The Plank

[spookthehamster]

It's the little details like this that make LFS.

I was messing around in the CMX viewer after I'd finished my skin, and I notice that Scavier had gone put a plank on the bottom of the BF1, just like the real thing.

For those who haven't heard of the plank, it's attached to the bottom of every F1 car, and the thickness measured at the end of the race to make sure the cars aren't running too low to the ground. When ride height rules were first enforced, teams would still make their cars run extremely low at speed, but on the last lap the drivers would bounce the cars around on the kerbs to get them up to the legal height. The plank stops this because if the cars run low in the race, it scrapes on the track and gets thinner.

I wonder if plank physics are modelled? Will we see "legal" and "illegal" sets? :D

[bobvanvliet]

Yeah, I had noticed it too. Nice detail :)

I wonder if plank physics are modelled? Will we see "legal" and "illegal" sets? :D

That would be awesome. And not too difficult, me thinks (although not very high up on the priorities list ;) )

[Fordman]

So I understand ( correct me if I am wrong as I am no F1 freak ) the "plank" as you called it, is very much part of the total cars physics. If this isn't modeled, then there would be room for expliots, like the current nose in the air and ass on the floor bug :shrug:

As I said, no expert, just hazarding a guess here

[ajp71]

^^ Real Formula Renault/F3000/GT series all have a minimum ride height which LFS ignores so why is it different for the BF1?

[Interceptor]

The wooden plank is 10mm thick and was introduced purely to control ground clearance as the op stated. I think I'm right in saying that if the plank is worn more than 1mm when measured after the race then it's an instant disqualification.

Wasn't the plank introduced about the same time as the temporary track modifications such as the removal of Spa's Eau Rouge and reduction of airflow to the engines by way of various slices or holes cut in the engine cover - all as a result of Ayrton Senna's death at Imola in 1994?

[ajp71]

10 mm ground clearance? That's nothing.

[Fordman]

10 mm ground clearance? That's nothing.

its alot when your ass is only inches off the ground? You measure 10mm, and then think of the F1 technology? i think you will find thats a considerable amount

[Interceptor]

Well 10mm clearance may be nothing but they must run sufficiently higher than that to avoid any kind of contact with the ground or risk disqualification. Like Schumacher who spun over a kerb at Spa 94 I think it was - he took a few pieces out of his "plank" and that was that.

Here you go - just found this link which tells the story and also confirms that indeed the plank was introduced at the German GP of 1994 as a result of the tragic Imola race.

http://www.gpracing.net192.com/races/reports/559.cfm

[ajp71]

Right yes didn't think the car had to keep at least 10mm off the ground. If the minimum ride height was 10mm then they'd be bottoming out all over the place.

[5th Earth]

Sometimes in race footage you can actually see the spray of sawdust when the plank bottoms out. Of course, the plank being oriented along the axis of the vehicle, designers still allow the car to theoretically drop low enough to grind it off because in turns, lateral roll can lower the outside edge of the car below 10mm without the plank in the middle dragging.

[sil3ntwar]

Im yet to see a formula 1 game without planks so its hardly suprising.

[Gunn]

I think I'm right in saying that if the plank is worn more than 1mm when measured after the race then it's an instant disqualification.That is correct. 1mm wear is all they allow.

[colcob]

Yeah, in GP2 and GP3 (and presumably GP4, havent got it) you could 'inspect plank' when you got back to the pits and it told you how much it had been worn down, so you could tune your ride height.

[Becky Rose]

all as a result of Ayrton Senna's death at Imola in 1994?
Nobody ever remembers Roland Ratzenberger :/. 1994 was an insane year, but yes this is when the plank was introduced. For once all the teams actually agreed on emergency rules in an effort to make the cars less lethal.

[LRB_Aly]

Nobody ever remembers Roland Ratzenberger :/.
Yes I do, and I always get upset if poeple are talking of the tragic Imola weekend and the death of A. Senna without mentioning Ratzenberger.
One could ask the question if something would have changed in F1 if "only" R. Ratzenberger have died. Probably if Senna would not have died, nobody would talk of this year and race. It`s sad but I think that`s the way it would be.

[MyBoss]

I'm probably going to be shot now, but what happened to Ratzenberger?

