre failures.

[FCYTravis]

Quote

Originally posted by wegmann
Are there no other materials in the world besides carbon fibre and aluminum (or aluminium as you Brits say) that could be used?

Well, yes, I suppose one could use steel tubing

[917k]

Quote

Originally posted by FCYTravis
Ban carbon fiber?

If you wish to return to the days of aluminum honeycomb tubs you'll see far more drivers injured or killed through structural integrity failure than you'd ever see hurt due to CF-induced tyre failures.

I think the jist of this is removing CF from suspension components and various addenda.

It would be ridiculous to suggest getting rid of CF for the survival cell.Besides,how often does a shattered tub cause problems with carbon shards?[or for that matter,how often does a tub shatter?]

[RJL]

Martin Donelly came out of his tub, I recall.

[FCYTravis]

Quote

Originally posted by 917k
I think the jist of this is removing CF from suspension components and various addenda.

OK, this is certainly a less radical proposition. Still, it raises plenty of questions of its own.

One issue with carbon fiber tubs is suspension penetration. In high-speed impacts, suspension components have been known to puncture the tub at the point of attachment and enter into the driver's compartment, sometimes causing significant driver injuries - notably several IRL drivers have suffered from this, as well as Martin Short in the Dallara prototype. The impact force concentrated on such a small surface area can be sufficient to surpass the carbon fiber's anti-intrusion qualities.

Carbon fiber suspension bits effectively eliminate this risk, because the wishbones and tie rods, being much more frangible, will break into many pieces before they can spear through the tub.

So yes, if cars revert to metal suspension components there won't be as many carbon fiber shards laying around after an impact. The question is, is that worth risking a greater number of injuries caused by suspension intrusion?

[GerardF1]

How about only allowing CF for the tub? Most critical area for safety.

There is no need for the wings and body panels to be CF.

There is also no need for the suspension members to be CF as well.

Carbon Fibre is a wonder thing, but like all things too much of it can be bad.

Gerard

[Melbourne Park]

If the centre of gravity was measured, then extremely minimalist ie fragile in a collision levels of composites might not be so beneficial. Likewise if a polar moment of inertia measurement was enforced. If both were introduced into F1, the cars would be quantum leap cheaper.

Banning carbon itself would not increase safety. Concerning cost, the high cost of F1 composites is little related to the cost of the fibre. There's more carbon fibre in a racing dinghy yacht than an F1 car, and such racing dinghy yachts cost about the cost of an F1 car's front wing. In other words, the carbon fibre itself is not very costly. I presume R&D and labour costs make up most of the costs. Even the capital costs of the low pressure curing "ovens" are sunk costs as composites are necessary.

If you want to increase safety, then change the rules to increase safety where the cars are unsafe. For example if there is evidence that torn composites are dangerous, then put in a rule to prevent tearing. Radical general forced material changes will not increase safety, likely quite the reverse.

[Racer Joe]

Quote

Originally posted by w00t
So what was it due to?

Apparently they are suspecting running over too far on the kerbs.

There is no doubt that Ralf's and FA's accidents in Indianapolis were due to carbon fibre debris though, so the problem remain an urgent one to solve. Especially given that they don't stop races any more.

Kevlar coating is an idea. At least they are thinking about solutions.

[100cc]

i dont understand why increasing weight would increase safety - the cars will not slow down as fast if heavier.

[leeturne]

Originally posted by ghost:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the telecast of Spa there was talk about an idea to coat all carbon fibre parts in Kevlar. Something about doing this potentially preventing the carbon fibre parts from breaking into sharp shards. Not sure I understand how that might work, myself ... but it does seem that the "powers that be" know they have a problem with regards carbon fibre.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I spent time building composite parts for both road and track racing vehicles. Whilst carbon is incredibly strong in the direction it is meant to be it is also very brittle when hit e.g. carbon is extremely elastic until point of failure. However some of this is due to the design of the parts. The suspension parts on an F1 car are made from about 40+ layers of carbon fibre. Whilst in a race the suspension might break you don't see pieces flying all over the place. However the nose, bargeboards and other aero parts are designed to flex, if you looked at some of the slo-mo shots from Sundays race you can see that clearly.

