Why The New F1 Safety Regulations Are Crap

"MrBowles" (MrBowles) 01/26/2014 at 13:59 • Filed to: F1, FIA, racing, safety, you'll hate me for saying this

0

35

Let me start by saying that in racing safety is always an issue and we should always be aware of the danger. Any and every accident is bad. With that, I will also say that safety is becoming too much of a concern with the FIA. I know that sounds crazy, but here me out. The new F1 cars are ugly as all hell. The designers have had to sacrifice aerodynamics for safety regulations.

We all know F1 used to be an extremely dangerous sport. 2 drivers died every year on average, that is 2 too many. But that's not true anymore, the last driver death in F1 was Ayrton Senna 20 years ago in 1994. Since then there have also been next to no serious injuries caused by accidents during an F1 race weekend. The cars are extremely safe. Need proof? Go on YouTube and search F1 crash, you'll see new F1 cars rolling and flipping and literally exploding into hundreds of pieces. And than what happens? Does the driver die? Does he need to get out on a stretcher due to an inability to walk? No, 9/10(under exaggeration) he will get out of the car and walk away or get mad his race is over. That's where safety is now. Those crashes can happen and drivers will be more worried about there race than an injury. And that 1 time they need immediate medical attention? Those are freak incidents that will happen no matter what, and drivers accept that, the know the danger.

And yet the FIA still feels the need to make F1 cars safer and safer, at the expense of speed and style. The FIA should not be focused so intensely on safety, but on making cars faster, more competitive, fun to watch, and efficient.

Again, safety should always be a concern and always be in the back of engineers and rule makers minds, but it really shouldn't be as large of a focus as it is. It's becoming too much of a focus. F1 has become more boring. Safety is not the only reason for that, but it's a big reason for it.

EDIT: Allow me to add these following things: I don't not in any way at all think we should remove safety regulations. Ever. They are perfect how they are for the performance of the cars. And as the performance increases, so should the safety regulations, to stay at par with performance. But the FIA shouldn't add regulations for no reason aside from "it's safer" because that's unnecessary and it usually sacrifices speed. Also, I really like look of the low noses, aside from how Ferrari did it. That thing it ugly. What I don't like is the little crash tips in front of the front wings, those are ugly. Finally, really the only way to prevent a decapitation in an accident like Alonso's at Spa is to make the car closed cockpit. Which honestly, forgetting all the nostalgia crap, I would endorse. The cars would look so much cooler and they would be more aerodynamic. But most people would hate that because F1 has always been open cockpit.

Tentacle, Dutchman, drives French > MrBowles 01/26/2014 at 14:09

2

FIA should do much more to limit aerodynamic grip. Because downforce relies on driving through un-turbulent air.

With more mechanical grip and less downforce, you wouldn't need DRS or KERS to keep things interesting.

Also, my post from a few hours ago: Formula 1, two decades ago, when the cars still looked clean

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

WhereAreMyPants > MrBowles 01/26/2014 at 14:32

2

This is supposed to be a joke, right?

I agree that FIA hasn't fine a very good job stimulating competitive racing, but that has nothing to do with safety. There is never any excuse for drivers to be exposed to danger, if it can be avoided. Fans in the 60's didn't think the sport was too dangerous, and they were wrong. Let's not make the same mistake, now.

Yes, the cars are ugly, and that sucks, but pretty cars aren't worth the risk of someone catching a nose cone in the chest.

BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires > MrBowles 01/26/2014 at 14:34

2

...how many Indycar drivers have died or were seriously injured in the past 20 years in their better looking cars?

I have absolutely no issue whatsoever with any regulation that is designed to make motorsport safer. There's a bit of nostalgic 'it's not the same as the good old days, when the cars were pretty' but people forget that drivers died in their droves back in 'the good old days'.

Without the significant advances in safety that the FIA has forced upon the teams, it is likely that Webber would have been killed or greviously injured in this crash , Massa in this accident and Sergio Perez in this o ne.

If there were more precautions involved in testing, it's likely Maria De Vilota wouldn't have died either.

Everyone says that this or that is unnecessary, until something happens to someone that is completely preventable.

Tim (Fractal Footwork) > MrBowles 01/26/2014 at 14:48

1

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Skif6996 > WhereAreMyPants 01/26/2014 at 15:17

2

I'm with you on this one. Safety is one thing that can always be improved upon. If a stupid looking front end means the cars are safer and no one gets seriously hurt... I'm all for it.

MrBowles > BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires 01/26/2014 at 15:17

0

I'm not saying "let's make the cars more dangerous" I'm saying "the cars are extremely safe so it's not as big if a focus point anymore." Those drivers weren't hurt because the cars are safe, so it's not as big of an issue, the mission has been accomplished. We keep the same safety, and we only increase safety regulations as cars get faster.