[sil3ntwar]

Front wing broke off at about 300kph through a flat out right hander. He hit the wall so hard it broke his neck. The wing was damaged due to a spin on the previous lap.

[LRB_Aly]

As a result of the Ratzenbergers accident Sauber increased the side of their cockpits and in '95 the FIA enforced a rule that all cockpits had to have a higher cockpit side. A rule that was reworked for several times over the years.

[Funnybear]

Yes. THat year was a strange year for F1, a year that they still havn't fully recovered from. I think Coulthard spelt it out in an ITV interview he did. He said (Loosly, I can't remember these things verbatim) that F1 has become almost too safe. That racing drivers race with the understanding they are treading a very fine line between control and the wall, that that line is steadily being eroded (particularily in F1) away so that even the drivers feel they are just robots performing for the sponsers.

In a way I agree. If you become a racing driver you accept that there is a possibility that you will, nay a probable out come that you will, die or at least injure yourself severly whilst racing. I should think to the true racing driving that is as much as part of the thrill (Whether they can admit it or not) as the actuall racing. I jump out of planes. And althought the actuall jumping part, the falling part and the landing safetly with a parachute part are all extremly thrilling if I'm honest the risk that the landing saftely part might not happen is always a factor in my mind. That is what gives you that real adrenalin buzz.

If these things where perfectly safe then nobody would want to race, and nobody wants to watch.

Less lethal/severe crashes . . . . Lower viewer figures . . . A conincedence, I think not.

If it wasn't for the fact that nothing in life is equal I would could see an arguement for deregulation of formula one. Brings back the days of showmanship and the union of man and machine; of too much power and not enough grip; of collisions, clashes and struggling across the winning line with your rear wing hanging off after having driven 10 laps; and of death. Formula one has been synomonous with a good death every once in a while. IT keeps the punters watching and the sport in the news.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not out to kill every racing driver out there and cetain sensibilites should always be taken to lessen certain racing risks, like not placing a spike in the middle of the steering wheel fr'instance. But like the gladiators in the circus, drivers need that edge to race and people need that edge to watch. Otherwise you might as well have a conveyor belt of loud noise . . . .

Edit - Not that I don't morn the loss of any good racing driver. But like a warrior in battle if it happens then where better than doing the thing you love. (all things considered)

[Goop]

^^ Totally agree.

Bah, get rid of wings and T/C and F1 is fixed imo (said as a non-fan with few clues about the sport ;) ) :D As for the jumping out of planes thing, I did it once... never again :vomit:

[CharlieP]

I would only jump out of a plane if it were firmly on the ground :D

As for formula 1, it should be as safe as possible, but it would become as popular again if there were more crashes... even if the driver has no injuries... nobody has to die!

They should make the cars harder to drive to bring back the 'edge' but make sure the driver is well protected by cocooning him in a fireproof, shatterproof ( you get the idea ) shell, which limits his head movements too.

The there would be more thrills and spills but it would be reasonably safe :)

[ajp71]

I think F1 is too safe atm. That's due to the modern tracks with massive run offs. I think that safety should be improved where possible, however, I would have said that F1 should still run on the older less safe circuits.

To make any top level motorsport a lot safer on dangerous tracks you've got to change the drivers attitude and encourage clean racing.

[LRB_Aly]

Is there something like too safe? I think not, look at Silverstone '99 when Schumacher crashed due to brake failure. Cars were expected to be safe and still he broke his legs. Or Ralf Schumachers crashes at Indy? Motorsport will never be a 100% safe. Problem atm is that the FIA worked out the rules to make safe cars (in the last decade) but did forget about the competition. Back before 95 we saw many exciting races (just as an expample: Mansell-Senna in Barcelona driving tyre by tyre at 300kph on the straight). I think that it would have possible to make safe cars and still have great competition. Well the result of all the regulations over the past years led to car aerodynamics that are surely fantastic but due to this cars can't drive close behind someone in a corner without loosing a huge amount of downforce. At least the FIA is reacting to that and came up with this new wing, return to real slicks (which should improve mechanical grip) and some other things. No matter if this wing looks weird, if it will improve the race action it would be great.

