Felipe Massa has given his first interview since the horrible crash in qualifying at the Hungarian GP little more than a week ago. Massa shares that he is feeling much better and can't wait to get behind the wheel of his F60, but wants to fully recover before doing so. The interview is courtesy of the Scuderia Ferrari.
Yes, I know, I saw that. I was referring to your posts, where you have equated closed cockpits to higher levels of safety, which I don't think is necessarily the case.ISLAMATRON wrote:Michiba, a discussion on how to incorperate a fully enclosed, or partially enclosed cockpithas already been started on this forum, maybe you would like to look thru them.
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=7107
Do you think any of the technologies developed during the space race, which was, to quote a post of yours, "a huge waste of money, only a cover up for warfare research", might be useful in this direction?ISLAMATRON wrote:Just like helmets are better than nothing, and may have saved his life, something could augment the helmet and may have saved him from injury... constant improvement must be the mindset, if it wasnt then nobody would have improved on the initial helmets in the first place.
How many drvers in the past ten years have gotten out of an upside down car, on grass, asphalt, or in gravel with little difficulty? I'd say none, or at best very few. Adding a canopy or enclosure to that situation and the extraction of a driver under his own power is greatly increased in both time and difficulty. Also like someone metioned, what about oil getting on it? Would you have tearoffs, would there be a rule in the case of someone having a fire like Jenson had in Melbourne not too far back and getting oil all over Fisi's visor, would there be a rule requiring everyone the was within a certain distance behind to stop and have the windscreen inspected for oil on it? What about a quick release failing and it allowing the air pressure to slam it rapidly against the cockpit, for even a few seconds, and injuring the driver? Also what if it failed and came off the car and hit a following car or cars, or landed on the track and someone hit it sending it into the crowd killing a spectator? A tether wouldn't work because you'd have the thing tethered to car and if the catch failed it could quite literally beat the driver to death and it would be one more thing for a driver to possibly get caught on while trying to get out of a car quickly. None of the people in favor of a canopy or something similar have even come close to answering those questions while at the same time advocating the idea the most.n smikle wrote:Just make it a quick release, Or make it split in two and to the side.
If the car flips over (Very rare) the air box will tilt the car high enough to leave enough room for the driver to come out.
The helmets can be improved too, why not?
A huge reason he survived was the fact he never stopped moving. I think you fail to take that into account. I agree that the safety standards have improved massively, and they should continue to do so. But in damn near every case of a driver being killed , I'd say in the last ten years or so, they all came to a sudden and very abrupt stop. THAT is what killed them. You can stop the body from moving but in no way, no matter what the standards or rules or research, can you stop the internal organs of the human body from impacting your bones and causing fatal injury. Kubica fared as well as he did in large part to the fact that the car was continually shedding energy as it rolled and skidded along the track. You cannot engineer out the laws of physics or this wonderful priviledge we call life. And with life comes chances, you can reduce your odds but never eliminate them.ISLAMATRON wrote:,Did you see Canada '07? Watching Kubica's accident live I would have sworn he would not have survived, but he did... why?
Because you have continually failed to take into account the increased risks and in no way have offered any answers to the questions that have been brought up about the dangers of that system being put in place. You yourself even advocated introducing explosives, or some other release system that is under pressure into a system to remove the part that would enclose the cockpit. How can you not see why so many are opposed to such a foolish suggestion? I'd love to hear your answers to the same questions I've asked over and over again. My post above brings them up yet again.ISLAMATRON wrote:
I really dont understand why so many are so opposed to closed cockpits
You say that, but I'm sure the Massa family are incredibly thankful of the F1 safety standards that have saved Massa's life. Stop making drama, your just as bad as the media.ISLAMATRON wrote:If it was your family member laying in that bed you wouldnt be using words like "as is" and "pretty well"
If they thought it was "pretty well" 20 years ago Massa may not have survived. F1 is about constant improvement, and that should always include the safety of the drivers, crew & spectators as well.
