Jackie Stewart F1 legends question (aka is F1 too safe)

[richard_leeds]

Sand on the track? The PR people keep telling us this is the pinnacle of motor sport, we can't have something as amateur as a track with dodgy grip or unreliable cars - perish the thought!

It all seems to come down to the inevitable maturing of the sport as it gets more professional. F1 is now in six sigma territory because races are won and lost on tiny incremental improvements. This fits the myth of being the pinnacle of motor sport if we define the pinnacle as unparalleled levels of grip and professionalism (both the modern positive and the old fashioned negative uses of that word).

Oh, and we should be explicit about "more risk". To me "more" relates to higher chances of failure and more doubt in the driver's mind, because without failure or doubt there is no need to be brave. That's how we get a battle of whits.

[strad]

Ahhhhhhh
I feel it is safer to drive in F1 than to drive to work.
Tell me..Are these guys crazy? Should it be banned? You know to protect them from themselves.
click photo
http://www.stradsplace.com/photos/TT-Racin.jpg

I'm guessing some of you would never dream of watching th Isle of Men..er Man

[xpensive]

Ahhhhhhh
I feel it is safer to drive in F1 than to drive a bumper car at the carnival.
Tell me..Are these guys crazy? Should it be banned? You know to protect them from themselves.
click photo
http://www.stradsplace.com/photos/TT-Racin.jpg

My edit.

[Just_a_fan]

It's still the danger that is the lure of racing

For me at least, it's not in any way. It's seeing incredibly skilled people go at it in a battle of whits, for me in fact, the less danger, the more they can concentrate on beating each other.

Exactly. The idea that you have to increase the risk in order to increase the racing is just as bizarre as my own, tongue in cheek, point about the nationalities of those holding certain views.

[Just_a_fan]

The tracks, no matter who designed them with this sort of runoff or another, have their inherent dangers from the nature of motorsport. Frankly, being able to make mistakes and come back makes for more cars on track and more chances for competition. Demanding more punishing - in terms of having made mistakes, rather than the chances of mistakes - is a false notion of "challenging".

Exactly. Never understood those who want a driver who makes a small mistake being taken out of the race. That way will lead to even more processional races with less overtaking because you will be forcing drivers to "take the points becuase a mistake ends your race" rather than "go for the overtake and perhaps get more points but don't worry because it won't be a race ender".

[Just_a_fan]

I'm interested in the "more risk" discussion, I think the sport needs it. This is a technical forum so lets focus on the engineering of what more risk might entail.

We see corners that used to be challenging now taken flat out. We used to look forward to certain race to see who would be brave on certain corners by lifting later. For example Eau Rouge gained its reputation because it was difficult to negotiate, but now its relatively routine. When did we last see a drivers ambition exceed the car's capability on Eau Rouge?

The last driver that tried that was, I think, JV. As I remember it, he ended up in the barrier in a huge shunt. We could have more of that if we're happy that at some point it is all going to go horribly wrong for either a driver or someone close to the track e.g. marshall. It won't make the racing any better, sadly, but it will give fresh material for the YouTube "crash compilation" guys.

The problem with asking for drivers to push beyond the car's abilities is that, in a downforce series such as F1, if you take the car in to a place where it loses downforce, then the driver has little say in what happens next.

The skill to being fast in a downforce series like F1 is being able to get as close to the car's limit as possible as often as possible over the course of the race. That's why people like Trulli could pull out decent qualifying laps but then be relatively slow during the race. That's why the top guys can qualify well and still put in great times lap after lap. Michael was well known for being able to do it back in his day.

[beelsebob]

The last driver that tried that was, I think, JV. As I remember it, he ended up in the barrier in a huge shunt.

Pretty sure it's not, because IIRC his response to said huge shunt was to return to the pits, and say "beat that" to zonta, wherapon ... he did.

[Just_a_fan]

A little aside - I'm amused to see that some of the more vocal "the old dangerous days were better" voices are from people seemingly living in the USA. The most litigious society on the planet and thus one much less likely to accept risk in everyday life for fear of being sued. Perhaps there's a link there...

Why are people in this forum stupid enough to bring up people's home country like its a relevant point or somehow cogent? Its not conducive to productive dialog. In fact, it invites nasty response such as mine.

It was tongue in cheek. Sarcasm. That's why I used the word "amused" at the beginning.

[Just_a_fan]

It seems to me that there are a number of people here who have a rose-tinted view of "the good old days" thinking that every race was between "true heroes" hanging out the tail at every turn and that the racing was always momentous.

