HampusA wrote: gridwalker wrote:
HampusA wrote:"Extremely lucky" No i don´t believe in luck and neither should F1 teams.
Read what I wrote : I explained how "extremely lucky" is shorthand for a statistical anomaly.
HampusA wrote:If Kubica would have cut his both feet of hitting the concrete they would again have to rethink safety, but they didn´t. Why? Well Kubica was pretty much ok and both feet were still there.
Actually, they implemented safety fencing along the walls that flipped Kubica in Canada (last line of this article : http://www.formula1.com/news/features/2008/6/7876.html
) but the safety features that protected his head and neck were implemented in the years following Senna's crash. So, some safety measures were improved in the wake of Kubica's crash, but there are only so many steps that can be taken due to the law of diminishing returns.
You cannot just look at the final outcome (suspension puncturing a helmet) and draw conclusions, but you need to find the root cause of the incident to minimise the chance of a freak occurrence happening again!
HampusA wrote:And don´t tell me i have no respect for the people that died, i have no idea how you even can say such a thing.
I didn't say you had no
respect, just that they deserve more respect than is attributed by describing the circumstances of their death as "normal".
Can I ask if you were watching F1 in the mid 90s, or did you start watching more recently?
Safety fencing wont do much against feet getting crushed against a concrete wall though.
Root of the accident... Hmm assuming it was the tires, should they after every safety car period, take the car into pits, dissasemble the car, analyse the tires. Check the steering rack aswell?
--- happens when you least expect it, freak accidents like Sennas death does aswell. Or did. Still i don´t think we have seen the last death in F1. I honestly hope not but some things can still happen.
Did anyone demand safer helmets after Massa got knocked out? Can´t remember that because it was a freak accident.
Again, i NEVER said their death was normal so stop putting words into my mouth. I said crashes are normal even to this day and age.
Can i ask if it really matters? I think it doesn´t because it´s irrelevant. I honestly think you are miss understanding the whole point of what i´m saying and then write an A4 of stuff that really has nothing to do with what i´m trying to say.
Actually, I am trying to work out what you really ARE trying to say, because you keep arguing against points that I haven't made.
The reason why I am asking about when you started watching is because I want to know if your perception of "normal" is based on your own experiences and memories, or whether you are basing it on reports, videos and highlight reels : this really does make a difference to how you view these events.
Back in 94, I'd been watching F1 for 7 years and back then I never wrote off any crash as "normal". I'd seen cars go up in flames, backs broken and feet smashed, but hadn't witnessed death on-screen until that day. At no point did I think "he'll be ok, it's normal" : every incident could have had potentially dire consequences and I always remembered that ... As a teenage boy, it was a big part of the excitement.
The changes that have been made since that day have dramatically increased safety, to the point where drivers routinely walk away from what would have been career-ending crashes.
Having watched many potential stars get crippled before their time, I always remember how fortunate modern drivers are to be using the latest generation of equipment. To describe any single incident as "normal" involves taking modern safety standards completely for granted : Sure, there weren't many deaths back then, but death isn't the only thing that can wreck lives.
The fact that you are only citing modern examples indicates that you are too young to remember Senna's death. I still remember watching Mansell break his back in 1987 :
I also watched Berger crasn'n'burn at the same corner that took Senna's life :
Both of these drivers made a full recovery, but they were the fortunate ones. If you don't remember the days when every crash could leave you crippled or worse, your perceptions of what can be considered "normal" for the day will be viewed through a very rosy filter.
This is why I take such an objection to your use of that word : it isn't that you think "death" is normal, it is that you are assuming that viewers took the same relaxed attitude towards the crashes back then as we do now. The fact that even injuries have become a rarity is indicative of how far we have moved.
In one way, it is great that viewers can take driver safety for granted, as it shows how far things have come. Conversely, we now run the risk of falling into the trap of complacency that claimed those lives at Imola.