[Madman_CZ]

Nordschelife :scratchch

i agree with you there ajp though you do need runoffs i think, they are vital when something goes wrong with the car or when an accident happens. I think that f1 has always been trying to strike a balance between speed and safety. It is a fine balance to find. You want a fast car but you dont want your drivers to get injured. But f1 should still be a motorsport with an edge, cars should be difficult to drive.. etc

you last line i partly agree with, yes clean racing should be encouraged but accidents do happen and always will even if drivers racing was clean. We are only human and therefore prone to mistakes...

[Greboth]

I dont think people need to die for it to more interesting. Just less safe. I dont mean less safe that the drivers will get hurt but less safe so that the car wont be easy to drive (not saying its easy but easier than 10 yrs agoo for example) like TC theres no danger now of just foot to the floor coming out of a corner.The tarmac run off areas now means hardly anyone hits the wall, they can recover and carry on. Just these things make it so the cars do just go round and round, theres no action anymore.
I no how to describe it - theres no risk anymore.

Thats why i like btcc so much - i dont agree with the big shunts etc, but when they are rubbing side to side as long as stay clean and both drivers carry on its great.

[ajp71]

but accidents do happen and always will even if drivers racing was clean.

Generally speaking you see a lot less big accidents on corners with no run off area ;)

[spookthehamster]

I don't want to go off topic on my own post, but the racing in BTCC really gets on my nerves. I went to watch the final once at Brands in the 90's and one of the Volvos was about to win the race (and championship) but a Vauxhall quite blatantly barged him into the gravel at Clearways to stop him winning. Ever since Audi/Alfa/Volvo left the BTCC it's gone downhill.

[Funnybear]

Give people a safetly net and they will use it . . . . .

Even the cars are designed to take into account all the new safety factors and to exploit them. Such is the nature of competition.

I love watching Monaco. Close, to the wall and making the cars operate on teh limit of their design brief . . .

If the tracks where surrounded by walls people adapt their driving and car designs to suit. More safetly 'areas' does not nessesarily mean safer racing . . .

[ajp71]

I don't want to go off topic on my own post, but the racing in BTCC really gets on my nerves. I went to watch the final once at Brands in the 90's and one of the Volvos was about to win the race (and championship) but a Vauxhall quite blatantly barged him into the gravel at Clearways to stop him winning. Ever since Audi/Alfa/Volvo left the BTCC it's gone downhill.

Agree with you there about the BTCC.

[FredrikB]

As a result of the Ratzenbergers accident Sauber increased the side of their cockpits and in '95 the FIA enforced a rule that all cockpits had to have a higher cockpit side. A rule that was reworked for several times over the years.
Shouldnt that be Wendlinger at Monaco driving a Sauber? :scratchch
He crashed at the chicane and got serious head injuries wich almost killed him just two weeks after Imola.

/Fredrik

[wsinda]

It's a very poor sport if it needs to have deadly risks to stay interesting.

I for one don't want to see racers kill themselves. I'd be more interested in a sport where you can watch close fights, see the drivers work at the wheel, and where driving skills are more important than multimillion-$$ technology. (And such a sport exists: it's called karting.)

Sadly, it's F1 that attracts the crowds, the cameras, and the sponsors. Fatalities and loudly roaring engines do seem to work.

(To those who think F1 has become "too safe": suppose they arrange things so that each year 1 or 2 drivers have a fatal accident. Would that improve things?)

[tristancliffe]

All 3 of those accidents, plus Barrichellos at Imola, Andrea Montermini's at Barcelona led Sauber to develop the high cockpit sides which later became mandatory, the ride height plank, larger cockpit openings (also brought on my Hakkinens Adelaide crash), and numerous other safety improvements.

However, motor racing never will, and should not ever be, totally safe. By all means protect the driver somewhat, but keep an element of risk. It's what drives people to do motor-racing.

[ajp71]

F1 is IMO too safe. That doesn't mean it should have a large number of injuries because there shouldn't be such a large number of big crashes. It is ridiculous IMO that F1 is as dangerous as historic racing. In club racing you have none of the car safety that you do in F1, and often small run off areas. I've never seen an accident which resulted in anything worse than concusion and a few broken bones. In F1 the same kind of mistakes (ie. rolling at 90mph after clipping wheels down a straight) wouldn't of done as much as prik the finger of an F1 driver with their safety nets.

