The safety paradox

[Woolie Wool]

In modern auto racing, unlike any other period in history, safety has become a paramount concern for all racing sanctioning bodies. The romanticization of drivers facing extreme danger in their clumsy, unmanageable race cars is as antiquated as carburetors, national racing colors, and dashing into your car, turning the ignition on, and speeding off at the sound of the starter's pistol. In response to high-profile injuries and fatalities such as those of Alex Zanardi and Dale Earnhardt, we have seen horsepower and top speeds slashed, courses redesigned to make them safer or designed from the start with safety as the top priority (such as Hermann Tilke's Formula 1 circuits), and safety devices such as the HANS device proliferate. However, there is an attitude within motorsport that is undermining safety.

There is a whole pile of banned technologies in many motorsports rulebooks that could dramatically increase safety, but were banned because they were considered unsporting, unfair, excessively expensive, or reduced the challenge of racing (and true racing is an enormous, and in the case of F1, almost inhuman challenge, far beyond the challenged posed by Gran Turismo). Such technologies include four-wheel drive, certain types of aerodynamic aids, telemetry, stability control, traction control, heads-up displays, etc. However, the problem is that making a car more difficult to drive makes it less safe. Take a racing car in Gran Turismo, swap the racing slicks for sport tires, and cut the downforce, and you have a greatly increased risk of losing control, spinning out, hitting the wall, or doing other things that can injure or kill you in real life (never mind risks of things that never happen in GT, such as flipping over).

On the other hand, the safety-first track designs have drawn criticism from many drivers, who consider them boring, repetitive, or uninspiring. Few drivers would enjoy Sepang or the Nürburgring GP circuit more than Spa-Francorchamps or Imola (and consider GT players' preference for tracks like Deep Forest or the Nürburgring Nordschleife to, say, Fuji 2005).

Perhaps, then, a good idea would be to make the cars easier for drivers to control. A car with four-wheel-drive could allow the driver to stay in control after missteps that would send an MR layout car spinning into the sand traps. Advanced telemetry could warn drivers and pit crews in advance of mechanical failures. Heads-up displays would allow drivers to keep their eyes on the road at all times (a luxury Gran Turismo players have that real racing drivers do not), which is crucial in a sport as demanding on the reflexes as auto racing. Climate control would reduce driver fatigue, allowing drivers to divert more mental and physical energy into driving their cars. Furthermore, except for telemetry and fancy aerodynamic aids, all of these technologies already exist in production automobiles and would strengthen the perceived kinship of production and racing cars, making the races more appealing to spectators. Except for the most advanced aerodynamic trickery, none of these would make much of a dent in a racing budget--racing cars already cost many times more than even the most advanced luxury cars.

Instead of locking competitors in a web of extremely strict regulations that ignore new technologies and lead to dissatisfied drivers, unimpressed spectators, and ever-increasing budgets as competitors make ever more esoteric refinements on the technologies they are allowed, regulatory bodies in motorsports need to take forced induction, four-wheel drive, and other technologies that they have previously forbidden and work them into their formulas. Just as mid-engine cars replaced the dinosaurian "roadsters" of '50s and '60s open-wheel racing, so too must the current status quo be swept away by modern innovations.

Is a 4WD Formula 1 car really all that bad?

 

[Layla's Keeper]

Wow, grossly misinformed and highly inaccurate.

Your post is ludicrous in suggesting that racing would be safer if performance aids were reintroduced. Any severe accident in recent history has been because the collision speeds have overcome the construction of the cars.

Indy Cars and Champ Cars on ovals are particularly susceptible to this because of modern laminated carbon fiber monocoque construction. There is a limited amount of material to absorb the impact. In fact, it's the reason Indy Cars are built so much larger than F1 cars today. Just so that there's more car around the driver in case of an impact.

And current IRL trap speeds are far down from those of the 1970's or 1980's, during either the turbo-Offenhauser period or the insane speeds of the ground effects period. If you want to know what the penalty is for the combination of speed beyond construction, just look to the Indy 500, 1973, when we lost Swede Savage.

If you look throughout motorsports history, you'll see what so-called "unlimited" periods spawn. They spawn great competition, but at a terrible cost. The 1970's Cosworth era of Formula One. The sports car wars of the 1950's. The near 100 years of Indianapolis.