Agreed. ISLAMATRON, you also go on and on about how F1 is full of experts who should be more than capable of building such a thing. These experts have already looked at the idea and dismissed it. Could you imagine the aero benefits of a canopy or raised screen? I'm sure if they could they'd implement it and blag safety to the FIA, but they have probably found that these things create more safety problems than they solve.Ray wrote:Because you have continually failed to take into account the increased risks and in no way have offered any answers to the questions that have been brought up about the dangers of that system being put in place. You yourself even advocated introducing explosives, or some other release system that is under pressure into a system to remove the part that would enclose the cockpit. How can you not see why so many are opposed to such a foolish suggestion? I'd love to hear your answers to the same questions I've asked over and over again. My post above brings them up yet again.ISLAMATRON wrote:
I really dont understand why so many are so opposed to closed cockpits
Also open cockpits provide one of the core draws of F1 and open cockpit racing in general, the ability to see the driver. It helps provide a more personal connection for most viewers to actually be able to see the human in charge of the machine.Ray wrote:Because you have continually failed to take into account the increased risks and in no way have offered any answers to the questions that have been brought up about the dangers of that system being put in place. You yourself even advocated introducing explosives, or some other release system that is under pressure into a system to remove the part that would enclose the cockpit. How can you not see why so many are opposed to such a foolish suggestion? I'd love to hear your answers to the same questions I've asked over and over again. My post above brings them up yet again.ISLAMATRON wrote:
I really dont understand why so many are so opposed to closed cockpits
No. The conversation here isn't gloating. We are people interested in racing having concern about a driver who came very close to losing his life.Diesel wrote:Great info. It seams all this talk about never being able to race etc. is just false news the media is spitting out because it has shock value, f***ing media only interested in money.
Hope all would be fine!The Brazilian's personal doctor Dino Altman said on Tuesday that he was hopeful Massa's eye had not suffered any damage in the crash - as had been initially feared.
"Felipe has opened his left eye and he can see," Altmann told ANSA. "There's no apparent damage. The eye is morphologically healthy."
When I mentioned closed cockpits, I didnt necessarily mean fully enclosed, a bigger windsheild/deflector than now could be all that is needed.Michiba wrote:Yes, I know, I saw that. I was referring to your posts, where you have equated closed cockpits to higher levels of safety, which I don't think is necessarily the case.ISLAMATRON wrote:Michiba, a discussion on how to incorperate a fully enclosed, or partially enclosed cockpithas already been started on this forum, maybe you would like to look thru them.
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=7107
Those same technologies could have been developed if the efforts were put towards a more meaningful goal for mankind.andartop wrote:Do you think any of the technologies developed during the space race, which was, to quote a post of yours, "a huge waste of money, only a cover up for warfare research", might be useful in this direction?ISLAMATRON wrote:Just like helmets are better than nothing, and may have saved his life, something could augment the helmet and may have saved him from injury... constant improvement must be the mindset, if it wasnt then nobody would have improved on the initial helmets in the first place.
He hit that retaining wall pretty damn hard... hard enough to destroy the footbox, something that didnt happen in MAssa's accident(but we know that was not the major part of MAssa's accident). Ever stronger FIA crash standards and HANS devices have been put in lace just for the reasons you stated, but now that has been protected against we see another vulnerability, whereas foreign objects can still strike the drivers head, and now that must be addressed accordingly.Ray wrote:A huge reason he survived was the fact he never stopped moving. I think you fail to take that into account. I agree that the safety standards have improved massively, and they should continue to do so. But in damn near every case of a driver being killed , I'd say in the last ten years or so, they all came to a sudden and very abrupt stop. THAT is what killed them. You can stop the body from moving but in no way, no matter what the standards or rules or research, can you stop the internal organs of the human body from impacting your bones and causing fatal injury. Kubica fared as well as he did in large part to the fact that the car was continually shedding energy as it rolled and skidded along the track. You cannot engineer out the laws of physics or this wonderful priviledge we call life. And with life comes chances, you can reduce your odds but never eliminate them.ISLAMATRON wrote:,Did you see Canada '07? Watching Kubica's accident live I would have sworn he would not have survived, but he did... why?
We have discussed the risks and even came to an agreement that a partially closed cockpit would probly be the best solution. My quoted statement was regarding why some would not even discuss the possibility and dismiss it outright.Ray wrote:Because you have continually failed to take into account the increased risks and in no way have offered any answers to the questions that have been brought up about the dangers of that system being put in place. You yourself even advocated introducing explosives, or some other release system that is under pressure into a system to remove the part that would enclose the cockpit. How can you not see why so many are opposed to such a foolish suggestion? I'd love to hear your answers to the same questions I've asked over and over again. My post above brings them up yet again.ISLAMATRON wrote:I really dont understand why so many are so opposed to closed cockpits
Great news!!! I'll have one on Felipe tonight.The Brazilian's personal doctor Dino Altman said on Tuesday that he was hopeful Massa's eye had not suffered any damage in the crash - as had been initially feared.
"Felipe has opened his left eye and he can see," Altmann told ANSA. "There's no apparent damage. The eye is morphologically healthy."