We used to put kevlar as the outer skin on fenders, floor pans etc., as it can absorb stone chips etc. without shattering and when hit the kevlar tends to hold the part together rather like putting sellotape on an egg. What it does not do is structurally strengthen the part. If you look at a kevlar part after a race or two it looks like candy floss in the areas where it has been hit by stone chips. It's also tricky material to work with by hand as you can't cut if with a knife, and can't sand it (for instance the edge of the moulded part) as it just turns to cotton wool. Just try drilling a kevlar part!

As far as cost kevlar is the same price if not cheaper than carbon fibre, but the way it is used in F1 would probably entail some changes in manufacturing. F1 teams use a carbon fibre composite called pre preg. This is one or more layers of carbon already impregnated with the necessary resins. The part is cut to shape, stuck in position on the mould and then placed into an autoclave where the prepreg is heated and vacuum formed to the mold.

After seeing how kevlar keeps CF parts together I have never understood why F1 teams have not adopted, or been forced to adopt it.

[Muzza]

Curiously, no one has mentioned banning carbon fiber disc brakes and pads.

Having seen time and again - through "before-and-after" tests in road and racing cars - the amazing reduction of braking distances thanks to the use of carbon fiber brake components, I remain convinced that these elements are one of the most overtaking-deterring aspects of the current crop of single seaters (not only Formula 1). Additionally, carbon fiber brake components require less skills from the driver, lowering the overall bar.

[Lopez]

Quote

the amazing reduction of braking distances thanks to the use of carbon fiber brake components

People always cite the williams test in Canada where Zanardi went out with iron discs and had comparable braking distances to the carbon brakes when this question comes up.

What I would like to know is whether this would hold true over consistent fast lapping (I suspect it would not) because the iron discs are going to retain their heat a lot longer than the carbon ones, are they not?

Further, I have always wondered, on the subject of increasing braking distances, why not just limit the rotor or pad size? Smaller rotors / pads = bigger braking distances. If you combine this with the elimination of carbon discs (which are not cheap by any means) so there's no worries about rotor failure because of rotor wear, you could increase overtaking, couldn't you?

[Muzza]

Quote

Originally posted by Lopez


People always cite the williams test in Canada where Zanardi went out with iron discs and had comparable braking distances to the carbon brakes when this question comes up.

The problem, Lopez, is that my own experience - as the one of everybody else I have talked with, for years and years - says the opposite...

Quote

Originally posted by Lopez


What I would like to know is whether this would hold true over consistent fast lapping (I suspect it would not) because the iron discs are going to retain their heat a lot longer than the carbon ones, are they not?

Further, I have always wondered, on the subject of increasing braking distances, why not just limit the rotor or pad size? Smaller rotors / pads = bigger braking distances. If you combine this with the elimination of carbon discs (which are not cheap by any means) so there's no worries about rotor failure because of rotor wear, you could increase overtaking, couldn't you?

I can only attest from what I experienced (I would like to know that other members think) : carbon fiber brake discs are much, much more consistent than steel ones.

[Melbourne Park]

If you lowered the braking capacity, you'd likely result in greater cost as the competitive advantage switched to brake technology. Currently the Minardi brakes not much worse than the Ferrari. Many consider brakes as a safety item as well.

If you want to lengthen the braking distance, lower the downforce. The cars will be faster in a straight line, and they'll have less traction on the tyre because of the lesser downforce.

I think less downforce at the ends and under the car, and wider tyres. Wider tyres would slow the cars down in a straight line. Negating under car aero would facilitate slipstream overtaking. The idea of having the downforce area in between the tyres I like - such aero does not get interfered with when following a car, hence facilitating overtaking.

[wagner]

Carbon fiber makes the cars faster and safer, why get rid of it?

[Melbourne Park]

Quote

Originally posted by leeturne
... Whilst carbon is incredibly strong in the direction it is meant to be it is also very brittle when hit e.g. carbon is extremely elastic until point of failure. ...

I think this elasticity depends very much on the shape of the composite. In an America's cup boat, the boom is almost an I beam, and it does not bend. But carbon fibre masts are on many boats are hollow tapered tube like structures, designed to bend to alter the sail shape. While parts of the F1 car may flex, the chassis is very stiff. As is BAR's gearbox casing. Carbon fibre structures can be elastic or inelastic depending on the structure IMO.

[Jeff]

Quote

Originally posted by Lopez


People always cite the williams test in Canada where Zanardi went out with iron discs and had comparable braking distances to the carbon brakes when this question comes up.

What I would like to know is whether this would hold true over consistent fast lapping (I suspect it would not) because the iron discs are going to retain their heat a lot longer than the carbon ones, are they not?