Today's racing is ludicrously safe compared to the classic "unlimited" eras, and it's still faster than ever. What you insinuate - firstly - is that drivers are incapable of handling cars and need these aids to drive safely. Secondly, you suggest that faster cars are safer than slower cars.

There's no evidence to back up either statement, and in fact the statements contradict each other. If drivers of today are incapable of driving slower cars without aids, how would faster cars with aids improve their racecraft? Their reflexes? Their understanding of the car's behaviour?

In short, bollocks to possibly the most ridiculous statement on racing safety I've heard since USAC drivers in the 50's argued it was safer to be thrown from a tumbling car than to be belted into it.

Oh, and by the way, the "front engined dinosaurs" still race, and last time they were at Phoenix they were faster around the speedway than the IRL Indy cars. Just thought I'd let you know.

 

[Woolie Wool]

You distorted my position. I did not call for anything like a return to anything-goes construction. I called for an end to closed-minded, arbitrary restrictions on what you can and cannot put in a car, to the detriment of cars and drivers. Take a 2004 Formula One car. Add four-wheel drive, more downforce, slick tires, a heads-up display, and a forced-induction engine that makes similar horsepower to the original engine but revs much lower. Do you think this is really a more dangerous car than the original F1 car? Never mind that acceleration and top speed would be similar if not worse because the car would be heavier and have more drag due to the different aerodynamics. Was the Ferrari 348 really a better car for being twitchy and unstable at the limit? No. And Car and Driver ranked it low in their 1991 comparison because of that.

And as for drivers being "not able to handle cars", I said no such thing. I said that modern high-level racing cars are unnecessarily difficult to control. The best way to survive a crash is to not crash at all, and it's a whole lot easier to avoid crashing if your car won't lapse into sudden, catastrophic oversteer if you put the power down at the wrong time. Modern F1 cars are more dangerous than they ought to be because their chassis performance is not quite up to par with the power they have.

And speaking of things not going faster, I have another technology to add to that list: anti-lock brakes.

EDIT: Those...things you posted pictures of look nothing like the roadsters of old. They likely were never sanctioned as Indy cars and therefore don't count (are you really trying to dispute that front-engined racers are better than mid-engined racers? Does the fact that front-engined cars were swiftly and completely replaced with mid-engined cars at the top levels of competition in the '60s and '70s mean anything to you?).

 

[Wolfe]

@Layla's Keeper: I agree with Woolie Wool -- you distorted the point he was trying to get at.

All he wants is the elimination of rules that stifle engineering creativity and technological experimentation, while maintaining the rules that limit horsepower and other measurable performance statistics. He isn't talking about bringing Group B back and all of that -- he just wants to see racecars that are more diverse, while also more similar to roadcars in certain ways, and easier to drive.

I know that I find a whole field of 500hp GT cars with varying engine types and body shapes more interesting than a whole field of nearly-identical V8 F1 cars with slightly varying yet secret horsepower outputs.

@Woolie Wool: I'd love to see turbo sixes, supercharged V8s, and high-revving V12s line up side-by-side in a series like F1...but I don't want to watch a racing series where the cars practically drive themselves.

Creativity is great, and driver comfort would be nice, but traction control, stability control, anti-lock brakes, etc. simply aren't needed.

 

[Woolie Wool]

@Woolie Wool: I'd love to see turbo sixes, supercharged V8s, and high-revving V12s line up side-by-side in a series like F1...but I don't want to watch a racing series where the cars practically drive themselves.

Creativity is great, and driver comfort would be nice, but traction control, stability control, anti-lock brakes, etc. simply aren't needed.

I take back traction control and stability control. I'm considering taking back ABS after remembering an editorial in Car and Driver about how the insane braking performance of F1 cars was stifling competition by favoring drivers who could react .00001 seconds faster than the rest.

As for turbos, I think they would have to have some sort of condition if they were included, such as lower revs. The biggest problem with turbos as opposed to the NA engines in current F1 cars is that they have much more midrange torque, which makes the car a lot more prone to giving you a nasty surprise if you're not careful with the throttle.

 

[Layla's Keeper]

You show how little you know about racing, Woolie. Supermodifieds WERE sanctioned as Indy Cars, and vice versa, in the 1960's. In fact, many ex-Indy cars (including the rear engine ones) campaigned as supermodifieds.

Maybe if I go back in time a little bit......

Oswego, 1968, home of the supermodifieds and the last place on Earth where the roadsters run without a wing.

