Formula One fatalities.

[munudeges]

What a comment! I cannot remember any instance of watching a driver die on TV.

What a comment indeed...... Roger Williamson, Ronnie Peterson (died later, but the crash was terrible to watch), Riccardo Paletti...... I suggest you acquaint yourself with Formula 1 history and read a bit of this thread you're commenting on. We've had many crashes in Formula 1, where drivers have died or not, that just haven't been acceptable to a televised sport.

The Roger Williamson crash was a watershed moment really for Formula 1 because it was the first time something like that had been televised and thereafter there was at least some motivation to try and improve things, although progress was glacial until we got into the 80s when it was televised even more. Prior to that, the period in the 60s and into the 70s where there was this much vaunted safety crusade by Stewart and others saw no improvements of any kind whatsoever. Drivers were still dying and being injured in exactly the same ways.

What do you think that viewers should see? Blood covering the camera lens?

I don't understand that because it has nothing to do with my comment. The motivation for 'safety' in the late 70s and into the 80s came about precisely because the sport could not afford that kind of thing on the camera lens if it wanted to make the kind of money it turned out doing, and does today.

I don't know how you can call it chest puffing. Stewart saw a lot of his fellow competitors die. And because of him, and the likes of Mosley, racing is far safer and the families of those who compete are not under the constant fear of losing their son/father/husband etc.

I'm afraid repeating this party line will not make it true. In the time in the late 60s and into the 70s when there was this much vaunted 'safety' drive nothing changed. The cars didn't change, the circuits didn't change, the medical facilities were still poor and the marshalling organisation, as witnessed in Roger Williamson's death, was still as pathetic as it had ever been in the 60s and even the 50s. Jackie Stewart and Max Mosley did zilch to change that in the time they say they were calling for change.

On the contrary, and as GB has already pointed out, the thing that I really have a problem with with Jackie Stewart is during the time he was making noises about safety he was happily driving past other cars on fire with drivers trapped in them. He drove past Roger Williamson's car as he did with Clay Regazzoni a year later. He never got out to help a fellow driver as Graham Hill did to save his life in 1966.

[aral]

having followed f1 since its inception, I would say I have seen far more incidents than most on here. yes, we see crashes, but we do not see people dying on tv, unlike the senna crash where the tv was focused on him being "attended" to, and he was actually dying.
hence my comment to you about what do you want to see? I certainly would not get any pleasure to see a dying person on tv, and don't understand any person who seemingly wants to view the crashes in detail. sometimes I feel that there should be a 30 sec delay on transmission, so if the camera on a car that was involved in a serious crash, was on at the moment of impact, then the tv producer could have time to react and block the transmission.
and for you to say that the safety crusade by stewart and others , saw no improvement? That is one of the weirdest comments I have seen here! there was a terrific improvement in safety, and to dismiss it as puffed up egos is frankly insulting to those who brought about change. I think that every f1 pundit attributes most of the current safety of f1, to stewart

[GitanesBlondes]

I would do away completely with tarmac runoff areas, and the FIA's moronic standards for grade 1 status which results in numerous tracks being dumbed down, or horribly designed new circuits. Make the tracks so they again punish for putting 4 wheels off instead of the out of bounds being tarmac.

Ehm, so you make such sweeping statements only over tarmac run-offs?
There's a bunch of ways to deal with it, and there are still tracks like Montreal or Suzuka on calendar. And I don't think all new circuits are horribly designed. In fact I enjoyed Turkey a lot, India and Korea are not that bad, and COTA is simply brilliant!

Would you like me to go further?

I'd go back to the more exposed cockpits that we had less than 2 decades ago. Not really a fan of the knee-jerk reaction of Massa getting hit in the head with a spring, and further trying to hide the drivers in the cars.

Eliminate the minimum ride height rule.

India and Korea are horribly designed tracks that have absolutely no flow to them. Compared to some of the tracks in the USA, COTA is garbage. It's an amalgam of other tracks thrown into a blender and spit out. Watkins Glen and Road America are far better circuits. Sure it's a nice facility if you like that sort of thing, but I couldn't care less personally.

