[Tech Issue] Closed cockpits- Closer to reality then we might think?

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by bauble

Being a Very Old Person I am not 'into' video games in any shape or form, however, I wonder if these games are all modern F1?

I can imagine that 'driving' a 250F Maserati around the Nurburgring in pursuit of Fangio might be fun.

There are plenty of games which would certainly fit the bill. Grand Prix Legends is a much loved PC game from the 90s that is still very popular. Simulates the 1967 season by default, but fans have made other seasons and updates for it. Other games like Project CARS and iRacing have historic cars in them, because people love them so much.

[bauble]

Thanks guys but I am of a different generation, I'll stick to my 1997 Vauxhall Astra for my kicks.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

Ok folks there is an entire section of tenths devoted to the virtual racing world, that would love to get some traffic on its pages.

I'm not going to move or delete the posts but let's get back on topic again.

[bauble]

Originally Posted by ScotsBrutesFan

Ok folks there is an entire section of tenths devoted to the virtual racing world, that would love to get some traffic on its pages.

I'm not going to move or delete the posts but let's get back on topic again.

If you insist SBF. I see that Hamilton says he would be happy to race in Singapore with the HALO device fitted after trying it in practice. With more and more emphasis on safety these days I wonder if it is still necessary to have; "Motor Racing is Dangerous" on the tickets.

Once upon a time drivers used to he heroes, now they are just idols.

[S griffin]

You should maybe go to a few races and you'll see it's still dangerous, as long as they're reaching speeds close to 200mph. The day it stops being dangerous is the day they introduce the highway code to the black book

[bauble]

Originally Posted by S griffin

You should maybe go to a few races and you'll see it's still dangerous, as long as they're reaching speeds close to 200mph. The day it stops being dangerous is the day they introduce the highway code to the black book

I would be interested in your definition of dangerous!

What dangers are the drivers exposed to today? It is certainly not of death or injury, is it loss of self esteem?

When I was first watching Grands Prix it definitely was dangerous, and at speeds a lot less than 200mph. That is why drivers were heroes.

I would say that competing in the Tour de France is infinitely dodgier than racing a Formula 1 car in Singapore.

This is the first year that I did not attend the British Grand Prix in well over twenty years, and my first was in 1952. I consider myself well able to judge the relative levels of safety in motor sport and indeed cycle racing.

I suspect I am many years older than yourself, and freely admit to being an Old Git!

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bauble

I would be interested in your definition of dangerous!

What dangers are the drivers exposed to today? It is certainly not of death or injury, is it loss of self esteem?

When I was first watching Grands Prix it definitely was dangerous, and at speeds a lot less than 200mph. That is why drivers were heroes.

I would say that competing in the Tour de France is infinitely dodgier than racing a Formula 1 car in Singapore.

This is the first year that I did not attend the British Grand Prix in well over twenty years, and my first was in 1952. I consider myself well able to judge the relative levels of safety in motor sport and indeed cycle racing.

I suspect I am many years older than yourself, and freely admit to being an Old Git!

Thankfully it is not the meat grinder it was in the 1950's. And I don't label those who survive (or die) as "heroes" just for participating. I don't feel joy at the prospect someone might die or be injured. Schadenfreude as a sport. Maybe cycling fulfills that role today?

Richard

[bauble]

Hi, Richard, as always I enjoy your posts, well balanced and cogent, I use the term heroes because in the 50's/60's drivers genuinely risked death or injury in every race. In those days when the Grand Prix finished the crowd would cross the track and wander around the paddock collecting autographs and seeing the cars up close. The drivers were often very friendly and would chat to the fans, so that one got to feel close to them, but then to read that they had died in an accident! Well it was personal, and I still mourn for many of them.

The world has changed, and probably for the better, however, today's up and coming drivers are not in it for the danger, the challenge of pitting themselves against a hostile circuit lined with walls, ditches and trees, they are attracted by the glory and rewards.

I think it impossible for younger 20- 65's fans to comprehend they way some of us older types can accept fatalities in the sport. Once it was quite commonplace today a rare tragic event. It is not that we want to see drivers die, but it does colour ones view of what is dangerous. For me after following Formula 1 since 1950 the introduction of a HALO device would finally kill of my interest in GP racing.

The upside of that is that I would no longer bother people here with my bigoted views.

