I do agree with you about Senna's accident, but my actual point was that safety awareness was raised considerably post-San Marino. Prior to that day, Ratzenberger died, and Barrichello suffered an accident just on Practice Day.EVieira wrote:
Not really. In Senna's crash, what killed him was a suspension bar that went through his helmet. Its something very improbable to happen, Senna was the only case in F1 history. Current specifications have tried to protect from this by raising the side of the cockpit, but if you look where Senna's helmet was hit you can tell it wouldn't have made a difference in this was in place at the time.mikeshw wrote:
Current F1 regulations on car chassis and body saved Kubica. Back in Ayrton Senna's days, this accident would have killed him.
Not sure what they use on the F1 tracks, but NASCAR uses this on their tracks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAFER_barrierzeidmaan wrote:
Watching it again I can see the wall bending in a bit and absorbing some of the force like its elastic or something. Wonder what its made off. But the thing is if he hit it just 10-15 meters further down the track he would have been deflected more as the angle of impact would have been about 45 degrees. But the way he collided, it was almost 80 degrees. Like it was never planned for someone to loose control at the point he did.sergeriver wrote:
That wall is built to curb the damage. If you'd put tyres there it would be worse.zeidmaan wrote:
Im surprised there was no tires protecting that wall considering that its pretty close to the track and its positioned for full frontal collision. Good to hear hes OK. I love that they put so much effort on safety in F1.
I think in this case few rows of tires would have been better.
i watched it happen live, the cars these days are incredible. And it was the safety car that caused Senna's death. whilst following his tyres cooled down and contracted so the car was lower to the floor. Normally there is air flowing underneath the car but at one point of the track, because of the tyre contraction the car was too low and air couldnt get under which lifted the car forcing him to loose control and hit the barrier. I still have the newspaper from the day after he died.
I truely thought he had died when I was watching live, amazing how he only had a broken leg.
Depends where you hit, most of it is concrete.acEofspadEs6313 wrote:
Not sure what they use on the F1 tracks, but NASCAR uses this on their tracks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAFER_barrierzeidmaan wrote:
Watching it again I can see the wall bending in a bit and absorbing some of the force like its elastic or something. Wonder what its made off. But the thing is if he hit it just 10-15 meters further down the track he would have been deflected more as the angle of impact would have been about 45 degrees. But the way he collided, it was almost 80 degrees. Like it was never planned for someone to loose control at the point he did.sergeriver wrote:
That wall is built to curb the damage. If you'd put tyres there it would be worse.
I think in this case few rows of tires would have been better.
Serge what are you going on about... He tried to overtake Trulli, and Trulli cut him off, and at the ame time clipped his tire, thus making him lose control, and sending him into the concrete wall. My uncle was at the race, and if you watched it you would see it.sergeriver wrote:
He entered the turn too fast and never pushed the brake.
I don't think blame is an issue, these drivers know all too well the dangers of a sport like this, especially post-Senna. This crash, although not the nicest of situations to be in, is a credit to the designers of both the car and track, as no spectators were mangled and the driver survived.
Please do some research before you start talking about NASCAR. Their cars are safer than F1.oug wrote:
F1 cars are safer than normal cars first of all... and second, why laugh at us? Nascar sucks ass. They don't even know what a turn is ffs!Mekstizzle wrote:
Still, Nascar hicks must be laughing at us.
Last edited by Stingray24 (2007-06-11 17:54:48)
Did you notice that the car was airborne, launched by the white/red curbstones, and flew 1 meter high for awhile before it hit the wall?
He must have hit the wall without being able to use the brakes.
Wonder if the FIA will remove curbstones on F1 circuits, or if they will lower them/flatten them...
I blame the curbstones.
He must have hit the wall without being able to use the brakes.
Wonder if the FIA will remove curbstones on F1 circuits, or if they will lower them/flatten them...
I blame the curbstones.
Last edited by MajorHoulahan_MASH (2007-06-11 23:42:11)
The fact that you could see his feet sticking out scared me (thats what happened with Zanardi's crash where he lost both legs). good to hear that hes only got a sprained ankle though.
Last edited by tahadar (2007-06-12 04:02:38)
well, no driver has died in an F1 race since Senna in 1994. NASCAR can't say that about itself.Stingray24 wrote:
Please do some research before you start talking about NASCAR. Their cars are safer than F1.oug wrote:
F1 cars are safer than normal cars first of all... and second, why laugh at us? Nascar sucks ass. They don't even know what a turn is ffs!Mekstizzle wrote:
Still, Nascar hicks must be laughing at us.
Actually he only sprained his ankle.HeRbY wrote:
I truely thought he had died when I was watching live, amazing how he only had a broken leg.
HEre is Ayrton Senna's crash.