Further, I have always wondered, on the subject of increasing braking distances, why not just limit the rotor or pad size? Smaller rotors / pads = bigger braking distances. If you combine this with the elimination of carbon discs (which are not cheap by any means) so there's no worries about rotor failure because of rotor wear, you could increase overtaking, couldn't you?

Mr. lopez,

I really like the way you're thinking.

I've mentioned similar ideas on this board before, but gotten little positive reaction from the readership.

What about it gentlemen? will going back to iron / steel brakes and big slicks improve the show?

[wagner]

Why go back to steel brakes which make the car decelerate slower and thus more dangerous? High speed without proper brake is deadly.

[MrSlow]

Quote

Originally posted by wagner
Why go back to steel brakes which make the car decelerate slower and thus more dangerous? High speed without proper brake is deadly.

Braking too late is always dangerous. But contrary to your opinion I think that less effecient brakes is safer. I know, sounds wrong, but think about it. With the monster brakes they have now they brake at the 100 meter sign from 320 km/h. What if something goes wrong? Like it did for Massa in Canada and Rubens in, was it Hungary last year? The forces on the supension is enourmous when they slam the brakes at those speeds and when it breaks down there is no stopping power left, and not much road either...
With less effecient brakes they would have to start braking at maybe 150 meters. If something goes wrong they have 50 meters extra to work with. An error of judgement will also give more time and space to repair the error. And of course, the forces on the suspension will be lower and therefore it is less likely to break.

[Melbourne Park]

Quote

Originally posted by MrSlow

Braking too late is always dangerous. But contrary to your opinion I think that less effecient brakes is safer. I know, sounds wrong, but think about it. With the monster brakes they have now they brake at the 100 meter sign from 320 km/h. What if something goes wrong? Like it did for Massa in Canada and Rubens in, was it Hungary last year? The forces on the supension is enourmous when they slam the brakes at those speeds and when it breaks down there is no stopping power left, and not much road either...
With less effecient brakes they would have to start braking at maybe 150 meters. If something goes wrong they have 50 meters extra to work with. An error of judgement will also give more time and space to repair the error. And of course, the forces on the suspension will be lower and therefore it is less likely to break.

F1 braking is not about the disks. If it was, they would be changing pads during pit stops. Get real: its the downforce that allows late braking. And also allows the cars to turn in at higher speeds than they used to.

[leeturne]

Originally posted by Melbourne Park

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think this elasticity depends very much on the shape of the composite. In an America's cup boat, the boom is almost an I beam, and it does not bend. But carbon fibre masts are on many boats are hollow tapered tube like structures, designed to bend to alter the sail shape. While parts of the F1 car may flex, the chassis is very stiff. As is BAR's gearbox casing. Carbon fibre structures can be elastic or inelastic depending on the structure IMO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think that's what I was trying to get at. In the design/layup stage the rigidity and/or flexibility can be determined and altered. There are different weaves of carbon fibre offering different properties, e.g unidirectional, twill etc. plus the different weights of fibre. Different resins have differing properties.
The one thing that is hard to gauge with composites is structural failure. It's very hard to see a hairline stress fracture especially in multi layer parts, and it's very difficult to determine where a component will fail under impact. It could be the design, cloth direction, bonding, incorrect resin prep, delamination etc. Whilst these failures can be predicted by modelling, stress and crash testing etc. the thing we must remember is that the parts are made of a composite of materials and bonded together. Raikkonen's rear wing failure was due to manufacturing defects (well that's the story that RD is sticking to) that didn't replicate on Coulthards car, and examination beforehand would not have given any indication of stress defects. That's the thing with composite, it can work 100% then just let go without any notice. For another example have a look at the Montery Classic race were the ex Schumacher Ferrari failed in a spectacular and frightening way forums.atlasf1.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=72164
Back to the main topic, if these carbon parts were covered with a layer of kevlar it would stop a lot of the track debris.

[MrSlow]

Quote

Originally posted by Melbourne Park


F1 braking is not about the disks. If it was, they would be changing pads during pit stops. Get real: its the downforce that allows late braking. And also allows the cars to turn in at higher speeds than they used to.

"Get real"? Does anything in my post contradict what you are saying in your post?
I was responding to wagners "Steel brakes are unsafe" post. Yes, theoretically you may get as much stopping power from steel brakes as from carbon, but in practice I very much doubt that. Remember Canada? Some teams where a bit to creative there to keep their brakes together. What if it had been steel brakes? They simply have to use steel brakes in another way than they are using the current ones and that would undoubtably lead to earlier braking, wich in turn would be safer rather than more dangerous.