And there were even rear-engine cars in supermodified racing, from ex-Indy cars

to all-wheel-drive oval only supermodifieds like this Hite chassis.

Nowadays, supermodifieds run an active-aero topwing (mounted on airstruts so that it levels out down the straightaways to allow for higher top speed), but at Oswego, the cars still run wingless, a direct link to their Indy heritage.

And, yes, a front-mid engined chassis can be just as competent as a rear-mid engine chassis with proper geometry and quality tires. Mid-engine cars were superior in the 60's and 70's (and, as supermodified racing has shown us, they weren't) because of the traction advantages on narrow Indy tires of the day. On today's wider tires, a modern supermodified is equally fast as a modern Indy car.

Now, onto your argument, the crux of the matter being the "difficult" nature of modern F1 cars.

This is false. The modern F1 car is no more difficult to control - in its inherent nature - than any other car in the feeder program, just much much faster. The basic nature of the F1 car is similar to that of the karts, and the Palmer Audis, and the Formula Atlantics, and the F3000's, and the GP2 cars that the drivers are raised on. There is much more power at the driver's disposal, but its up to him to use it judiciously.

A lower revving engine? The engines already pull from 3500 up! Just watch the telemetry during the broadcast and you see that modern F1 engines use the whole breadth of the tachometer.

Forced induction? Why? Champ Car proves that turbocharged engines add nothing to the competitive nature of a series, and F1 engines make more power, even from the current V8's. More USABLE power, too. The Champ Car Cosworths do have tractability over the IRL Honda V8's, though, as those are engines that need to stay wound up on a road course with very little comparitive torque.

Of course, less torque + more tire = more accelerative grip. Ask Helio Castroneves or Scott Dixon. They'll tell you that an Indy car is easier to get through the corners of a road course because it puts down the power in a more linear fashion.

Four wheel drive? Massey-Ferguson tried that in F1 in the 50's. Too heavy, too much driveline loss. Nothing's changed, either.

Traction control and stability control have been in and out of F1 BY DRIVER REQUEST for my entire life. Anti-lock brakes are generally disliked in racing because a good right foot will always provide more control over lock-up under a wider variation of circumstances.

Aerodynamics is about the only place I'll agree with you. Ground effects should make a return if for no other reason than to keep cars on the ground. It's too easy for the flat-bottom cars to get into the fence like Kenny Brack did.

 

[Woolie Wool]

This is false. The modern F1 car is no more difficult to control - in its inherent nature - than any other car in the feeder program, just much much faster. The basic nature of the F1 car is similar to that of the karts, and the Palmer Audis, and the Formula Atlantics, and the F3000's, and the GP2 cars that the drivers are raised on. There is much more power at the driver's disposal, but its up to him to use it judiciously.

That makes no sense. All else being equal, a more powerful car will always more difficult to control. Kids are allowed to race karts. By your logic, they should also be able to race Formula 1 cars because they're no harder to control. Except they are harder to control.

A lower revving engine? The engines already pull from 3500 up! Just watch the telemetry during the broadcast and you see that modern F1 engines use the whole breadth of the tachometer.

Forced induction? Why? Champ Car proves that turbocharged engines add nothing to the competitive nature of a series, and F1 engines make more power, even from the current V8's. More USABLE power, too. The Champ Car Cosworths do have tractability over the IRL Honda V8's, though, as those are engines that need to stay wound up on a road course with very little comparitive torque.

Forced induction and lower revs reduce the cost and complexity of an engine and make it last longer. Part of Formula 1's quandary is that the expense and engineering involved in entering F1 cars is too much for privateer teams and gives works groups a huge advantage. Scuderia Ferrari isn't dominating F1 just because Michael Schumacher drives for them.

Of course, less torque + more tire = more accelerative grip. Ask Helio Castroneves or Scott Dixon. They'll tell you that an Indy car is easier to get through the corners of a road course because it puts down the power in a more linear fashion.

Thank you for proving my point. If you get through the corners of a road course, you by definition did not crash. That is a good thing for safety.

Four wheel drive? Massey-Ferguson tried that in F1 in the 50's. Too heavy, too much driveline loss. Nothing's changed, either.

I suppose VW Group must all be a bunch of idiots then, because they put 4WD in the 1001-hp Bugatti Veyron. Also, the idea that there has been absolutely no progress in twenty years in 4WD technology is ludicrous. Audi's quattro system has been through several different generations since its inception in 1980. Sounds like progress to me.