Cheers,

Bob.

[S griffin]

Try telling the families of Bianchi and Wilson it's not dangerous anymore. OK the tractor should never been out under racing conditions in the former and the latter was bad luck, but it shows it's still a risk getting in these cars

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by bauble

The world has changed, and probably for the better, however, today's up and coming drivers are not in it for the danger, the challenge of pitting themselves against a hostile circuit lined with walls, ditches and trees, they are attracted by the glory and rewards.

I'm sorry, but if a Vettel, or Hamilton or Alonso was born in the '50's or '60's they would still be racing drivers and they would accept the challenges put before them, much the same that if Fangio or Moss were born 50 years later they would be racing in todays more sterile conditions. Having witnessed the deaths of Bianchi and Justin Wilson i can say that i'm glad for todays safety, yet, these 2 tragidies prove that motorsport is still dangerous.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Try telling the families of Bianchi and Wilson it's not dangerous anymore. OK the tractor should never been out under racing conditions in the former and the latter was bad luck, but it shows it's still a risk getting in these cars

And the solution we've ended up with won't have saved Bianchi, or stopped Massas accident.

[bauble]

Accident happen in all walks of life, Hamilton is more likely to die in an accident getting to the circuit than on the track, people die on the way home from motor races or simply driving to the supermarket. People fall off ladders, trip over kerb stones or get attacked by dogs. Formula 1 is now a very safe way to pass one's time, and I am sure that few other activities are less dangerous.
I am at greater risk driving my 1997 Vauxhall to church than Vettel at 200mph at Monza (for instance).

I stand by my contention that Formula 1 racing is not a dangerous sport.

[bauble]

Originally Posted by Mr V

I'm sorry, but if a Vettel, or Hamilton or Alonso was born in the '50's or '60's they would still be racing drivers and they would accept the challenges put before them, much the same that if Fangio or Moss were born 50 years later they would be racing in todays more sterile conditions. Having witnessed the deaths of Bianchi and Justin Wilson i can say that i'm glad for todays safety, yet, these 2 tragidies prove that motorsport is still dangerous.

And Verstappen would probably be dead and Fangio still alive.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

And the solution we've ended up with won't have saved Bianchi, or stopped Massas accident.

I didn't think a solution hasn't been agreed on.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bauble

Hi, Richard, as always I enjoy your posts, well balanced and cogent

Thank you. I am passionate about this topic, so I don't hold back with my arguments. I try hard to be fair in my comments (which is hard). So while I generally strongly disagree with your thoughts on this topic, it is your position and not you I have issues with.

Originally Posted by bauble

Accident happen in all walks of life, Hamilton is more likely to die in an accident getting to the circuit than on the track, people die on the way home from motor races or simply driving to the supermarket. People fall off ladders, trip over kerb stones or get attacked by dogs. Formula 1 is now a very safe way to pass one's time, and I am sure that few other activities are less dangerous.
I am at greater risk driving my 1997 Vauxhall to church than Vettel at 200mph at Monza (for instance).

I stand by my contention that Formula 1 racing is not a dangerous sport.

Originally Posted by bauble

I would be interested in your definition of dangerous!

The question was not posed to me, but I would ask you the same! I did a quick online search and definitions vary but they all are roughly the same as this...

"Involving possible injury, harm, or death."

To get to the point, life is dangerous. I risked death getting out of bed this morning. And I will say that F1 is quite more dangerous than getting out of bed! There is no logical way to argue that F1 is not "dangerous". Jules Bianchi passed barely a year ago. Maria de Villota passed a few years earlier as a result of her injuries. The list goes on with respect to cockpit intrusions with Massa, Senna and more if you expand to other forms of open cockpit racing then you have Justin Wilson, Dan Wheldon, Henry Surtees... Arguing otherwise is without basis. However, what is a valid point of discussion is the "degree" of danger, or in this case the "acceptable degree of danger".

What is your opinion as to the current degree of danger in F1 today? Too much? About right? Or not enough? Assuming you feel it is not "about right" what do you think should be done? More efforts toward safety? Less efforts? Should some of the current safety measures in place today be removed to make the sport more dangerous? If so, what would that be? Would making it more dangerous improve viewership? Even if it would, should that be the path taken? Warning... I am still curious to hear your answers, but the above questions are all very leading and bait for you to dig a hole for yourself!