My biggest problem with F1 is that no one here has mentioned the several fatalities to marshals and spectators which have occured since 1994.

[Funnybear]

Formula one is supposed to be the pinnacle of open wheel racing. And in such you expect to be taken for a seat of the pants ride with all the inherant risks.

Of course a unnesessary death is a bad thing, please don't confuse me with someone who takes human life lightly, but to be a racing driver you have to be prepared to place your life on the line. Surely they do that everytime they strap into the cockpit and rev the engine. It must cross their minds that this could be their last race. Racing is dangerous. It's a fundemental basis of racing. By defintion racing needs that 'edge', that flirtation with extremes. These guys are supposed to be racing on the edge, but if you keep moving the edge further and further away from them they're eventually just gunna be commuting to their next pay check.

Sportmen die. It's the nature of the beast, be it on the football field, in a derby or on the racetrack. It's one of the things that makes sport, sport.

[Frankmd]

Nobody ever remembers Roland Ratzenberger :/. 1994 was an insane year, but yes this is when the plank was introduced. For once all the teams actually agreed on emergency rules in an effort to make the cars less lethal.

I think most people remember him, but the reason why he wasnt mentioned here is (I think) because the ride height of his car did not play a role during his accident.
Senna's accident might have been caused by his car bottoming out. He had probably cold tyres, thus lower tyrepressure, causing lower ride height in the first laps after the safetycar. I know there is also this theory about a breaking steeringshaft, but Im not sure if they ever found out what the real cause was.

So to prevent bottoming out of the cars, they introduced the plank. I believe on some occasions wear greater then 1mm was allowed, because of high curbstones or something...? I think it was Spa.

[deggis]

FIA is really great at destroying motorsport and making it more boring but the problem in larger scale is actually super talented engineers. :) They invented TC and other driving aids that are the lamest thing ever in motorsport.

I think the actual car safety and the fact that how hard the cars are to drive are totally separate things. Of course the tracks were awful 40-20 years ago what comes to driver or spectator safety but I think harder handling cars today wouldn't increase dangerous crashing that much. If just the safety things were up to date.

WRC rally is good example that safety doesn't always go hand-in-hand with the powerful specs. Modern cars are much safer but even that they are less powerful (Group B's 500/600 hp vs. 300 hp) they are way faster than ever before. It's kind of stupid to even dream about a scenario were cars would be specs-wise similar to the Group Bs but with modern safety instructions, but I'd bet that wouldn't increase dangerous crashing at all because cars would go actually slower than now because they wouldn't have all the technical crap that makes driving rather easy (for a professional driver) and very boring to watch. Instead of fatal crashing (like FIA obviously thinks) drivers would be again real heros or "gods".

wtf, I started to talk about rallying even this thread has nothing to do with it. :D

[LRB_Aly]

Shouldnt that be Wendlinger at Monaco driving a Sauber? :scratchch
He crashed at the chicane and got serious head injuries wich almost killed him just two weeks after Imola.

/Fredrik

Well it's such a long time ago, I actially thought Sauber raised the cockpits already after the Ratzenbergers (which drove Simtek at the time being) crash, but you could be right, cause as I remember Wendlingers injuries also resulted due to extreme "head shaking" (sorry don't know how to put it in words but you know what I mean)

[LRB_Aly]

I think most people remember him, but the reason why he wasnt mentioned here is (I think) because the ride height of his car did not play a role during his accident.
Senna's accident might have been caused by his car bottoming out. He had probably cold tyres, thus lower tyrepressure, causing lower ride height in the first laps after the safetycar. I know there is also this theory about a breaking steeringshaft, but Im not sure if they ever found out what the real cause was.

So to prevent bottoming out of the cars, they introduced the plank. I believe on some occasions wear greater then 1mm was allowed, because of high curbstones or something...? I think it was Spa.

yeah I also remember that someone from Williams (don't know who it was) made a statement that they had problems with the cars when it bottomed. It was something like their car reacted very exteme on bottoming compared to other cars.