[Yelnats]

Carbon/Carbon brakes, along with a much reduced weight, offer a much greater co-efficient of friction when hot. This allows shorter stopping distances for those drivers who can't pound on the brakes for two hours. Perhaps Zanardi could contend with this after his experience with Champ cars but small left foot brakers would find this change very difficult to adapt to. At high speeds (250 k +) even C/C brakes are incapable of locking the wheels so a small loss of braking effectivness is to be expected on high speed tracks.

[Ben]

Quote

Originally posted by wegmann

What good reasons for carbon fibre am I overlooking?

Carbon tubs tend not to do this:

http://tbk.fameflame...ighlight=smiley

Anyone who thinks a few punctures is a reason to scrap a technology that has saved so many lives is crazy. Maybe solutions need to be found to the problems we saw at the weekend, but surely the kevlar idea and maybe a minimum tyre carcass mass (to force them to put more plies in) would be better?

Ben

[Group B]

Quote

Originally posted by Ben


Carbon tubs tend not to do this:

http://tbk.fameflame...ighlight=smiley

Ben

Very sobering, very apt. We don't need to return to 6 or 7 fatalaties a season in order to "improve racing", much less "improve safety".

[jme]

Quote

Originally posted by wegmann
I don't know how feasible it is, but to me it makes some amount of sense. I'm not a big safety nut, but I think punctured tires at 200mph is just a little bit dangerous. Plus I hate the safety car, whether it makes for exciting races or not.

Another reason to ban it is that it's expensive, and really doesn't add much to the sport. Having heavier bodywork and suspension would slow the cars down a bit, too. Both of these reasons seem to be goals of the current F1 administrators.

What good reasons for carbon fibre am I overlooking?

Instead of banning carbon fibre from F1, this technology should be introduced as fast as feasible into normal road cars.... Improved safety and reduced fuel consumption (due to weight gains)...
At impacts, composite absorbes a lot more energy pro pound than any other material car material used at present.

IMO, the fia should allow innovative technologies, as much as possible, to exist and grow in F1.

[Muzza]

Quote

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
If you lowered the braking capacity, you'd likely result in greater cost as the competitive advantage switched to brake technology. Currently the Minardi brakes not much worse than the Ferrari.

Hello, Melbourne Park,

I beg to disagree. Steel brakes are much cheaper to manufacture than carbon fiber ones (check your racing supplier). Also brake discs and pads are supplied by a limited number of companies to Formula 1 teams; the very same companies that produce steel brakes manufacture carbon fiber ones. The fact that, as you correctly stated, that Minardi brakes are not much worse than Ferrari's is not a consequence of the technology used, but of these market circumstances (limited number of suppliers, common components available to several teams).

Quote

Originally posted by wagner
Carbon fiber makes the cars faster and safer, why get rid of it?

Quote

Originally posted by Melbourne Park

Many consider brakes as a safety item as well.

Of course we are talking about increasing braking distances to a certain level, without jeopardizing safety.

Talking about safety, there are two aspects of carbon fiber brakes that are concens of mine:

1.) Carbon fiber discs (not so much the pads) are painfully difficult to inspect. It is almost impossible to detect material failure or unusual conditions without extensive exams that cannot be carried out at the track. Steel brakes are much easier to inspect.

If a disc has a failure, it will most likely break at high temperature, when carbon is less resilient. Open wheel cars (such as Formula 1) have not experienced that many carbon disc failures as the breaks are much easier to cool down, but has anyone ever taken a look at the number of sportscars that have suffered catastrophic brake carbon fiber disc failures? I know from a supplier (same company that supplies to several Formula 1 teams) that most of these incidents have been caused by unusual wear of microfractures that went unnoticed as they are very difficult to detect.

2.) As we have discussed in the past in this forum, it is noticeable that at the same time that carbon fiber discs made to racing we begun to see more and more accidents when cars touch wheels under braking and one of them blew over (Patrese, Estoril 1992, the crash that killed Marco Campos in Magny-Cours in 1995 and many, many other crashes in other formulae). The enormous braking capacity of carbon fiber discs (and pads) allow cars to reduce speed abruptly, and the drivers following behind may not even have time to react. It also increases the chances of drivers "test braking" those behind (as Blundell did to Barrichello in the 1995 British GP; I wonder if Blundell would have been able to do the same at that point of the track without carbon brakes).