[GitanesBlondes]

and for you to say that the safety crusade by stewart and others , saw no improvement? That is one of the weirdest comments I have seen here! there was a terrific improvement in safety, and to dismiss it as puffed up egos is frankly insulting to those who brought about change. I think that every f1 pundit attributes most of the current safety of f1, to stewart

As both munudeges and I have said, Jackie Stewart was a hypocrite who never once bothered to stop for any single driver who found themselves in a terrible accident. As Sir Jackie tells it to the cameras every time they are on him, the race was never stopped in those days, which is true enough. However, for a guy who continues crowing to no end about the stand he took on safety, that he never stopped is rather alarming. Had he bothered to stop when Roger Williamson was burning to death at Zandvoort, I suspect Roger might have had a chance. All it would have taken was Jackie to stop his car and try to block the circuit to force other drivers to stop too. They could have helped David Purley...but instead Purley was the only one who bothered to try and save Roger Williamson.

Piers Courage, Jo Siffert, Roger Williamson, Lorenzo Bandini, Jo Schlesser, and so on...Jackie Stewart never bothered to stop for any of them. The only one he ever bothered to go check on was Francois Cevert, but that didn't happen during a race, so I suspect had Francois crashed during the actual grand prix at Watkins Glen, Jackie never would have stopped.

John Barnard did far more for the cause of safety than Jackie Stewart did simply because of the carbon fiber monocoque. Remember, even after Jackie went into retirement in '73, drivers were still being killed or severely injured all the way up to the early 80s. Did Jackie have an impact on safety? In some aspects, yes he did. But his impact on it was nowhere near the level of John Barnard, or Sid Watkins. Unfortunately, the media remains forever enamored with Jackie Stewart, so they will not ever consider looking into the matter more deeply since they are under Jackie's Siren Song. To put all of the credit on his shoulders is ludicrous as there is nothing to support it as being down to him.

Current safety is mostly down to Senna, as his death was the entire impetus for where safety is currently. But his death and the 1994 season as a whole has a lot to do with where we are currently. But you know what the real shame of the large safety push was? Drivers began to feel invincible and no longer maintained the same level of respect for their fellow drivers as they once did on the circuit. Why would they when the chances of being seriously injured, or even being killed plummeted to such a low percentage, that they have a greater chance of being killed on public roads than on a race circuit? It's what has led to a new generation of F1 drivers who have no spatial awareness and think it is perfectly acceptable to take aggression out on another driver by ramming into them. They even try to squeeze opponents off the circuit, or divebomb them the inside. If they were in the rolling petrol bombs of 40 years ago, the driver being squeezed off/divebombed would be at a rather high risk of being killed.

Safety in motor racing is a double-edged sword that has plenty of drawbacks that would be quite apparent if people would open their eyes once in awhile, instead of continuing to hold up the word of Max Mosley as the ultimate truth. If safety in motor sport were a bit more lax, fans could again have the same thrill that fans in another generation experienced watching Sir Stirling and his brethren blasting down the Italian country roads, from Rome to Brescia in excess of 170MPH.

[timbo]

Would you like me to go further?

I'd go back to the more exposed cockpits that we had less than 2 decades ago. Not really a fan of the knee-jerk reaction of Massa getting hit in the head with a spring, and further trying to hide the drivers in the cars.

The were no changes in cockpit protection originated from Massa's crash, the changes were in the helmet.
And I am strongly opposed to lowering cockit protection. You are putting drivers to are direct avoidable risk if you remove side protection.

Eliminate the minimum ride height rule.

Which does what exactly to safety?

India and Korea are horribly designed tracks that have absolutely no flow to them. Compared to some of the tracks in the USA, COTA is garbage. It's an amalgam of other tracks thrown into a blender and spit out. Watkins Glen and Road America are far better circuits. Sure it's a nice facility if you like that sort of thing, but I couldn't care less personally.