The reality, of course, is that the racing wasn't always great, the tracks weren't all thrilling, the drivers weren't all gods.

The problem with trying to engineer a way back to those rose-tinted days is that you can't escape the Law of Unforeseen Consequences. You'll either end up killing someone or, much more likely, you'll drive teams out of the sport because with failure comes cost. And we all know that one thing F1 can't bear is rising costs. F1 would survive a number of driver deaths but quickly escalating costs? No way.

F1 is where it is because it meets the needs of its various stakeholders:
the teams
the FIA
FOM
the vast majority of fans

Current F1 gives a decent show with a reasonable amount of overtaking (although some years are better than others in this regard). It allows investment to bring returns and the teams can all afford to keep doing it. The fans are happy because they get to see their favourite team/driver racing hard weekend after weekend. The FIA is happy because it's safe. FOM is happy because people still seem intent on spending $silly on hosting races etc.

In a time when F1 is contrary to all of the big public issues ("green issues", financial meltdown, safety (to many people this is a big issue one way or another)) the one thing F1 needs to do is keep its head down. Introducing anything that brings negative media interest is to be avoided.

[bhallg2k]

This broad topic of conversation weaves in and out of many smaller topics that have very little to do with safety or risk in and of themselves. The idea that increased risk somehow "increases racing" is nonsensical, because, on its own, it implies something along the lines of one or two corners of a circuit being subjected to random artillery barrages during the course of a grand prix - actually, I quite like that idea.

I think those who question modern safety standards and F1's risk-averse culture do so not merely because they wish to see increased risk to life and limb in F1, but to see speeds increased and to see an increase in the competitive penalties for exceeding the limits of the machine and/or the circuit. Formula One is going backwards as far as speeds go, and there's very little reason for drivers at many tracks to avoid going off-track, because there's virtually no penalty for doing so.

I want to see the cars go faster. I want to see bigger penalties for going off-track. By its very nature, those desires inherently call for increased risk. But, I'm not asking for increased risk just for the sake of increased risk - unless they do the artillery thing.

If the survival cells have to be beefed up to make increased speeds a reality, fine. If run-off areas have to be altered to increase penalties for using them, that's fine, too. Ideally, I'd like to see the burden of risk carried solely on the shoulders of the car. That way if a driver goes beyond the limits, only the car suffers the consequences; the driver walks away.

[beelsebob]

This broad topic of conversation weaves in and out of many smaller topics that have very little to do with safety or risk in and of themselves. The idea that increased risk somehow "increases racing" is nonsensical, because, on its own, it implies something along the lines of one or two corners of a circuit being subjected to random artillery barrages during the course of a grand prix - actually, I quite like that idea.

Yes, a much better idea than Bernie's sprinklers!

[RB7ate9]

As an potential engineering solution, the answer lies in two factors: the car and the track.

For the track:

With the increased downforce inherent in even the backmarker teams (I would wager that HRT and Virgin have decent enough aero packages to put several other formulas to shame, still), the challenging corners of our most favorite tracks are either conquered with verve (Monza, Spa), challenging due to other factors (Monaco, Singapore tightness), or removed because of outside factors (no more Turn 8 in Turkey). What should be done, then, to increase "risk" and the challenge of the sport is less of the Tilke turn complexes and more dynamic track shape. Someone else suggested more sweeping turns, and I agree. With more tracks that offer a variety of mixes between straights, chicanes, hairpins, and sweeping turns (rather than the Tilke "two straights connected by a bunch of squigglies") will be better suited. However, the criticism of tracks will always be there. Some are too fast, some are too slow, some aren't technical enough, some are too technical as to prevent overtaking. The tracks, also, are - literally - set in stone and to change them is to cause great financial burden. So, for my part, I would recommend....

Changing cars:

IMO, the notion of "increased risk" tends towards pushing the car to its limits on the track. Those limits are imposed by the grip which, we all know, is determined by the aerodynamics and the mechanical grip of suspension and tires. The only two options to which these limits can be pushed is to either increase speed to test the limits of aerodynamic grip, or decrease aero attributes to bring back more halcyon days of mechanical grip and track ballet (my favorite historical year to watch is the 1967 season). Since no team is really looking forward to reducing aero benefits - after investing millions of pounds/dollars/euros/dinari/pesos/rubles/pooka-shells in wind-tunnels and CFD, the only possible answer is allowing an increase in power and speed.