Traction control and stability control have been in and out of F1 BY DRIVER REQUEST for my entire life. Anti-lock brakes are generally disliked in racing because a good right foot will always provide more control over lock-up under a wider variation of circumstances.

Then why, pray tell, do cars with ABS have greatly superior stopping distances in magazine road tests to cars without? The ABS system works orders of magnitude faster than any human being. The question then is whether drivers can realistically use this extra performance considering the reaction times of human beings.

 

[Mt. Lynx]

That makes no sense. All else being equal, a more powerful car will always more difficult to control. Kids are allowed to race karts. By your logic, they should also be able to race Formula 1 cars because they're no harder to control. Except they are harder to control.

In effect Layla´s Keeper is right, though the nature of an F1 does make it much harder to control than for example, a kart. an F1 has much more grip, much better brakes, and much more power, almost 2 hp/kg, wich no kart can boast! The principle is however the same.

I suppose VW Group must all be a bunch of idiots then, because they put 4WD in the 1001-hp Bugatti Veyron. Also, the idea that there has been absolutely no progress in twenty years in 4WD technology is ludicrous. Audi's quattro system has been through several different generations since its inception in 1980. Sounds like progress to me.

You can´t really compare a roadcar to a racecar! Not even the Veyron has very much in common with a racecar. 4WD makes a car more stable for roaduse, and it´s not really suited for grip racing, unless you have an active 4WD system, like in the Nissan Skyline GT-R´s. 4WD is safer for the everydaydriver, and if it were to be used in grip racing, it would have to be active to be of any use, and only make the cars faster through cornes, wich - with safety in mind - is a bad thing. Unless downforce is cut significantly.

Then why, pray tell, do cars with ABS have greatly superior stopping distances in magazine road tests to cars without? The ABS system works orders of magnitude faster than any human being. The question then is whether drivers can realistically use this extra performance considering the reaction times of human beings.

I have to disagree here. In most mags (that I read anyway), ABS is considered to halter the true stoppingpower of most cars, usually because it takes effect too early in the brakingprocess. ABS only makes sense if you panicbrake (or on a slippery surface, such as gravel or ice). If you know how to brake properly, your stopping distance will shorten.

 

[DQuaN]

Allthough I have agreed with you on everything you have said up to this point, i'm afraid I don't agree with these.

I suppose VW Group must all be a bunch of idiots then, because they put 4WD in the 1001-hp Bugatti Veyron. Also, the idea that there has been absolutely no progress in twenty years in 4WD technology is ludicrous. Audi's quattro system has been through several different generations since its inception in 1980. Sounds like progress to me.

That is a road car, not a race car. A 4WD system may slightly improve the handling, but as LK said, the added driveshafts and torque splitter would increase weight (a big no no in a 600kg car) and reduce the power output to the wheels.

Then why, pray tell, do cars with ABS have greatly superior stopping distances in magazine road tests to cars without? The ABS system works orders of magnitude faster than any human being. The question then is whether drivers can realistically use this extra performance considering the reaction times of human beings.

Race drivers have great control over their braking. They can feel when the tyres are going to let go and control it. A computer system has to be set to relative sensitivity. Turn it up on a wet track or down on a wet track. What about one corner that is wet and one that is dry? Change the setting 3 times a lap?


*edit*
Team666 beat me!

 

[TheCracker]

Wow, what a great thread - i don't know how i missed this. Unfortunately Layla's Keeper, Team666 & Wolfe have already put forward any arguments to Woolie Wool's statements that i would have made

I would add that Modern F1's are undeniably easyer to drive these days than they ever have been historically, which is why we have a big chunk of modern drivers who have barely a couple of full seasons of proper single seater racing between F1 and karting.

Having slower cornering speeds compared to straight line speeds isn't necessarily going to make racing any safer. The slower you have take a corner the more you have to brake before hand. Braking more from high speed will have your car more unsettled for longer - is this safer?

ABS braking tests for road cars in magazines has no correlation to real racing conditions. Braking into a corner whilst racing is all about 'feel' and 'balance'. ABS just takes away any of that finesse. Taking any control away from the driver can only make things less safe IMO.