[colcob]

I remember watching a program about the Senna crash and it seemed like the basic physics of it were that at the time, the cars got massive downforce from large flat bottoms, but when you bottomed out the front of the undertray, it cut off the airflow accross the whole undertray, momentarily reducing the downforce by a substantial amount.

So what the plank did was force the main bulk of the undertray upwards by quite a lot, so that firstly you got less undertray downforce, but also if the plank bottomed out, it only cut off a little bit of the airflow under the car, and the air could still flow freely under the side areas, maintaining some downforce.

[LRB_Aly]

I remember watching a program about the Senna crash and it seemed like the basic physics of it were that at the time, the cars got massive downforce from large flat bottoms, but when you bottomed out the front of the undertray, it cut off the airflow accross the whole undertray, momentarily reducing the downforce by a substantial amount.


Yes that's right but some cars weren't affected by that as extreme as the FW16 was. Now if this is because the Williams had a general problem that the car bottomed more easily or such things is difficult to tell. I mean every team surely tried to lower the car as much as they could (for a given track/setup) and perhaps Williams was too extreme in the setups leaving no gap for errors. Still it would be rather strange as this team was no rookie team. But then again for the '94 season active suspensions had been forbidden and this could also have caused that teams had to learn the limits of ride heights. Well speculations don't change anything, was a sad year.

[Darkone55]

So to prevent bottoming out of the cars, they introduced the plank. I believe on some occasions wear greater then 1mm was allowed, because of high curbstones or something...? I think it was Spa.

Probably because of Eau Rouge? Posted it somewhere on the forums here before, but I do it again, it's such a nice pic. :D

[spookthehamster]

Probably because of Eau Rouge? Posted it somewhere on the forums here before, but I do it again, it's such a nice pic. :D

Looks more like he's hit a patch of sand (there's more in front of him) than wood dust, but v. nice picture.

[tr1ax]

Might just be from other cars planks from throughout the race/practice/qual.

[ajp71]

Looks like sawdust to me :D

[Darkone55]

Looks more like he's hit a patch of sand (there's more in front of him) than wood dust, but v. nice picture.

Well, it is wood. If you look at the ideal line you see it everywhere. It tried this in GP4 btw, and there the car hits the ground on the same place. :)

[Greboth]

I can see why the fia want to make f1 safe, no one wants to have dead drivers. So all the cars havin higher sides, better crash protection i agree with. I just disagree with things like TC that take from the drivers skill and take the risk away. I know taking things like TC away would lower safety but IMO would be alot more interesting as driver skill would really show through.
Saying all this though - i also see F1 as the pinicle (spelling?) of motorsport and it has always developed new things. It has always pushed the boundires of motorsport and so it should.
Really there are arguemnt for both gettin rid of things like TC but also reaosn for keeping it. I personally think that it should b outlowed.

As for my comment earlier on the BTCC IMO the btcc prime was the era of nissan primeras, audi (cant remember which car) vauxhall vectras, ford mondeos etc. Its not perfect, some of the time passes are made simply by pushing the other person off the road, which is unfair. But i said i like it when they get side by side and rub and then botn continue racing. As i said some of the pushing and barging is unfair, but IMO at time it is exciting.

As for the no one remember Ratzenberger, everyone always remember Senna. I think this is due to the fact senna was forumla 1's big star at the time. I mean this as in if Ide died at the next race it wuld be remembered, but if both Ide and alonso died, alonso would b the more remembered. Saying that though it was a sad week end to loose both ratxenburger and senna.

[Jakg]

The wooden plank is 10mm thick and was introduced purely to control ground clearance as the op stated. I think I'm right in saying that if the plank is worn more than 1mm when measured after the race then it's an instant disqualification.

Wasn't the plank introduced about the same time as the temporary track modifications such as the removal of Spa's Eau Rouge and reduction of airflow to the engines by way of various slices or holes cut in the engine cover - all as a result of Ayrton Senna's death at Imola in 1994?one question ive always felt to n00bish to ask, why did Senna crash?

