FORUMula1.com

[andrew]

But do you not see my point? Faster surely is more dangerous.

If the design of cars had stayed the same, and got faster, then yes you'd be right. But they havent. So you are wrong in your blinkered view of things.

Excuse me for having an opinion that you disagree with.

I simply don't agree with your blinkered view.

End of.

[LRW]

But do you not see my point? Faster surely is more dangerous.

If the design of cars had stayed the same, and got faster, then yes you'd be right. But they havent. So you are wrong in your blinkered view of things.

Excuse me for having an opinion that you disagree with.

you hypocrite. Im not wasting one more word on you. Im going to enjoy the rest of my day.

[andrew]

Glad to hear it old fruit.

Happy trails.

[andrew]

But was it? Surely the cars being a lot faster now means that F1 is more dangerous now? However, aside from this, times have changed and what was accetpable in the 70's is no longer acceptable today. that's what Niki Lauda was saying. Doesn't make him a hypocrite to say that. It's a statement of fact.

Between '52 and '94 there were 30+ deaths in F1. Since '94 there have been no deaths. And you argue NOW is more dangerous!

You'd argue black is white. Its so dull and tiresome.

Same could be said about you chief!

But do you not see my point? Faster surely is more dangerous.

As always, if you don't like it, don't read it.

I wouldn't say so, it's not the speed per say, it's the force due to object impact, that is the real risk, and thanks to ever stricter crash testing, advanced barriers etc, that force is now being better managed so as to not injure people. Surely safety is defined in the risk of injury, which I'll roughly define for F1 as the risk of unacceptably high force on a person.

But the impact forces are higher now. You see where I'm coming from?

[LewEngBridewell]

But with higher impact forces, safety has improved well enough to cope with these increased demands. No deaths since 1994. Says a lot about how dangerous it is. Look at Mark Webber's accident at Valencia in 2010. Even a slower version of that would have killed him in decades previously.

[vaptin]

But was it? Surely the cars being a lot faster now means that F1 is more dangerous now? However, aside from this, times have changed and what was accetpable in the 70's is no longer acceptable today. that's what Niki Lauda was saying. Doesn't make him a hypocrite to say that. It's a statement of fact.

Between '52 and '94 there were 30+ deaths in F1. Since '94 there have been no deaths. And you argue NOW is more dangerous!

You'd argue black is white. Its so dull and tiresome.

Same could be said about you chief!

But do you not see my point? Faster surely is more dangerous.

As always, if you don't like it, don't read it.

I wouldn't say so, it's not the speed per say, it's the force due to object impact, that is the real risk, and thanks to ever stricter crash testing, advanced barriers etc, that force is now being better managed so as to not injure people. Surely safety is defined in the risk of injury, which I'll roughly define for F1 as the risk of unacceptably high force on a person.

But the impact forces are higher now. You see where I'm coming from?

Are the impact forces on drivers and other personal generally higher now? I wouldn't say so.

[andrew]

Are the impact forces on drivers and other personal generally higher now? I wouldn't say so.

I'd rather go into a brick wall at 150mph than 200mph. The impact forces and deceleration expreienced must be higher if the impact speed is higher.

[vaptin]

Are the impact forces on drivers and other personal generally higher now? I wouldn't say so.

I'd rather go into a brick wall at 150mph than 200mph. The impact forces and deceleration experienced must be higher if the impact speed is higher.

Yes, overall the force is higher, but not all the force and energy will be felt by you , it depends on the car's structure and the barrier. In old F1, those factors were so much weaker, that even at 150mph the force felt by the driver was likely to be higher, because of the nature of the barriers and the car (other things too), in modern day F1 even though the speed is higher, the advances in safety technology mean that at 200mph the overall force will be higher, but there is a much lower risk to the driver (and other people such as marshals) due to car construction and the barriers being so much more superior that they are designed to respond to the force and energy in a contained way, so it is much less likely to affect the driver.

[LewEngBridewell]

Are the impact forces on drivers and other personal generally higher now? I wouldn't say so.

I'd rather go into a brick wall at 150mph than 200mph. The impact forces and deceleration expreienced must be higher if the impact speed is higher.

But would you rather hit a brick wall in one of today's F1 cars, or an F1 car from the 50s or 60s?

[andrew]

Are the impact forces on drivers and other personal generally higher now? I wouldn't say so.

I'd rather go into a brick wall at 150mph than 200mph. The impact forces and deceleration expreienced must be higher if the impact speed is higher.

But would you rather hit a brick wall in one of today's F1 cars, or an F1 car from the 50s or 60s?

Depends if I want to go out in style or not.

[darwin dali]

[vaptin]

---> <-----
^^^^^^^

[andrew]

Gotta love a bit of the Floyd!

[Jabberwocky]

But as Sir Moss always says if the cars where not safe as they are would we have the same standards of driving?

[vaptin]

But as Sir Moss always says if the cars where not safe as they are would we have the same standards of driving?

Maybe from Alonso