A question of taste.
And how many tracks there are in US? It's always funny to see people dropping names like Spa, Zolder, etc saying new circuits are bad. It's that there are numners of great circuits which we remember because they are far better than the rest.
Same like with new circuits.

[Manoah2u]

Would you like me to go further?

I'd go back to the more exposed cockpits that we had less than 2 decades ago. Not really a fan of the knee-jerk reaction of Massa getting hit in the head with a spring, and further trying to hide the drivers in the cars.

The were no changes in cockpit protection originated from Massa's crash, the changes were in the helmet.
And I am strongly opposed to lowering cockit protection. You are putting drivers to are direct avoidable risk if you remove side protection.

in response to GB's idea to destroy the legacy that is left behind by race deaths;

return to 'no-head-protection' will kill drivers. if there had been driver protection, senna would NOT have died.
if there had been NO driver head protection: Jos Verstappen would have died in 1996. Kubica would have died
with his violent crash. Mark webber would highly probable sustained fatal injuries from the sheer violence of
impact. that is atleast 4 deaths in less then 2 decades because you personally lack respect for human life.
how about a kneejerk reaction to the families, fans and the driver themselves......

Eliminate the minimum ride height rule.

Which does what exactly to safety?

@timbo; it does exactly this to safety; so we'll have a repeat of senna's death because it'll bottom out into a wall.

yes, great pleasure, GB. let's remove any form of safety so we increase the potential of the satisfaction of death while sitting cumfy in the chair.

sad that people value other people's life so low. - even worse; worse that people lack respect for the dead, the lives
that have been lost because of insufficient respect. the only 'good' about the losses of these lives were that the 'good'
that came out of it is more safety and protection so it doesn't have to happen again. instead - these ideas to dump
the things that were put in place so these horribile things never have to happen again are like sticking 2 fingers up
to the sport and everything involved within.

because the only way to read the above is that one prefers to see death happening rather than life,
for the sole purpose of entertainment / getting amused. yet 'some same people' mention that actual drivers whom
advertise safety are hypocrits when they drive pass fellow drivers in [mortal] danger [Stewart]......

i'd love to see people have the same discussion with actual racing drivers and the fia and their families face to face.
and then have themselves step into such a 'death machine' they personally advertise.

[shamyakovic]

Derek Daly vaults the tyre barriers at the 1980 Dutch Grand Prix
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n86GWqqWCRM[/youtube]

i think Derek survived because of the tyre barriers had enough strength to absorb the impact (rather than break it) even with a non-cabon fibre car

[aral]

gitanes. there is a vast difference between stopping to help in a crash situation, and campaigning for safety! I think that you are being very insulting to call stewart a hypocrite. it is well known and accepted in the medical industry, that assisting in a crash is best left to the trained experts, and I doubt that stewart had any such training. yes, there have been drivers who have stopped to lend some assistance, and they are to be commended for that. but stewart also has to be commended for initiating improvements in track safety and car safety, that has undoubtedly helped to save many lives.

[Manoah2u]

Maria de Villota - F1 driver. DEAD due to fatal head injury [collision with obstacle].



Ayrton Senna Da Silva - F1 driver. DEAD due to fatal head injury [high-speed-crash]



Ronald Ratzenberger - F1 driver. DEAD by a basal skull fracture after a 190mph collision.

[timbo]

Would you like me to go further?

I'd go back to the more exposed cockpits that we had less than 2 decades ago. Not really a fan of the knee-jerk reaction of Massa getting hit in the head with a spring, and further trying to hide the drivers in the cars.

The were no changes in cockpit protection originated from Massa's crash, the changes were in the helmet.
And I am strongly opposed to lowering cockit protection. You are putting drivers to are direct avoidable risk if you remove side protection.

return to 'no-head-protection' will kill drivers. if there had been driver protection, senna would NOT have died.
if there had been NO driver head protection: Jos Verstappen would have died in 1996. Kubica would have died
with his violent crash. Mark webber would highly probable sustained fatal injuries from the sheer violence of
impact. that is atleast 4 deaths in less then 2 decades because you personally lack respect for human life.
how about a kneejerk reaction to the families, fans and the driver themselves......

