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

[strad]

Misquotes and outright lies.
To answer your question,,just today David Hobbs was talking about the Masta Kink and why it was a test...
Seems there was a pole set in concrete right beside the track right where you wanted to set the car up and back then their idea of safety was to lean a hay bale against it. That's what made it hard,,,that post...without the post it wasn't squat.
Thesame David Hobbs by the way, that keep bemoaning the fact that there is sooo much runoff. He repeatedly points out that where they use the area slightly off track that is green is exactly where the guardrail was back in the day. And how much more daunting it was when they were actually roads and Stavelot was actually where you turned to go to Stavelot and how much better it was when there was a huge drop off right over there Etc.

[SeijaKessen]

Comparing road deaths with F1 deaths is ridiculous. F1 is a tightly controlled series in which the competitors have to demonstrate a high level of skill (and usually relevant experience) and in which the cars and environment are strictly controlled to maximise safety. The drivers understand that their participation is a privilege.

The public highway is exactly the opposite - those using it are often unskilled and sometimes unqualified. The environment is usually, at best, a basic one, and usually is lacking in any form of safety feature. Most users feel a "right" to be there.

Then there are the numbers. F1 is limited to 20-24 drivers. The roads contain many millions of users, some of whom are inherently incompetent, some of whom have inflicted incompetence upon themselves (DUI). Nearly all of the users would be of a risk profile that would disqualify them from F1.

Indeed, to even suggest that comparing US road deaths and F1 deaths is a suitable metric of acceptable safety levels is, at best, disingenuous and at worst is just plain idiotic.

Listen, here's what it comes down to...

If you partake in auto racing, you are engaging in a risky venture that holds plenty of risks.

So long as you are made aware of the potential for serious injury beforehand, that is all that matters.

From that point on, you have your own choice as to whether or not you want to engage in this activity.

I have always maintained these simple points.

Unfortunately most people here seem to be incapable of accepting any opposing opinion.

[SeijaKessen]

Also just_a_fan...

Somehow I doubt you lament the loss of every day people who have a by far greater impact on the world than any F1 driver does.

Public roads are unsafe, so you accept it.

Yet going fast in racing --which is unsafe by it's very nature-- yourself and others are unwilling to accept that reality.

[strad]

+100

[Lycoming]

I'd say a few deaths here and there in F1 isn't so bad.

Do you realize what you're saying?

Thanks for taking only part of what I said, and then editing it to make it look like something else.

What I said was...

Either way relative to how many people are killed during the course of a year in car accidents in the US, I'd say a few deaths here and there in F1 isn't so bad.

Do you happen to notice the comma in there?

It's all part of one sentence.

People who selectively take part of a sentence, and then try to present it as the entire sentence are usually the people who are dishonest. Good job, that's something to be proud of.

It doesn't matter that I cut it out. Even if I left it there, the statement isn't really any better.

If you partake in auto racing, you are engaging in a risky venture that holds plenty of risks.

So long as you are made aware of the potential for serious injury beforehand, that is all that matters.

From that point on, you have your own choice as to whether or not you want to engage in this activity.

This is how life works. However, it is NOT an excuse for lax safety standards. It does NOT make it ok to have a sport where people are getting killed or seriously injured on a regular basis. it should NOT be used to justify not trying to improve safety. Just because this is true, does not mean that the guy who invented HANS shouldn't have bothered.

[RB7ate9]

Misquotes and outright lies.
To answer your question,,just today David Hobbs was talking about the Masta Kink and why it was a test...
Seems there was a pole set in concrete right beside the track right where you wanted to set the car up and back then their idea of safety was to lean a hay bale against it. That's what made it hard,,,that post...without the post it wasn't squat.
Thesame David Hobbs by the way, that keep bemoaning the fact that there is sooo much runoff. He repeatedly points out that where they use the area slightly off track that is green is exactly where the guardrail was back in the day. And how much more daunting it was when they were actually roads and Stavelot was actually where you turned to go to Stavelot and how much better it was when there was a huge drop off right over there Etc.

While the response to the "danger of F1, Past v. Present" was a bit heavy-handed, he did just ask about the "Masta" corner and, as his reply to me stated, he had found out by the third reply. Within the next 6, though, it trailed off into the discussion now present. he did start this thread asking about a specific corner.