I will not comment about downforce issues as these are outside the scope of this thread. I agree that that less downforce would be welcome, but it is downforce per se does not reduce braking distances; instead, more donwforce makes the car more stable at points of the track where brakes are usually deployed (entry to turns), and it is the higher efficiency of contemporaneous braking systems that shortens these distances.

I continue to wait for the opinion of other Atlas members - also users of carbon fiber brakes or that have made their own comparison steel vs. carbon brakes - on this issue.

Cheers,


Muzza

[Muzza]

Oh, I forgot to mention another issue when talking about carbon fiber disks and safety: the dust released by carbon fiber disks is highly toxic.

Steel brakes dust is not much better either, but talk to any doctor - or to the disc/pad supplying companies - and the reply will surprise you.

There have been several litigation cases in the aeronautical industry here in the United States concerning employees which were handling carbon fiber pieces improperly (or were badly trained) and acquired serious - if not lethal - respiratory diseases due to inspiration of carbon fiber or kevlar dust.

[Ben]

Quote

Originally posted by Muzza


Hello, Melbourne Park,

I beg to disagree. Steel brakes are much cheaper to manufacture than carbon fiber ones (check your racing supplier).

Muzza

True, but they last longer because they're less prone to cracking. Le Mans sees far fewer disc changes than before. In an early 90s edition of Racecar Egineering (Vol 3 I think) they did a test with Carbone Industrie at Paul Ricard on a Venturie GT car and worked out that over a season the carbon discs worked out cheaper because they didn't crack.

On the subject of the power generated by the brakes. A cast iron disc with the latest PFC pad material would probably have similar peak force to carbon-carbon. We wouldn't see brake distances increase without legislating smaller discs and pads, and this could be done with carbon anyway.

Ben

[Ben]

Quote

Originally posted by Muzza

There have been several litigation cases in the aeronautical industry here in the United States concerning employees which were handling carbon fiber pieces improperly (or were badly trained)

So we ban stuff because a few people can't read the instructions? Not a good argument.

Ben

[wegmann]

Quote

Originally posted by Ben


Carbon tubs tend not to do this:

http://tbk.fameflame...ighlight=smiley

Anyone who thinks a few punctures is a reason to scrap a technology that has saved so many lives is crazy. Maybe solutions need to be found to the problems we saw at the weekend, but surely the kevlar idea and maybe a minimum tyre carcass mass (to force them to put more plies in) would be better?

Ben

Sorry, I don't really know much about materials and didn't know there weren't any substitutes for carbon fibre tubs.

However, punctures are serious - drivers have little control when a tire goes down instantly. Ralf could have easily been more seriously injured or killed in his accident if he hadn't hit the wall rear first (although his car would've looked nothing like that horrific crash in your link).

As for Michelin's problems this weekend, maybe there's another reason to end the tire war. The FIA could easily ask a sole supplier to make sure their tires are safe (as NASCAR does with Goodyear). But with Michelin vs. Bridgestone, there may be compromises between safety and performance.

[Ben]

Quote

Originally posted by wegmann



However, punctures are serious - drivers have little control when a tire goes down instantly. Ralf could have easily been more seriously injured or killed in his accident if he hadn't hit the wall rear first (although his car would've looked nothing like that horrific crash in your link).

I quite agree that punctures are serious, but we have to be realistic.

In the 1982 season we lost Gilles Villenueve and Ricardo Palleti, as well as Didier Pironi sustaining injuries that saw him never race again. We have lost all sense of perspective if we think Ralf's accident and a few punctures at Spa is bad.

I'm not saying safety isn't important, but your suggestion of banning CF is silly because we might get less punctures, but we'd get more tub failures, which is worse.

As I said in a post above, maybe a minimum tyre carcass mass might be a way of forcing tyre manufacturers to reinforce their products. Otherwise maybe a single tyre supplier would prevent competition that leads to marginal safety in the quest for ligher tyres?

Ben

[wegmann]

Quote

Originally posted by Ben
I'm not saying safety isn't important, but your suggestion of banning CF is silly because we might get less punctures, but we'd get more tub failures, which is worse.

Yes, I heard you the first time. Did you read my entire post? I said I didn't know much about materials and that there were no viable substitutes for the tub. So that means I understand now, so you don't have to repeat the same information as if I'm still arguing.