You somehow quote me, like I am supporter of removing side protection. I am not! I am all for better cockpit protection!

Eliminate the minimum ride height rule.

Which does what exactly to safety?

so we'll have a repeat of senna's death because it'll bottom out into a wall. yes, great pleasure. let's remove any
form of safety so we increase the potential of the satisfaction of death while sitting cumfy in the chair.

[/quote]
Well, since this is technical forum I need to clarify my point. I don't see much danger in removing plank. We see that people tend to devise ways to run the ride-height as low as possible anyway via flexing etc. What I think was actually dangerous was flat bottom rule -- which really has a dangerous pitch attitude. I am against return of that, if that was what GB proposed.

[Manoah2u]

You somehow quote me, like I am supporter of removing side protection. I am not! I am all for better cockpit protection!

Well, since this is technical forum I need to clarify my point. I don't see much danger in removing plank. We see that people tend to devise ways to run the ride-height as low as possible anyway via flexing etc. What I think was actually dangerous was flat bottom rule -- which really has a dangerous pitch attitude. I am against return of that, if that was what GB proposed.

exactly.

i'm not quoting you in the sense it is your opinion, i'm adressing GB's attitude, whilst answering your post. sorry if it seemed otherwise. i'll clarify my post.

[Manoah2u]

should driver protection be implemented back in 1994 like now, this would have been the sight:



[kubica's impact was more severe into the wall then was senna's. yet the level of safety and driver protection is of
such higher class, kubica was able to live and tell and race another day.]

like this one:




even though tires surely will have aided in his survival, JV would be in worse shape without head protection.

and lets not forget how easily it could have been 3 deaths at that Imola weekend.

[GitanesBlondes]

I've been thinking some more.

I'd revert Spa back to the old configuration. No armco, just power and telegraph poles lining the circuit.

That's the sort of thing that separates the men from the boys.

[GitanesBlondes]

gitanes. there is a vast difference between stopping to help in a crash situation, and campaigning for safety! I think that you are being very insulting to call stewart a hypocrite. it is well known and accepted in the medical industry, that assisting in a crash is best left to the trained experts, and I doubt that stewart had any such training. yes, there have been drivers who have stopped to lend some assistance, and they are to be commended for that. but stewart also has to be commended for initiating improvements in track safety and car safety, that has undoubtedly helped to save many lives.

Don't apply 2013 standards to the standards that existed at Zandvoort on July 29, 1973.

The marshals made no effort to help David Purley, and that shouldn't be forgotten. A few drivers helping would have had a better chance of getting the March upright.

[DM0407]

I think Stewart could be credited with uniting the drivers in a crusade for better protection. Its easier to drown out the voice of one man as opposed to the entire paddock.

That being said, you mention that Jackie was not properly trained to stop and help during an accident. It seems if his ultimate commitment was to save lives, than there is no reason he could not have been trained similar to some random person pulled from the street and asked to hold a flag on the side of a race track.

I want more risk, but not just for the sake of danger and drama. I want to see unwieldy cars going faster than I could ever imagine. I want these drivers to be able to drive at 95% of the cars ability and anything more would be taking a risk for the potential of greater glory.. I want a world champion that truly deserves to be considered not only the fastest, but the bravest.

But, I also I want them to have every chance of survival available to them, wheel tethers, on site medical teams, high cockpits and the like. I don't want to see anyone die. Particularly the drivers we have become accustomed to watching all these years. But I want that fear to push the pedal to the floor to still be there.

Unfortunately when we think about drivers dying we tend to focus on what their career would have been like had they survived that freak accident. Whats more important is that most of these men have families and children whom will never see there father again. I think that is the true tragedy of these fatal accidents.