MrBowles > WhereAreMyPants 01/26/2014 at 15:20

0

But no one has for a very long time. The cars are extremely safe, so it's time to focus on other things too. I'm not saying make the cars more dangerous, I'm just saying let's make them safer as the cars get faster. If the cars stay the same speed, and no ones getting hurt. Where's the safety issue? Last years cars were perfectly safe. Why are we making them more safe, ruining aerodynamics

MrBowles > Skif6996 01/26/2014 at 15:24

0

But these regulations are unnecessary it what I'm saying. Last years cars were not pretty but they weren't ugly. And they were very safe. There's no reason to ruin the aerodynamics for safety when safety is no longer a concern. This isn't the 60s and 70s when drivers were dying left and right. A driver breaking an arm or leg is a rare occurrence, so why are we acting like it's extremely dangerous and there's a high chance of death? I'm not saying we should make the cars more dangerous or some shit, that's idiot talk. I'm just saying we should keep the same speed/safety ratio, increasing safety as cars increase in speed. Not randomly unnecessarily increasing safety at the expense of speed and style

WhereAreMyPants > MrBowles 01/26/2014 at 15:47

3

I'm sorry, but I can't disagree more strongly.

The only reason Alonso wasn't killed when Grosjean launched himself at Spa two years ago is that he missed a few feet left. These cars are dramatically less likely to go airborne than the high-nose cars and the impact point is always going to be lower, as long as the car is upright, which means impacts land more directly on the main structures of the car.

WhereAreMyPants > Tentacle, Dutchman, drives French 01/26/2014 at 15:50

0

I completely agree.

More mechanical grip makes for more open, more competitive racing, at lower speeds.

The current aero system blocks padding, with the huge upwash, and limits the cars to a single line.

Anybody who's ever watched a lower formula, low downforce race will understand.

BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires > MrBowles 01/26/2014 at 15:54

0

Yeah, I get what you mean, but I don't think it's as simple as that. There's a possibility that if someone hits someone else side-on, the higher noses of yesteryear would slide up over the side-pod and contact someone's head. If that happens, they're most likely going to get decapitated.

If that happens on live TV, big questions are going to be asked.

It wasn't an issue with car before, as the noses were pretty much touching the ground. Recent aerodynamic theory has moved towards a high location point for the front suspension to make use of air flowing beneath the chassis. This has forced the noses to be raised, and introduced this problem.

Safety regulations have to updated as progress develops, otherwise people may be caught short expecting themselves to be safe, with tragic consequences.

Speed is not the only variable that introduces danger.

MrBowles > BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires 01/26/2014 at 16:29

0

Let me rephrase speed to performance. No matter what they'd get decapitated, the front wing would do the job. If anything really the higher nose would go above the drivers head due the the high step like "wall" on each side of the cockpit stopping the car from going further. That's what the step thing was for, to protect the drivers head from contacting things. And a collision like that is extremely unlikely.

BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires > MrBowles 01/26/2014 at 16:47

0

It's extremely unlikely that a crash that killed Dan Wheldon would have happened, but it did. I don't know anything about the likelihood of various crashes in F1, but the people who write the regulations probably do.

"No matter what they'd get decapitated"

If more people took that attitude, we'd have a lot more deaths up until this point. People probably though the same about neck injuries during impacts before the Hans device was invented.

I'm not assuming anything about what will happen during a crash. It might skirt up over them, it might not. I don't know enough about what happens in this sort of crash to have any reliable insight into it. I'm just going on what press releases from the FIA have stated.

The step-like wall wouldn't stop an impact of that sort of speed amd weight. It's made of carbon-fibre, yes, but I highly doubt it's strong enough to shrug off ~750kg travelling at up to ~220mph. I would expect the carbon fibre tub and crash structures in the body of the car would stand a better chance.

pirates-ecu > WhereAreMyPants 01/26/2014 at 18:27

0

exactly, how this joke gets paid to write for oppo i will never know

MrBowles > BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires 01/26/2014 at 18:56

0

Two F1 cars would essentially either have to crash head on or T-bone to decapitate the driver. The lower noses won't prevent that. You know what would and is pretty much the only way to prevent that is? A closed cockpit car. I'm not saying to look at everything as unlikely, I'm saying an accident like that is unlikely and virtually unavoidable with little we can do, aside from making the car closed cockpit. Which aside from nostalgia reasons and stuff would look pretty sick. And the cars would be more aerodynamic with closed cockpits.

BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires > MrBowles 01/26/2014 at 19:20

0

"The lower noses won't prevent that"

How do you know? I certainly don't. I haven't conducted crash tests with various nose-heights. The FIA most certainly has.

They considered closed cockpits for a while after Massa's accident, but I think they came to the conclusion that it would cause as many or more problems than it solves. Don't quote me on that though.

I certainly wouldn't write it off for the future, especially if there's another Massa-like incident.

MrBowles > BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires 01/26/2014 at 19:44

0

Because a higher nose would mean the nose will go above the driver instead of into the driver

BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires > MrBowles 01/26/2014 at 20:31

0

That's based on conjecture though, unless you've actually done crash tests involving comparable chassis.