My personal opinion is that there will always be diminishing returns with respect to the implementation of safety. And that where the line exists as to what is "safe enough" is a difficult thing to answer. It is also a dynamic and changing thing. Even minimal driver protection (roll hoop, belts, fuel tank bladders, obligatory use of helmets and overalls) was for the most non-existent in the 1950's. It would be impossible to argue against the usage of those items today, but at that point in time it was acceptable... until it wasn't.

We are probably very close to that line today. The sport is probably close to being "safe enough". But... we do have that recent history of death and injury due to cockpit intrusion. It begs the question of "Can we do more" (the answer is always "yes") and frankly the real question of "Can we do this in both a cost effective way and without ruining the sport". That is the current struggle. Do we need to move the line, how do we do it and is now the right time!?

I am not the arbiter of what is acceptable in this thread. However I personally do not have time for arguments that effectively say "It should be like it was in the 1950's". Or anything that brushes aside driver deaths as "racing is dangerous" (plus the close cousin argument of "tradition"). Because to my point above... Getting out of bed is "dangerous". And "tradition" is not inherently "good". So you can use the "dangerous" or "tradition" argument to justify just about anything that goes wrong.

I am starting to rant... So I will stop here.

Richard

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I didn't think a solution hasn't been agreed on.

It's no secret which device is being pushed and what we'll end up with. With drivers rapidly changing opinions after safety meetings (nice coincidence that one) on the device, it only pushes it further.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by bauble

Accident happen in all walks of life, Hamilton is more likely to die in an accident getting to the circuit than on the track, people die on the way home from motor races or simply driving to the supermarket. People fall off ladders, trip over kerb stones or get attacked by dogs. Formula 1 is now a very safe way to pass one's time, and I am sure that few other activities are less dangerous.
I am at greater risk driving my 1997 Vauxhall to church than Vettel at 200mph at Monza (for instance).

I stand by my contention that Formula 1 racing is not a dangerous sport.

This is an absolutely insane comment to be making.

[bauble]

Richard (and this post is intended for your consumption) as you must have realised when I first became a motor sport enthusiast, death was indeed commonplace, terribly tragic, but accepted as part of the sport. It is impossible to reconcile my views with yours and others here. To me a driver dying is just one of the facets of motor racing, it is a dangerous sport, and accidents will happen, and if someone dies then they knew the risks. No one makes them do it, and if they were frightened of the risks they did not have to take part.

Despite what many others on the forum say, in comparison with previous eras motor racing is not dangerous, at least no more than getting out of bed in the morning (might depend on whose wife was also there).

I fully appreciate that I come across as callous, and uncaring about the demise of a driver, that is not truly the case it is just that I see it as a natural consequence of driving fast cars. Believe me there is a VERY long list of men I still feel sad about, many I had met, many I simply admired from the pages of the magazines (no TV back then), they are not forgotten and they are still heroes to me.

Dangerous in the fifties? I witnessed the accident at Le Mans in 1955 from the grandstand in front of which Levegh crashed, killing over 50 spectators, both before and after the crash I walked through the area, I could easily have been one of the victims. I have dodged errant cars and flying wheels on a number of occasions during hundreds if not thousands of races I have watched. I knew the dangers, and still I return.

Should there be more or less safety measures? I would not care to comment, but if most of them had not been introduced, I would admire the drivers more.

On the wall next to my desk is a photo of Eugenio Castellotti driving a 2.5 litre Lancia at Spa in 1954 it was taken during the wet practice.
For me that is what a Grand Prix car/driver is. Dangerous, exciting and totally admirable.

As always feel free to scold me for my inhumanity.

Bob.

[bauble]

Originally Posted by Matt

This is an absolutely insane comment to be making.

I have never claimed to be sane.

During the 1960's 8 Grand Prix drivers died in accidents. In the 70's eight lost their lives, and in the 80's ONLY four. That is what I considered dangerous.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bauble

Richard (and this post is intended for your consumption) as you must have realised when I first became a motor sport enthusiast, death was indeed commonplace, terribly tragic, but accepted as part of the sport. It is impossible to reconcile my views with yours and others here.

I hear what you are saying, I can't pretend that you are alone in your opinion, but I will say that the opposite is true that many of us can't reconcile our views with yours.