As for the larger discussion that has come to pass: as we saw in the free practice, the large runoff areas are forgiving for mistakes made. Instead of completely punishing mistakes practice sessions and qualifying, we see the maximum and get a full grid on Sunday. I would figure that purposefully having them close would be yet another form of artificial excitement. Keeping the trees and the armco closer for the express purpose of upping the excitement. Just one thought.

[Just_a_fan]

Listen, here's what it comes down to...

If you partake in auto racing, you are engaging in a risky venture that holds plenty of risks.

So long as you are made aware of the potential for serious injury beforehand, that is all that matters.

From that point on, you have your own choice as to whether or not you want to engage in this activity.

And as I pointed out a while ago, the drivers have decided that the risks were too great and they wanted changes to be made. Thus we have the levels of safety that we have today. Today's drivers don't think it's acceptable to lose a fellow driver or two each season.

There are lots of sports where the participants actively seem to seek to tap death on the shoulder and then run away. F1 isn't one of those sports anymore. F1 has made its choice and it won't be going back on it.

[Just_a_fan]

Misquotes and outright lies.
To answer your question,,just today David Hobbs was talking about the Masta Kink and why it was a test...
Seems there was a pole set in concrete right beside the track right where you wanted to set the car up and back then their idea of safety was to lean a hay bale against it. That's what made it hard,,,that post...without the post it wasn't squat.
Thesame David Hobbs by the way, that keep bemoaning the fact that there is sooo much runoff. He repeatedly points out that where they use the area slightly off track that is green is exactly where the guardrail was back in the day. And how much more daunting it was when they were actually roads and Stavelot was actually where you turned to go to Stavelot and how much better it was when there was a huge drop off right over there Etc.?

Is this the same David Hobbs who never raced an F1 car at Spa?

You're right, though, getting the car as close as possible to the post was a big test of balls.

It's interesting that the drivers got Spa changed after they boycotted the race in 1969. Even back then they were tired of drivers being killed or seriously injured at corners like the Masta Kink.

[Nando]

I'd say a few deaths here and there in F1 isn't so bad.

Again it doesn´t matter what context it´s in. The fact that he tries to brush it off is mindboggling.

[FoxHound]

Also just_a_fan...

Somehow I doubt you lament the loss of every day people who have a by far greater impact on the world than any F1 driver does.

Public roads are unsafe, so you accept it.

Yet going fast in racing --which is unsafe by it's very nature-- yourself and others are unwilling to accept that reality.

Your comparison is grossly unfair. 49 drivers have been killed in F1 cars since it's inception, and that's not including track side marshal's or spectators. Do the math, since 1950 with a field of an average 26 drivers a year up to and including the last death of the late and great Ayrton Senna, that's 44 years losing a driver or more each year.
It means the chances of you dying in an F1 car each year (up to 1994) was around 4%. Now tell me, when I climb into my car since when is there or ever has been a 4%(roughly 1-20) chance of me dying behind the wheel for that given year?
Nobody would drive on public roads if this was the case.

F1 is not too safe. All it would take would be an extenuating set of circumstances and we will have another fatality. No one should have to die for their sport and it is the responsibility of the everyone who takes part that it should not happen.
Kudos to Max Mosley for taking the bull by the horns and ensuring a safer generation of F1, it was his only good legacy.

[Richard]

We've had accusations of lies, death threats, trolls, and morons in this thread. They have been removed.

[Stradivarius]

Your wrong and in my opinion looking for something to rail on about. I don't think care one whit about safety on the road or track...I think you just want to take the other side.

What exactly have I said which is wrong? And why do you consider it to be wrong? What are your reasons for saying this, beyond the fact that you don't agree?

Regarding the comparrison between genereal road safety and the safety in formula 1, there is a way to calculate the risk in a way that makes it comparable: You can find statistics on the number of road fatalities per 1 billion vehicle km. For USA this number was 8.5 a few years ago, and I assume it hasn't changed too much.