MrBowles > BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires 01/26/2014 at 20:39

0

True. But it's so rare. And also, I added this to the main post, but I don't mind the low noses, but I hate the ugly crash cone things.

BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires > MrBowles 01/26/2014 at 20:57

0

It's rare, but completely possible. We should still guard against that, especially if it's only something as paltry as looks that loses out.

It nearly happened to Alonso a couple of years back, which I think is what in part prompted these regulation changes.

MrBowles > BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires 01/26/2014 at 22:08

0

I haven't really looked close at that crash until now, so it may be because it a gif. But it really looks like the nose was above his head, so if anything decapitated him it would have been the bottom of the car ripping his head off. But I could be wrong. Also I kept saying speed and style being sacrificed, and m biggest loss is speed, not style. I just think cars built to go fast look sexy as f because aerdynamics and stuff looks cool

DangerBadger > MrBowles 01/27/2014 at 00:14

0

Pointing out again that the weird noses are because of a stupidly written rule that left open this weird loophole. The original point of the rule was to have normal 2000-2007 type lower noses. Last I checked, people like those cars (not the aero trinkets on the sidepods, but the car shapes overall). The FIA can fix this issue for 2015 easily.

MrBowles > DangerBadger 01/27/2014 at 02:16

0

I didn't know about that. But my point still stands how at this point in time speed and style(I mention style because it goes along with speed, cars designed to go fast look cool IMO) should not be sacrificed for safety

BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires > MrBowles 01/27/2014 at 08:05

0

Yeah, the nose was above his head because Grosjean had launched off a car behind him. If that car had been elsewhere, he'd have hit Alonso side-on.

I think you're right with speed being sacrificed more than style, but in this specific instance I think it'd be more to do with safety.

Saying that, I could be wrong as well. They could be dangerous as hell and put in simply to change what the teams have to work to. I could be eating my words in a big way halfway through the season :)

DangerBadger > MrBowles 01/27/2014 at 09:19

0

Not to be a jerk, but you could've googled this. The noses are weird because of a loophole in poorly written, but well-meaning (aiming for the clean 1999-2004 or so noses) regulations. If the loophole isn't there, we have the nicest looking F1 cars in nearly a decade.

MrBowles > DangerBadger 01/27/2014 at 09:32

0

Well then it's not a loophole per se. Loopholes are ways around the rules for your advantage

MrBowles > BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires 01/27/2014 at 09:34

0

I just don't understand how lower noses would be safer because in this case, the lower nose would be closer to Alonso's head

DangerBadger > MrBowles 01/27/2014 at 09:37

0

In this case the advantage is directing more air to the undertray in preferable ways. The FIA screwed up, simple as that.

MrBowles > DangerBadger 01/27/2014 at 10:28

0

The whole reason the noses were tall was to direct air to the under tray. The reason they need low noses is so the nose does kill the driver in a accident. Which is extremely unlikely

MrBowles > DangerBadger 01/27/2014 at 10:28

0

The whole reason the noses were tall was to direct air to the under tray. The reason they need low noses is so the nose does kill the driver in a accident. Which is extremely unlikely

DangerBadger > MrBowles 01/27/2014 at 19:32

0

Yes, and as I said, the weird nose designs are allowed because the regulation for the low noses was poorly written. If the regulation was written properly, there would be normal-looking early-2000s type noses.

Also, considering the high noses got to be as high as the cockpit opening, they were a danger to drivers. Easy to say "no big deal" when you're not the one getting plowed into by Romain Grosjean.

MrBowles > DangerBadger 01/27/2014 at 20:02

0

Watching that video over again paying attention to the nose and can't grasp how a lower nose would be safer, the nose was above Alonso and a lower nose would make it closer to imapling him. And even then we still have the front wing as a danger to him

DangerBadger > MrBowles 01/27/2014 at 20:22

0

I wasn't referring to that famous crash, just Gorsjean being a reckless moron in general. The height of the noses was too damn high, and I'd rather not wait for a side-impact t-bone into a driver's helmet. Lower noses looked fine, as I keep repeating, in the early 2000s. They certainly looked worlds better than the pug ugly crap we've been seeing the past couple of years. Hopefully the FIA fixes the wording of the regulations for 2015 and we get clean looking cars.

MrBowles > DangerBadger 01/27/2014 at 22:26

0

How were the noses too high? Also I like the lower noses. It's those damned crash cones I hate, they screw the airflow and are ugly as all hell

DangerBadger > MrBowles 01/27/2014 at 23:33

0

You're basically leaving literally a couple of inches height difference between the tip of the nose and the cockpit opening. It requires a much smaller bump in a side impact the kill a guy. I don't know why you keep going on with this. The noses were too high, looked like shit, and increase dependency on aero. The idea of a lower nose has many benefits, safety being one of them.