With more and more tracks with less DNF-causing runoff areas, the FIA should really consider pushing engines to have MORE power than today, but with more fuel efficiency - rather than parity. If this becomes the new philosophy, it will benefit nearly everyone.

FIA: They can boast more power than before while using "green technologies"
Teams: More power, less fuel, lighter cars, faster speeds
Fans: Faster speeds, more "risk", some appreciation for the "green" aspect
Bernie: Faster cars, more interest, more relevance, more money for...him, I suppose.
Everyone: Better fuel-efficient engine technology

If F1 were really serious about reintroducing turbos, then the goal should have been to create more power than the current V8s (if not the old V10s). Bump it back up to 800 - 900+ hp and, with the same aero regulations, it becomes a matter of the team that can develop the best aero package (as before) combined with drivers with the stones to use all that power (as always).

(And get rid of the tire lottery, but that's a recent development).

In short: More power in cars = more speed with current aero regs = more "risk" on any track

**Edited for more power!**
**Edited for relevance to production cars**

[Just_a_fan]

More power = higher speeds = higher energy in crashes = higher risk of driver injury unless circuits or cars altered to protect drivers.

That's one reason why the tracks were altered to give such big run off areas over the last 20 years. The best way to protect the driver is to get the car doing its slowing down before it gets to the hard bits around the circuit - hence big run off areas.

Perhaps an answer to this problem lies in the systems used at the barriers. Currently tyres provide a lot of the controlled deceleration but I'd be surprised if we're not already a long way down the road of diminishing returns in terms of adding layers of tyres to cushion the impact. New systems are available but they need to match the financial and logistical benefits of tyres - they're cheap, they're easy to set up and they're relatively easy to repair in the event of a crash.

I do wonder if a system that mimics an aircraft carrier arresting system might be possible. Imagine a long line of linked units (for easy of repair as well as relatively low cost as they can be mass produced) which are positioned in the current run off areas. A car hittng the barrier will continue forwards but, as more units' masses are dragged by the car, the overall effect is to decelerate the car in a controlled fashion. The key would be in tuning the mass of the system so that it gives the correct deceleration. The benefit would be that the system could be positioned according to need - Formula cars might have the barrier closer to the track, motorcycles might have it much further back to allow the rider to slide to a stop (if that is desirable). A system using links also allows for rapid repair. The system could also be "reset" quite easily so that later incidents are also controlled.

I could see such a system would allow for drivers who mess up to be penalised as some would prefer whilst also allowing safety to be maintained. A gentle "kiss" with the tyres wouldn't damage the car but a more pronounced hit might well do. The barrier could be placed quite close to the track's edge e.g. 1 car's width away. This would allow "kerb riding" etc. as well as giving a bit of room for those times wehn a driver runs wide whilst pushing hard for an overtake for example - would we wish to punish drivers for trying to overtake?

Anyway, enough of my rambling...

[Cam]

New systems are available but they need to match the financial and logistical benefits of tyres - they're cheap, they're easy to set up and they're relatively easy to repair in the event of a crash.

I wouldn't use Pirellis - you'd only get one use and have to replace them too often due to the degradation

Tony Schumacher crashed at over 300mph. Granted, it wasn't into a wall, but the forces on his body and the safety cell he was in would have been massive. He survived and went on to race a few weeks later.


Larry Dixon, same story, he went on to race shortly afterwards:


Both are still racing (think Dixon is looking for a seat). No matter have many regulations or innovations you throw at it, accidents will always happen and these drivers will always get in. The risk is worth it, for them.

If the drivers are prepared to take the risks, then let them. If people want to watch, so be it. If you personally don't like watching massive impacts and people getting thrown around in high impacts, watch something else. There will always be a large audience for these sports and it goes right back to the earliest times of 2 blokes having a fight and everyone crowding around for a gawk. People are fascinated and repulsed at the same time, yet are drawn to watch.

Make the drivers cell as safe as you can and leave the rest. I'd rather worship a hero that risked it all than someone who conquered in a cotton wool jacket with watered down 'safety first' rules. What's to aspire too there? They're big boys, let them play.

[timbo]

Make the drivers cell as safe as you can and leave the rest. I'd rather worship a hero that risked it all than someone who conquered in a cotton wool jacket with watered down 'safety first' rules. What's to aspire too there? They're big boys, let them play.

Please tell, what exactly did safety rules water down.