VW don't have any history of making supercars. Ferrari and Porsche do - and they still make rear driven cars. The Veyrons biggest down side is its lack of 'feel' - you can directly attach this to it's 4WD and multitude of nannying electronic driver aids. F1 has tried 4WD and didn't like it, like Layler's Keeper pointed out, it was too heavy and had too much driveline loss. It also induces too much understeer and wears tyres out quicker.

Also, since when has forced induction (especially turbo charging) ever given greater reliable power outputs? The on/off nature of a turbo or supercharger can make a car more difficult to drive. Turbo engines are fine for going round in circles all day on full/almost full throttle. But in any other situation where your revs are dropping and gaining constantly, a turbo charger is somewhat of a liability.

 

[Earth]

First, Open Wheel cars do not belong on ovals larger than 1 mile. Indianapolis included. When watching the Indy 500 I am more concerned with the safety of the drivers then the actual racing. Watch some videos on Tony Renna (probably only aftermath pictures due to gore), Gordon Smiley, Swede Savage and others and you will see why.

The one universal way to increase safety in racing is to reduce the speed of the cars on the track as well as in pitlane. As for track design have large areas of runoffs and sand traps.

Racing cars are stronger and better then they have ever been, but what is the use if you still travel 200mph theres still a high risk there

 

[TheCracker]

Motorsport without risk and danger is like a blunt nail - pointless.

It's the 'danger' aspect that keeps the drivers concentration levels high. If you are not risking your life, you're not driving to your optimum.

 

[Mt. Lynx]

Motorsport without risk and danger is like a blunt nail - pointless.

It's the 'danger' aspect that keeps the drivers concentration levels high. If you are not risking your life, you're not driving to your optimum.

I disagree. If you know that there is no risk of hurting yourself, you´ll be faster. If you at all times think that you stand a chance of dying, you´d be more careful, and thus, slower. A fearless driver would be faster than and frightful one, but the fearless is usually also careless. Their careers would not last. Minimizing risk is the best way to be faster, since fear would not be a factor.

 

[TheCracker]

I disagree. If you know that there is no risk of hurting yourself, you´ll be faster. If you at all times think that you stand a chance of dying, you´d be more careful, and thus, slower. A fearless driver would be faster than and frightful one, but the fearless is usually also careless. Their careers would not last. Minimizing risk is the best way to be faster, since fear would not be a factor.

Being careful just means you'll drive more acurately and therefore be quicker. Read any autobiography of a top driver and you'll find that none of them consider themselves totally fearless - you only need to look at drivers faces before an F1 (or any) race to see this. Fear keeps you on the edge - lack of fear takes you over the edge and can get you killed.

 

[MagpieRacer]

Nowadays, more in F1 than anything, a driver being killed is highly unlikely. I think any regulations could be made, assists speed whatever you want, but the cars wont get any weaker, faster yeah but with that more strength imo. Senna, from what i read, died after being hit in the head by a suspension arm, not sure about Ratzenberger..Hakkinen nearly died after extreme whiplash and so on. Well now saftey precautions are taken to ensure the suspension arms dont fly and the hans device stops any severe whiplash. Not forgetting the FIA crash tests. So i think that no matter what changes to the cars happen in F1, the safety will always be of a high standard.

I cant speak for other series' as i dont follow them closely enough.

 

[TheCracker]

Nowadays, more in F1 than anything, a driver being killed is highly unlikely. I think any regulations could be made, assists speed whatever you want, but the cars wont get any weaker, faster yeah but with that more strength imo. Senna, from what i read, died after being hit in the head by a suspension arm, not sure about Ratzenberger..Hakkinen nearly died after extreme whiplash and so on. Well now saftey precautions are taken to ensure the suspension arms dont fly and the hans device stops any severe whiplash. Not forgetting the FIA crash tests. So i think that no matter what changes to the cars happen in F1, the safety will always be of a high standard.

I cant speak for other series' as i dont follow them closely enough.

I agree with Ash completely. F1, or motorsport in general, has a suitable level of safety due not to electronic or mechanical aids, but because of improvements to driver protection. You can never stop a car from crashing no matter what you do to it - that's the nature of driving on the limit. What you can improve is what happens to the car and driver when it does loose control. Traction control or 4wd can't help you if your suspension fails or tyre explodes can they?

 

[Mt. Lynx]

Being careful just means you'll drive more acurately and therefore be quicker. Read any autobiography of a top driver and you'll find that none of them consider themselves totally fearless - you only need to look at drivers faces before an F1 (or any) race to see this. Fear keeps you on the edge - lack of fear takes you over the edge and can get you killed.