Assuming that an f1-car on average covers 750 km during a race weekend, you'll get 330 000 km from 22 cars during 20 races (which I believe is an over-estimate of the average during the last 30 years, as there has never been 20 races in a season before, and also because reliability issues have usually stoped a few cars from running very far at each race). Mercedes was the team that ran the most km during winter testing this year, when they reached 4450 km. One of the teams didn't test at all, so if the average for the 10 teams that did test was 4000 km, we can add 40 000 km to the 330 000 km and we get 370 000 km. Of course, during some seasons there was quite a lot more testing, but I don't really know how much f1 drivers have been testing through history. So let's assume an average of 400 000 vehicle km per season in, and let those who feel that this number is too low speak up. During 30 years that will be 12 000 000 km, or 0.012 billion vehicle km. 4 deaths during this time would then give you 333 deaths per 1 billion vehicle km. So formula 1 is quite a lot more dangerous after all. If one believes american traffic to be dangerous, killing 33 808 people each year, formula 1 is at least 40 times more dangerous, a ratio of 40:1. If we include the entire f1 history, it gets a lot worse. In the beginning there were a lot fewer cars and a fewer races, but more fatalities.

Edit: To finish the comparison, let's assume that an average person travels 25 000 km in the traffic each year for 80 years. This amounts to 2 million km during a life time. Using number from the USA, this would give a probability of getting killed in traffic of 1.7%. Let's further assume that an average f1 career is 10 years and that this involved an average of 18 000 km of driving per year, including races and testing. Then the probability of getting killed in f1 would be 6%, more than 3 times higher than getting killed during a lifetime in traffic. Of course, in order to reach f1-you would have to participate in a lot of motor-racing first, also involving risk. Whether or not this is relevant depends on whether we are discussing the safety of the driver through-out his entire career, or only the part he spends in f1.

[Nando]

I bet you were devastated when Alonso nearly got decapitated there.....maybe next time eh?

After all, some deaths in F1 would not be that bad..

[Stradivarius]

Also just_a_fan...

Somehow I doubt you lament the loss of every day people who have a by far greater impact on the world than any F1 driver does.

Public roads are unsafe, so you accept it.

Yet going fast in racing --which is unsafe by it's very nature-- yourself and others are unwilling to accept that reality.

I don't see how it's relevant whether or not one laments the loss of every day people in traffic. I suppose that most of us would have prefered the number of lives lost in traffic to be zero if that was feasible. And until recently I believed this to be the case for formula 1 as well.

Accepting the current risk of getting killed in traffic is not the same as not wishing that the risk was lower. I drive my car, trying to avoid dangerous situations, but I am fully aware that there is still a risk of me getting killed in an accident, either due to the fault myself, or due to circumstances that I can't influence myself. So you could argue that I accept the risk, since I do travel in traffic, but that doesn't mean I don't think the risk should be lower. I consider taking the risk to be more acceptable than the alternative; which would be to never go anywhere, just sit home all my life.

Generally speaking, I would say that wherever the risk could be reduced at an acceptable cost, it should be reduced. You have argued that since so many people get killed in traffic, 4 deaths in 30 years in formula 1 is acceptable. I have already tried to show that the risk in formula 1 actually is much higher than on public roads, but even if it wasn't, I would say that 4 people getting killed in 30 years is too much if it is possible to improve the safety and reduce the number to less than 4 people in 30 years. One should never consider the safety/risk to be acceptable as long as people gets killed. One should always look for ways to improve safety and that is what happens everywhere around us.

And just to inform you: The only reason why formula 1 has become so safe that it is even comparable to public roads (if you can considere 333 deaths per 1 billion vehicle km to be comparable to 8.5), is that there has been a high focus on safety for a long time. The attitude has not been the same as yours, regarding motor racing as dangerous by nature and therefore accepting anything based on this view. Racing at speeds above 300 km/h doesn't have to be nowhere near as dangerous as it was 40 years ago. And when it doesn't have to be as dangerous, it shouldn't be as dangerous.

[lizardfolk]

And when it doesn't have to be as dangerous, it shouldn't be as dangerous.

I think this attitude is the perfect one for dangerous activities like motorsports, boat racing, rock climbing, skydiving, etc.

Just to put into perspective how ludicrous the idea that "a dangerous sport will lose it's character when it's safer" I'm going to school in Utah (rocky mountains). Do you know there's a few rock climbing enthusiasts that claim that a rope pulley system for climbing takes away the "character" of climbing mountains? Absolute ludicrous and misses the point of climbing mountains to begin with.

Racing is about speed. It's about achievement through extreme speed. It's not about being dangerous. Danger is a by product of speed not the product itself.

Obviously there's a line, as in, if you force F1 to go 100 per hour and force pitstops every 10 laps just to be sure the tyres wont fail or something then that's too much. But we should never shy away from safety if it doesn't diminish on track competition.