Originally Posted by bauble

Despite what many others on the forum say, in comparison with previous eras motor racing is not dangerous, at least no more than getting out of bed in the morning (might depend on whose wife was also there).

I can agree that the level of danger is vastly different. But to continue to say that it is currently NOT dangerous will just result in your opinions being ignored and discounted as it is extremely obvious that you are incorrect. I suspect even those who share your basic point of view can't support that assertion. Then again, what we say here has little impact on what actually happens.

Originally Posted by bauble

I fully appreciate that I come across as callous, and uncaring about the demise of a driver, that is not truly the case it is just that I see it as a natural consequence of driving fast cars. Believe me there is a VERY long list of men I still feel sad about, many I had met, many I simply admired from the pages of the magazines (no TV back then), they are not forgotten and they are still heroes to me.

I have to admit, I feel there is a bit of a "martyr to the cause" situation going on with respect to various drivers of past eras who died in ways that likely will not happen today. THAT is what makes me sad.

Richard

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by bauble

On the wall next to my desk is a photo of Eugenio Castellotti driving a 2.5 litre Lancia at Spa in 1954 it was taken during the wet practice.
For me that is what a Grand Prix car/driver is. Dangerous, exciting and totally admirable.

As always feel free to scold me for my inhumanity.

Bob.

i wouldnt say its inhumanity but i would question the connection you make between danger and admiration though.

for example, if you saw someone running across a busy highway would you have admiration for that person?

of course not (im assuming).

on the other hand if you saw an engineer run into a nuclear reactor to stop a meltdown, i think we would all agree that that person is doing something admirable.

to be fair, i understand your point about modern racing lacking the same level of danger/risk/excitement that it had in the past...actually i think that is an absolutely true statement.

but i have to believe that there is more of a reason then 'danger or risk' for you (and for me and the rest of us) about why you see those race car drivers of your past as admirable or as heroes.

anyone can do something dangerous...usually that just makes them idiots so i think there has to be more to the story.

or maybe it is just that simple. with no offence given (im calling you old here), maybe it has to do with growing up in the aftermath of WW2 where perhaps danger and nobility were more closely linked.

a sensibility that has (for good or bad) eroded over time.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Not wanting to state the obvious but motorsport is dangerous and always has been but fortunately not as dangerous as it once was, due to the myriad of improvements in car, driver and track safety. However, it is still dangerous and any further improvements should be considered and fully tested, before rushing to implement them. The last thing F1 or other open cockpit series needs, is to create a dangerous situation where one didn't exist.

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by bauble

And Verstappen would probably be dead and Fangio still alive.

If he'd been born 50 years later then i'd hope that Fangio would still be alive 😉 Fortunately he made it through dangerous times.

[bauble]

Do you remember Alonso's crash earlier this year? The McLaren was totally destroyed, bits everywhere, but Fernando walked away. Magnusson at Spa, a colossal impact - a few bruises.

That is what I mean by 'not dangerous'. Probably neither would have survived 10 - 20years ago. If anyone disputes that, being able to suffer such incidents and not get hurt, means F1 is not particularly dangerous. Then they have a whole different idea of danger to me. Bianchi died in a freak accident due to the recovery vehicle being where it would not be while the race was running normally. To use this as an example of the danger of F1 is really not sensible.

And yes! Having lived through the World War (2) and having narrowly escaped a couple of bombs falling near by I, perhaps do have a different perspective on things.

The use of the word 'heroes' is relative, and used simply in regard to motor sport by me on here. Many sportsmen are described as heroes, it does no mean they saved mankind in some fashion.

[TrapezeArtist]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

anyone can do something dangerous...usually that just makes them idiots so i think there has to be more to the story.

or maybe it is just that simple. with no offence given (im calling you old here), maybe it has to do with growing up in the aftermath of WW2 where perhaps danger and nobility were more closely linked.

I'm not as old as bauble, but older than most on here, and over the years I've felt a resistance to the latest safety measure rising within me because it has seemed to take away some character from the sport. It has been a feeling I've had to make a real effort to suppress.

I've done enough stupid things in my life to be somewhat surprised by my own survival. None of them were heroic, but many of them brought me a degree of pleasure and satisfaction. People will always do dangerous things for fun, but if they can do those same things more safely, that's better.