I agree, and I don´t agree. Fear is a good thing in these circumstances, but no fear would make you faster - until you crash for going over the edge.

I agree with Ash completely. F1, or motorsport in general, has a suitable level of safety due not to electronic or mechanical aids, but because of improvements to driver protection. You can never stop a car from crashing no matter what you do to it - that's the nature of driving on the limit. What you can improve is what happens to the car and driver when it does loose control. Traction control or 4wd can't help you if your suspension fails or tyre explodes can they?

Total agreement! More aids only moves the edge a little further away, and likleyness of crashing is still the same, no matter what.
Infact, they could reduce speeds by taking the edge closer, so that drivers steps over it sooner.

 

[ilovethescudo]

Wow, grossly misinformed and highly inaccurate.

wtf those are huge wings.

 

[Earth]

I understand speed kills. And racing is all about speed. Incident's like Zanardi's and Earnhardt's are unavoidable tragedies due to high speeds.

But I believe there should be a safety organization that should go to each track, look for weaknesses and force the track owners to upgrade until the track reaches a certain standard.

I'm tired of losing drivers, fans and track marshalls because of senseless easy to fix track design.

Some may say Formula 1 is too strict in track safety but they haven't lost a driver in 14 years thanks to their strict policy on track safety.

What needs to be done is a Safety Commity of some sorts should be formed, and they should inspect evey racing track and grade them. If they don't meet the grade they don't pass and they get shut down.

 

[TwinTurbos94]

I agree, but for each division,with the death of Scott Kalitta NHRA needs to mandate sandtrap lengths to try and prevent deaths.


A commitee for The IndyCars, ALMS, Rolex Grand Am,NASCAR,etc. needs to be formed.





Along with the "unlimited' eras of days past into the "saftey era" we have Kinda loss something in the translation in most sports (excluding ALMS and Grand-am). That thing is variety. Rules should be opened up for more engine or even chassis variety. Give Teams a choice of different "platforms" to work from, each with a different pro and con. If you want to go with a turbo/ Twin turbo setup, prepare to have a smaller engine, and higher gross weight requirement, but you might have traction control options. If you want a big engine, prepare to not have traction control options and your car can't be too light.

from there you can go to chassis options. The pros to this is Variety and a more engineering freedom. The major con is other than it can get rather complicated, is that it can well...flop.

Sometimes variety is more exciting. Personally that's why I like the Group B ,C and late 80's indy cars. The only thing that was wrong with them in a nutshell is that The technology was ahead of it's time...

 

[superberkut]

Variety can lead to divergence from a given formula that is often proven to be high in safety, however, once the freedom that corresponds to it is granted.

Following most of the argument, everything concerning the initial point was said, and even some of the greatest drivers would testify that fear kept them on the edge and drove them. Jackie Ickx, for example, opposed Jackie Stewart's proposal for revising the Nurburgring to make it safer for that reason. Gilles Villeneuve and Ronnie Peterson had racing techniques that were honed by other factors, but fear and defying it was indeed part of what cultivated into their spectacular driving. Both would die, though... it is not the notion of death nowadays as it is fear of losing a race.

 

[[empty space]]

Turbo engines are fine for going round in circles all day on full/almost full throttle. But in any other situation where your revs are dropping and gaining constantly, a turbo charger is somewhat of a liability.

im kind of curious about this considering protoypes have been using turbos since before the 956/962 era? specially considering anti-lag tech that audi has been using since they introduced the r8 in 2000?

vareity ftw 👍

 

[superberkut]

I didn't think about that, either, given that turbochargers tended to be unreliable in the era of the 962. The PSI ratings must have been relatively low, then.

 

[TwinTurbos94]

Nowadays I wouldn't say having a turbo is a liability,with technology the way it is there are more cars that don't worry about turbo lag.

The 962 era probably had a lower PSI rating to compensate for lag than other cars. Nowadays you can most likely run a turbo w/ a higher PSI than before.






Hopefully we might see VGT's in higher performing gas buring engines other than the 997.

 

[TheCracker]

The 956/962 is a race car. They had massive turbos running huge levels of pressure. Turbo lag isn't such an issue in a race car because you can gear it to be running in the powerband at every point on a given circuit. You find yourself a bit sluggish coming out of a second gear hairpin? - you just change your ratios so you are now exiting the corner with the turbos already spooled up nicely.

