As drivers, we accept that a large element of racing is gladiatorial and that there is an inherent risk in what we do.
But, in general, we do not accept that risks should be unlimited, that nothing should be done to reduce them, or that there is any such thing as "safe enough".
Sums it up for me, and is the most understandable, concise refute to the argument that racing is inherently dangerous and fine the way it is I've read.
The thing about Earnhardt brings up an interesting point though--and one tha Mario Andretti made right after the accident, that in the end the driver's should decide. I have mixed feelings about it--in F1 it was the drivers pushing for safety, in NASCAR, at least initially, the old school drivers pushed against it, it's changed over the past 15 years though. It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out, I hope some good can come out of it.
I may be wrong, but I believe the nose cone that came off of Karam's car was a crush-able structure. The problem lies in it coming off the car & becoming a projectile. That needs to be looked at. Should it be tethered to the car so that doesn't happen, I'd think yes. I'm no engineer or designer just a race fan that wants no one else to die like Justin.
It really is a bit of a quandary. Like football (and many other sports), the pros become role models for the "kids" coming up. A good argument can be made that those pros should be modeling good decision making and safe behavior. But it's also nominally a "free country" and I'm generally in favor of letting adults elect their own degree of risk, at least where they are capable of understanding and weighing it. I'm caging my car both because (a) I understand the risk (probably better than most people), and want to mitigate it as much as practical while not putting a roof on the car, and (b) I want to model good behavior for my kids and others. But mostly (a). My 15yo son HATES the idea of me building another topless car, and DEMANDS that I build a hardtop. Ain't happening. Because, for me, topless is a key part of my joy of driving.
Motorcycle helmet laws come to mind. I think you'd have to be an IDIOT to ride a motorcycle without one. And perhaps there's a public cost to a rider ending up in a long term vegetative state because of it. But most of the risk is borne by the individual (and their dependents), and I think the individual is capable of weighing the risk for themselves, mostly.
Of course, with motorsports, when the performance of the cars is affected, you're going to have to mandate "like" equipment in the interest of fairness. So it's ultimately not going to be an individual driver's or team's decision, like HANS could be in NASCAR a decade ago.
Lots of other racing series have closed cockpits. Open wheel racing stays open because it's part of the "look". There are are lot of benefits besides protection. They just need to want to do it enough.
Sorry I went off topic on the other forum. Repeating pretty much what I said: By going with an enclosed cockpit you would be solving one problem while, more than likely, creating other problems. The first thought that comes to mind would be an upside down car that was burning. Getting the driver out could be the new problem.
They're designed to do that specifically to release kinetic energy during a crash. Yes, you can tether parts, and the cowl I'm guessing from here on out will be tethered, but that won't completely eliminate the issue. Also, tires come off, etc. Changing the cars so they don't shed parts will make them more dangerous to the occupant. It's a catch-22.
I'm guessing the canopy can be developed to release even upside down.
Another added benefit--you're not going to have the wind constantly buffeting around the cockpit, which should help with driver concentration and fatigue.
What number of deaths do you need for it to be statistically significant?
Dan Wheldon......Significant changes occurred after that, because everyone recognized though rare, it could/would happen again. It only happened once, but once was enough.
Kyle Busch didn't even die, but NASCAR pushed for extension of the safer barrier to prevent further injury and death, guess we need to wait for someone to actually expire next time.
Dale Earnhardt, and the mandatory HANS type device and halo seats--not a ton of deaths from that type of accident, but woukd anyone seriously argue those changes were bad?
It's not just deaths, but racers get concussions and non-threatening life injuries. Protecting the head, if it's feasable, is a no-brainer, pun intended. Yes, racing is and always will be risky, but that's not an excuse to try and improve safety. Being proactive also reduces the clamor over prohibiting racing or canceling a series, lie in the days when people were calling for the end of F1 due to all the deaths.
I agree its worth investigating. Any time there is a death it should be evaluated to see if anything could have kept it from happening. I also do not believe that we change the rules for a statistical anomaly.
I guess the question is how much risk is acceptable. I do not know that answer.
Before you did your big performance you posted a picture of your methanol fuel cell with a rollover valve. And I thought "that's silly, he's never going to roll it." Well, we all know how that turned out.
What needs to be improved is the cars being built so they don't shed so much crap during an impact. Cars used to dent when they hit something, now they explode.
It means building a beefier car with way less carbon fiber.
How often does an accident like this happen? Is it worth it to change the design of a car for something that is less likely to happen than being struck by lightning?
No its not you are correct. I guess what I meant but did not say. Is there are known things we can do but don't. that was a example.
Instead of a closed cockpit would anything els have made a difference?
Not disagreeing with you just trying to see all sides.