How sad
NASCAR has also had only one death in a race in the modern era, though it was more recent, February 2001. With the mandatory HANS device which restrains the driver's helmet, a NASCAR car is now far safer than an F1 car, which leaves the driver's head exposed without the protection of a roll cage. NASCAR circuits have also improved the safety features of the tracks themselves by upgrading the material along certain sections of the outside wall.tahadar wrote:
well, no driver has died in an F1 race since Senna in 1994. NASCAR can't say that about itself.Stingray24 wrote:
Please do some research before you start talking about NASCAR. Their cars are safer than F1.oug wrote:
F1 cars are safer than normal cars first of all... and second, why laugh at us? Nascar sucks ass. They don't even know what a turn is ffs!
Last edited by Stingray24 (2007-06-12 09:07:36)
No roll cage as such, but an ultra high density honeycombed carbon fibre monocoque in which the driver has a survival cell. The driver is protected by a minimum of two roll structures. Placement of impact absorbing structures in front of and behind the driver is also mandatory.Stingray24 wrote:
NASCAR has also had only one death in a race in the modern era, though it was more recent, February 2001. With the mandatory HANS device which restrains the driver's helmet, a NASCAR car is now far safer than an F1 car, which leaves the driver's head exposed without the protection of a roll cage. NASCAR circuits have also improved the safety features of the tracks themselves by upgrading the material along certain sections of the outside wall.tahadar wrote:
well, no driver has died in an F1 race since Senna in 1994. NASCAR can't say that about itself.Stingray24 wrote:
Please do some research before you start talking about NASCAR. Their cars are safer than F1.
The safety technology (much like all the other technology) is far superior on F1 cars than in Nascar.
I don’t understand how you can say open air is superior technology when directly compared to an enclosed racecar with a roll cage. If the F1 car impacts at the right angle or debris flies in the right direction there is the possibility that the driver’s helmet will be impacted. That will never happen in NASCAR. In F1, there certainly are a lot more electronics, but I still think NASCAR safety is superior. I don't think there's anything that's not electronic in an F1 car: launch control, engine control, clutch and gearbox control, traction control, and even throttle control. In NASCAR, everything is manual and without traction control it takes driver skill, not electronics, to keep from spinning out. The crew chief in the pit stall is the only one using electronics and he uses them to aid in making adjustments to the car’s handling when the car comes in for fuel and tires.
Yep, but at the end of the day. Nascar is driving in ovals so they can afford to not have electronics. Although F1 would be much better without it.
NASCAR drivers have a car that is heavier, has less downforce, and has no traction control or electronic driver aids - making it completely the driver’s job to control the car instead of the computer. Let’s not downplay the skill they have.
Both NASCAR and F1 suck! Le Mans FTW!!!!!!!!!!
Yeah, that's why i prefer Rally (WRC) - nothing beats hurtling around in a slicked out Subaru along cliff tops in the mud. Don't like dirtbikes though, damn crotch rockets.Stingray24 wrote:
NASCAR drivers have a car that is heavier, has less downforce, and has no traction control or electronic driver aids - making it completely the driver’s job to control the car instead of the computer. Let’s not downplay the skill they have.
Yeah, can't argue that Le Mans have the coolest looking cars, too bad the coverage is weak.
Thats easy to do on an oval course to control it. You forgot to mention that a good 10-15 cars are out of the race from crashes on road course and nascar only has 2 or 3. Every track in F1 is a road course. The F1 car probable weighs more from downforce and body mass than a Nascar.Stingray24 wrote:
NASCAR drivers have a car that is heavier, has less downforce, and has no traction control or electronic driver aids - making it completely the driver’s job to control the car instead of the computer. Let’s not downplay the skill they have.
LOL...you think it's so easy then go and do it. You can make a good living driving racecars, if you only knew how hard one of those cars are to drive...The#1Spot wrote:
Thats easy to do on an oval course to control it. You forgot to mention that a good 10-15 cars are out of the race from crashes on road course and nascar only has 2 or 3. Every track in F1 is a road course. The F1 car probable weighs more from downforce and body mass than a Nascar.Stingray24 wrote:
NASCAR drivers have a car that is heavier, has less downforce, and has no traction control or electronic driver aids - making it completely the driver’s job to control the car instead of the computer. Let’s not downplay the skill they have.
Do a little digging #1Spot and check out how the cars effect each other on a NASCAR track, it's pretty interesting and not as simple as it looks. NASCAR mandates their cars to 3400 pounds, an F1 car minimum weight is only 1,340 pounds. You're probably right that the F1 car weighs more when under the pressure of downforce, but that works in its favor. The NASCAR weighs more and has less downforce to make that weight stick when going into a corner. The F1 car has less weight and more downforce, making the car stick much better in a corner and less likely to lose control.The#1Spot wrote:
Thats easy to do on an oval course to control it. You forgot to mention that a good 10-15 cars are out of the race from crashes on road course and nascar only has 2 or 3. Every track in F1 is a road course. The F1 car probable weighs more from downforce and body mass than a Nascar.Stingray24 wrote:
NASCAR drivers have a car that is heavier, has less downforce, and has no traction control or electronic driver aids - making it completely the driver’s job to control the car instead of the computer. Let’s not downplay the skill they have.