Deaths of F1 drivers since 1994...

[Yoong Montoya]

This isn't some sick thread BTW. I was just wondering if you think F1 has just been lucky in not having a death of a driver since 1994. There have been a few close brushes with death in the last 4 years:

Michael Schumacher in Silverstone 1999
Burti in Hockenheim and Spa 2001
Ralf Schumacher in Melbourne 2002
Takuma Sato and Nick Heidfeld in Austria 2002
Allan McNish in Suzuka 2002

Not all of these examples were equally close of course. And there's probably a few more.

No matter how safe F1 is, if one driver is unlucky enough, it's curtains for his life. . Look at the likes of Gilles Villeneuve and Ayrton Senna.

It looks unlikely that there will ever be another driver death in F1, but you shouldn't get a false sense of security about it. There's every chance that Michael Schumacher will be racing hard for the lead in a future race, and he loses it and CRASH! and that's it.

Of course, if this did happen, I'm sure he would become as popular as Ayrton Senna.

[ASCII Man]

Not really...

[ASCII Man]

Schumacher could only get his titles by cheating or contract ****...

[®îjñtjûh, please stop dodging the autocensor.]

[Mr V]

Originally posted by ®îjñtjûh
Schumacher could only get his titles by cheating or contract cr*p...

A couple of things.......

1) whats this gotta do with the thread (YM, what will you think of next? )

and

2) Why do you (funny named person) always post 2 or 3 posts in a row, when you could say it all in one?

[Lee Janotta]

ANYWAYS, back to the original topic...

No, they haven't been lucky. The cars are so strong now it'd be hard for drivers to get themselves killed in an F1 car if they were trying! Which, to me, is a fabulous thing.

Having the cars strong and safe takes nothing away from the racing... Indeed, the cars are so safe now that no excuses for modifying circuits to improve safety should be tolerated, aside from common sense solutions which are already accepted by all such as tire barriers and avoidance of blunk impacts with walls at speed.

Only the footboxes could possibly be improved at this point, perhaps with a thickened section along each side of the nose. We've had some nasty ones in the past couple years, and everyone's walked away. We can be a bit bolder now with the circuits.

Heck, we could probably stage a GP on the Nordschliefe with reasonable certainty no one would be seriously injured.

[steve nielsen]

Max Mosley has said a few months after Jos's accident in 1996 at Spa that if it was'nt for the head protection Jos would'nt have survived it.

and THIS is what a broken suspension can cause:



very lucky indeed, Jos never missed a race.

[ASCII Man]

They only need to improve spectator safety maybe?

[steve nielsen]

and the marshalls safety of course(remember Monza 2000 and Albert Park 2001)

[Mr V]

And why was my post pulled?

[ZoomZoomZoom]

Originally posted by Lee Janotta
ANYWAYS, back to the original topic...

No, they haven't been lucky. The cars are so strong now it'd be hard for drivers to get themselves killed in an F1 car if they were trying! Which, to me, is a fabulous thing.

Having the cars strong and safe takes nothing away from the racing... Indeed, the cars are so safe now that no excuses for modifying circuits to improve safety should be tolerated, aside from common sense solutions which are already accepted by all such as tire barriers and avoidance of blunk impacts with walls at speed.

Only the footboxes could possibly be improved at this point, perhaps with a thickened section along each side of the nose. We've had some nasty ones in the past couple years, and everyone's walked away. We can be a bit bolder now with the circuits.

Heck, we could probably stage a GP on the Nordschliefe with reasonable certainty no one would be seriously injured.

Don't agree. Any time you have a high-speed off you've got a chance of someone getting killed. Especially if the car gets airborne - anything can happen then, more so if there are obstacles close to the track. Witness the support race at Suzuka - one lucky driver and one VERY lucky camera man.

[Bononi]

®îjñtjûh - I'll be deleting any posts that are off topic.

Sorry Mr v, it was off topic.

[Tristan]

"Schumacher could only get his titles by cheating or contract cr*p..."

That's just arse-cheese of the highest order and I don't care if this gets deleted, I've had enough go missing over the past few days already!!

