Long shot request! I am co-authoring a paper for a medical journal that looks at drastic safety changes and systems redesign post catastrophic event and I would like to draw some analogy to racing (specifically F1). Does anyone have good references and details on the approach F1 took to evaluate and apply changes to the cars after Senna's and Ratzenberger's death at Imola? I have found general stuff, but ideally would love technical papers (lay press article are ok)...Surprisingly I have found some good stuff about NASCAR and the "car of the future" effort post Earnhardt's, wondering if there was a similar effort by FIA.
Google 'FIA F1 Safety' - it starts with a timeline http://www.atlasf1.com/news/safety.html and goes on and on and includes http://www.fiainstitute.com/media-centre/features/Pages/feature-03.aspx
Nonsense. At least from the OP's perspective. Yes, they're very different styles of racing car but to call it an "insult" is, well, an insult! Cheers, Ian PS - Oops, meant to say you should probably grab a copy of Prof. Sid's book - I can't remember the title but am sure someone will be along with it soon.
...I am referring to implementation of safety measure post driver deaths not the merits of a racing series over another which is purely subjective. I am sure NASCAR fans would agree with you, comparing F1 "racing" to NASCAR is an insult!! Thanks GreyBoxer and Fast_ian
F1 is about the teams, with some emphasis on one or two super star drivers, rarely more than four in a season. NASCAR has oriented its marketing around drivers in recent years, and it has probably has 30+ in todays world. In both cases, F1 and NASCAR, deaths of the not so famous did not bring about a hault and change to things, it took a super star dying, headline stuff, for there to be change.