The earlier 917/30 used in Can-Am was running between 19 and 32 psi! and the 959 whose engine was based on the 956/962 unit ran 12.8 psi.

 

[GilesGuthrie]

Safety has to be about keeping the driver healthy after the crash begins. Look at Michael McDowell's practice crash in NASCAR this year. The thing rolls many times, then he gets out himself and walks away. But, he was in the wall less than a tenth of a second after the crash begins. Hideki Mutoh's crash at Le Mans was horrifying to see, but he got himself out, and walked away. Robert Kubica had a nasty one in Canada in 2007, where he went into a concrete wall at unabated speed, but he was back in the seat quick enough. Lewis Hamilton in 2007 replayed Michael Schumacher's 1999 leg-breaking crash, and walked away, racing the next day.

Safety measures aimed at preventing the crash will ruin the racing, the sport, and the spectacle. It doesn't matter if you slow the cars down, because the drivers will still take them to the edge, and when they go over the edge, the crash starts. You've only brought the edge nearer. Similarly, if you put 4ha run-off into each turn (yes Hermann, I'm talking about you), then you move the edge further away. The drivers go faster, safe in the knowledge that a crash is less likely to harm them. But the edge is still there, the crash will still start when the edge is breached.

To me, keeping the driver safe should focus on:

• Allowing the car to destroy itself in shedding the crash energy progressively (side bonus: this is spectacular for the fans)
• Controlling the angle of impact between the car and the crash site, so that oblique angles are prevalent.
• Keeping the car on the ground (c.f. sports cars & NASCAR)
• Stopping the car from going on fire
• Getting medical staff to the car in under 60s from crash commencement
• Complete and total neutralisation of the race while the crash is sorted

Slowing the cars down, and over-egging the runoffs does not achieve the stated aim, and ruins the sport.

 

[Blake]

I agree with your post Giles, except about the runoff. Giving acres of runoff has a few advantages in my eyes:

• Increased driver safety in event of an off
• Increased overtaking because drivers can actually give it some in the braking area and if they screw it up the consequence is only a few seconds and maybe a flat spot. Also see Massa v Kubica at Fuji last year for another benefit of über runoff – that battle would have never happened if the drivers didn’t have the margin to play with
• In the event of a crash it is likely to be away from the racing line, meaning it can be sorted under a local yellow rather than a safety car (safety car = huge yawn)
• Fewer retirements (having the last 30 minutes of a race with only 6 cars circulating is not conducive to entertaining racing).

But yes, active safety in terms of driver aids etc. are evil and genuinely do kill the show.

 

[TheCracker]

I agree with your post Giles, except about the runoff. Giving acres of runoff has a few advantages in my eyes:

• Increased driver safety in event of an off
• Increased overtaking because drivers can actually give it some in the braking area and if they screw it up the consequence is only a few seconds and maybe a flat spot. Also see Massa v Kubica at Fuji last year for another benefit of über runoff – that battle would have never happened if the drivers didn’t have the margin to play with
• In the event of a crash it is likely to be away from the racing line, meaning it can be sorted under a local yellow rather than a safety car (safety car = huge yawn)
• Fewer retirements (having the last 30 minutes of a race with only 6 cars circulating is not conducive to entertaining racing).

But yes, active safety in terms of driver aids etc. are evil and genuinely do kill the show.

I'm pretty sure a driver doesn't even think about the amount of available run-off until he actually finds him/herself having to use it. I doubt it plays any part in whether or not they make a move or not coming into a braking zone.

Bigger run-off areas also mean spectators are further from the action and it reduces the visual markers that give the impression of speed when watching a race on TV.

 

[Blake]

I'm pretty sure a driver doesn't even think about the amount of available run-off until he actually finds him/herself having to use it.

Really? I think any driver not looking for the places around the circuit where there is more margin for error isn’t doing his or her job properly.

 

[TheCracker]

Really? I think any driver not looking for the places around the circuit where there is more margin for error isn’t doing his or her job properly.

You only have to have watched Hamilton and Rosberg's mistakes in Canada to see how far from the black top an F1 driver concentrates his focus. And again, the 'Wall of Champions' on the exit of the final corner at Montreal proves that little thought is given to anything off track. They all know it's there, lurking just the other side of the rumble strip, they all know how easy it is to ruin a race by straying into it - yet year after year several drivers still end up whacking it.