[Mr V]

Originally posted by Bononi
®îjñtjûh - I'll be deleting any posts that are off topic.

Sorry Mr v, it was off topic.

Fair enough.

[ASCII Man]

I don't mind either..

[Lee Janotta]

Originally posted by ZoomZoomZoom
Don't agree. Any time you have a high-speed off you've got a chance of someone getting killed. Especially if the car gets airborne - anything can happen then, more so if there are obstacles close to the track. Witness the support race at Suzuka - one lucky driver and one VERY lucky camera man.

Yeah, but we've had repeated high-speed offs, and no one has gotten hurt in them! This was almost a tradgedy because some idiot Japanese director put a cameraman head-on from the racing action, completely exposed. But the driver survived, despite not being in a car built to F1 standards, which are what we're discussing.

[NiceGuyEddie]

The Heidfeld/Sato accident had everything to do with sheer luck. The point of impact could easily have been one that would've killed Sato on the spot. The sport will never be 100% life-risk or serious injury-risk free. Today, drivers survive impacts that wouldve killed them a mere 10 years ago, which of course, is a good thing. Other than that, we always have to be prepared for the worst.

[nameless]

it is true that there have been many accidents in recent years which may have killed drivers in the not too distant past, but then again it only takes a freak incident to kill someone, for example senna's accident was definitely not the worst but he was very unlucky, with the sato/heidfeld incident the luck went with sato but it could very easily not have.

[Total-F1]

All fatal accidents are freak accidents - if they weren't it goes under the more common name of murder.

Does Mika Hakkinen's brush with death not even qualify a passing mention? There are always going to be fatalities in a such high risk sport, there's nothing you can do other than prepare for the eventuality.

I think we've been incredibly lucky that someone hasn't been killed since 1994.

[R]

Yes, we have. Drivers, that is. It's been a combination of luck and increased safety.

[Total-F1]

Increased safety = increased "luck"

At least the powers-that-be have done (almost) everything to make the drivers as lucky as possible...

Although I remember talk in '95 of having airbags in F1 cars :P

[Sodemo]

In my view F1 now is too safe, we need some danger to keep the sport with its glamour intact.
I love karting, partly for the thrill and the danger, JV feels the same way about F1, that it should be dangerous.

[Total-F1]

That's the way to get a more viewers - forget closer racing, let's just kill a few of them.

[Liz]

Well, no one was killed between the time Gilles died and the time Senna died, that I remember. That was what made Senna's death such a terrible shock.

Racing should not BE dangerous, but it should APPEAR dangerous. Jacques of all people should know that.

P.S. that accident to TGF wasn't remotely close to being fatal. Panis' accident was far worse and he didn't make nearly the melodrama out of it. (Or pretend he was still injured when he wasn't, until his daughter gave him away!) And if he hadn't been on the radio screaming at Todt to tell Eddie to move aside for him, he would have heard that the race was red flagged and would not have had any kind of accident at all.

[EERO]

There have been several brushes in the past few seasons. Villenneuve has almost bought it on a couple of ocaissions and I recall Pdreo Diniz had a couple of near things as well.

As much as Bernie ticks me off, I really believe that through his efforts, (and those of Dr. Watkins) that F1 IS much safer than it had been. I think that prior to Senna's death, people had become complacent, but that terrible weekend at Imola and the rash of near things, Alesi, Lehto, Wendlinger, Barichello, shocked the system into a series of important changes, particularly to the cockpit design.

To answer the original question, I recall all to well the horror of the late sixties and early seventies to believe that Racing can ever be without fatalities. The physics of it dictate that some one will always die. Luck AND safety have postponed the inevitable for the past few years, but they won't forever.

[Mr V]

Originally posted by Total-F1
Increased safety = increased "luck"

Disagree to a point, yes, there has been luck involved, and it's fortunate that the has been a bit of luck, nobody wants to see a driver get killed, but increased safety has come about from the hard work done by the likes of Sid Watkins, the technical people within the teams, and as much as i hate to say it, Max Mosely. I don't particularly like the guy, and i don't agree with him bringing in such things as treaded tyres etc, however, the strength of the modern day F1 car is a testimony to Max's dedication to improving safety within F1.