In fairness, in this unique, very specific case, it *may* have lifted the tractor above his helmet. But, as I said above, I can see it causing more harm than good in the overall scheme of things. Just another knee jerk reaction (not aimed at you Dino, I know you just posted it! ) Ian
Don't worry, Ian. I don't take anything here personally. Also, I did not say that exact thing, but rather "something along these lines". It's just conceivable that some kind of structure might have lifted the crane, and/or absorbed some of the kinetic energy that was inflicted on poor Bianchi's head.
Thanks! Shame some others don't! Sure, that's why I said what I did!.... Food for thought indeed.... No problem there. I think we're all looking to make it safer and it's an interesting debate. Everyone is trying their best, and entitled to their opinions.... If I believe they're 'silly' ideas, I think it's only right that I can say so if I give the reasons why..... I just kind of 'object' to howls that, for example, whenever there's a tractor outside the wall the race should automatically be stopped. It's been this way for decades, without any problems previously, and again, I'm certain removing wrecks has saved more lives than it's cost. Ian
What if the car was upside down, on fire. How do you get the driver out? what if Bianchi's car with the canapy got stuck under the loader towing Sutlil's car? How would the doctors get to him? I'm sure there are dozens of examples...
Very good thoughts, and yet more reasons why any changes need very careful study rather than some of the knee jerk stuff we're hearing right now...... Beyond those problems though, I agree with Tif12 (?), enclosed cockpits remove the very essence of F1 in the same way as the undoubtedly safer enclosed wheels.... It can, sometimes, fortunately very occasionally these days, be ****ing dangerous. Ian
Closed cockpits would do more harm than good | News | Motorsport.com I think the next step will be some kind of medium-small plexiglass windscreen that easily comes off, in the same fashion as the u shaped head protection pad on the shoulder of the driver does, just gently lifting it out.
And lifted it up only to slam down right onto of the drivers head. What would the screen be made out of anyway to withstand any impact?
The helmet is extremely strong, I do not see how a closed cockpit would of aided much at all. The primary cause of injury to racers in a well built car/helmet in a wreck is the brain slamming around the skull.
Yep, very possibly.... Which is why serious research and testing is needed before any such knee jerk 'solutions' get tried. Pretty much the same stuff as they use in fighter planes. The FIA Safety Institute did some tests a few years back using such a model. Just *after* dear old Phil's accident when emotions were running high I guess. (Sound familiar? ) I believe the conclusions were that while it may have 'alleviated' what happened to him (one in a million at 'best'), the added danger of getting trapped, upside down in particular, led them to drop the idea...... These things are not fighter aircraft after all..... Regards, Ian
From the above posts, I can detect that some people still cannot see the difference beween active and passive safety. No amount of track protocol, yellow flags, safety car periods or race delays will ever prevent cars to hit obstacle, and it's the outcome of these crashes that have to be managed. By insisting on open cockpits leaving the drivers exposed to projectiles and with very little head protection against impacts, the FIA is not leading the way as it should be. OPen cockpits and open wheels are an anachronism in modern racing, and I don't care much if some people still prefer to bury their head in the sand on the issue. Like someone said, there is very little in common between GP cars from the 50s, and F1 cars now, apart from maintaining what is an obsolete concept .
Don't worry, that decision will be made one day, in spite of the rear-guard battle of the nostalgia brigade.
if safety should be paramount - then lets just not have racing. Motor racing is dangerous... Bianchi's crash is very unfortunate but its a fact of life in racing. this is a wake up call for drivers as well. if you legislate cars so that they are 100% safe - its not even racing... may as well just have drone cars out there or just do it all in cyber space. The appeal to racing drivers is to be able to master a car, and track better than the other guy. I dont think I'm alone in this thought - but I could be. This was a racing accident, another one can happen tomororw or not for another 20 years. if you want covered cockpits - we have it already - LMP 1, just outlaw F1 and make LM cars the world championship. Aestetics are important differentiation in the sport.
covering the most possible types of accidents is OK, but to cover all the bases is to not even start the vehicle: just play Nintendo. In F1 boats, the underside and/or exit cockpit to include supplied air was good to thwart the multitude of deaths and not just the one-offs. People race, people fly squirrel suites ...that the human and technological experience. the better help to JB would have been to deploy the safety car where dangerous object exist in driving sphere.
The sound of the turbo engines are so bad that the drivers demanded enclosed cars to keep the infernal engine noise to a minimum. Best
And all this from someone who claims that ordering someone to crash deliberately is perfectly acceptable.
I'm not sure what the real benefits of closed cockpits are. Given existing helmet design and intrusion standards what sort of enclosure would offer better protection? The substantial superstructure of Bianchi's car was ripped right off. A closed cockpit would have to be quite the cage to fare any better.
That's what the track owners used to tell Jackie Stewart when he started campaigning for rail guards around the circuits. "Drivers should adapt to the circuts and race accordingly" they said at the time. Thanks God, we have come a long way since, even if for the "purists" it's not much of a sport anymore because the F1 circus doesn't attend several funerals every year. What was acceptable then, if not anymore now.
In this debate, the old quote comes to mind... "A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are built for." In my opinion, F1's appeal will always be, in part, its inherent danger. The primary source of my respect for the drivers is not just in their ability to pilot a car, but in the tremendous skills shown in "fear management." That fear is born of both the instinctive biological reaction to speed amid fixed objects AND the conscious knowledge that a wrong move could be the end. For conquering that fear, I watch these drivers in awe. That said, I'm thankful the barbaric days of the 1950's are long gone. I don't care to see people lose their lives or suffer terrible injuries. But the increasingly antiseptic nature of the world today doesn't hold much appeal either. To me, open cockpits are not the anachronism that un-helmeted, un-belted drivers were. Instead, seeing a driver in their open seat is visual evidence of men taking on risk, and of the winner managing his fears best. That, to me, is what an F1 car is built for.
If closed cockpits have been proven to be safer in LMP, I cannot understand why then would be less safe in F1. After all, they have been adopted in LMP1 (and soon will be mandatory in LMP2) after quite a bit of research and testing by the ACO and the FIA. I fail to see how the same conclusions cannot be drawn for F1.
I didn't say it was acceptable, but you like to exaggerate what suit your agenda, it seems. All I said is that it didn't warrant a life ban, and that Briatore was a likeable rogue to me. Also, if you cannot see the difference between a deliberate brush against the wall and an unfortunate high speed accident, you are the one who's confuse here. Is VINDICTIVE your middle name?