[spookthehamster]

I don't mind the safety features in F1 cars, it's the safety REGULATIONS I dislike. The FIA has too much say in what happens to cars/tracks, when F1 has always been about pushing technology to the limit to make the fastest possible cars; whether it's from 6-wheeled Tyrells, to cars with fans to suck them to the ground. Bring back the days of technical innovation, I don't care if TC is included. That said, the main problem with F1 isn't the cars, it's the uninspiring tracks. F1 goes to whoever pays the most, so new, "safe" (boring) tracks make up most of the calendar. Tracks like Shanghai, which seem to have no soul or defining features. We need to get tracks like Brands GP, Laguna Seca, Donnington. These are tracks that are interesting for people to watch on TV, and tracks that the drivers love to race on, they're fed up with slow 1st and 2nd gear corners, they want speed, they want danger. I know it's not F1, but one of Valentino Rossi's favourite tracks is Donnington, and other riders love the thrill of the Corkscrew.

Greboth, if you want to see fast racing with no TC, ABS or other driver aids, check out A1GP. The TV coverage may not be up to much, but the racing is close and intense, especially the street circuits. I was at the opening round at Brands and it was a wonderful sight to behold them tearing down Paddock Hill on the opening lap.

[tristancliffe]

one question ive always felt to n00bish to ask, why did Senna crash?

There was no definitive conclusion reached in the end. There was a theory his steering column broke, there was a thoery he bottomed out due to cold tyres, there was a theory he ran over debris and got a puncture, there wasa theory he blacked out (he used to hold his breath during really quick laps to focus), there was a theory someone shot him (okay we're into the conspiracy theories now, so I'll stop).

In short no one knows. It's highyl likely he didn't really either.

[Christian Seidel]

one question ive always felt to n00bish to ask, why did Senna crash?

I once read an article about that which was based on the results of an investigation that included the FIA and Williams. I'm sorry, but I can't remember anymore where I found that.

In this article they ripped the whole telemetry data of the accident apart and gave an explanation to what had happened.

The bottom line was that Senna, in an effort to go faster, slightly missed the apex of the old Tamburello curve and went a bit wide. Doing so he crossed a bump on the road surface that you don't cross when driving on the ideal line. As a result (I forgot if he was bottoming out or if just a loss of contact by the suspension occured) he lost grip for a short moment, left the grippy part of the track completely and had no more chance of recovery - being at very high speed on a dirty part of the track he just went straight off the road and smashed into the wall.

I still remember that the data showed that Sennas reaction time was some kind of supernatural. IIRC he reacted to the bump in just slightly more than 1/10 of a second. AFAIK an average human being has a reaction time of 1/3 of a second.

No evidence for a broken steering was found.

But one should also remember, that he wasn't primarily killed by the impact itself, but by a part of the suspension that went through his helmet visor right into his head.

[LRB_Aly]

I just disagree with things like TC that take from the drivers skill and take the risk away. I know taking things like TC away would lower safety but IMO would be alot more interesting as driver skill would really show through.


Well they used TC before 94 and also active suspensions. And a lot more stuff. It didn't hurt the race action. So I think that blaming all the bad things (such as boring train races) on TC is a little bit too easy. It's more the whole changes in regulas that led to this situation. Races were also not interesting (for the casual spectator) back in 2000 a year before TC was permitted again. A lot of changes reduced mech grip, forcing the teams to find other ways to compensate that. And that meant that they had to design very sophisticated aerodynamics which looses a lot of downforce when caught behind another car. 2 important changes are coming 2008 in these matters: Real slicks (which should provide more mech grip) and this seperated wing (which should decrease turbulences behind a car)

[Christian Seidel]

And that meant that they had to design very sophisticated aerodynamics which looses a lot of downforce when caught behind another car.

100% agree, but there is still more.

One way to pass another car is to blast by it if you have WAY more power. But that's not very often the case when two drivers with comparable laptimes fight each other.

Most overtaking happens on the brakes. One big problem in F1 is that the braking distances have become so short that it is nearly impossible to gain enough of an advantage in this little distance. So anything that increases the braking distance makes overtaking easier.

So any kind of grip-reduction should make the situation better - you loose an amount of the ability to get the force of the brakes down to the ground. But I think a banning of the carbon fibre brakes would also do the trick. Their braking capabilities are so enormous that this might even be the most effective way to enlarge braking distances. But since I'm not a race engineer this is only an assumption of what I heard and read about carbon brakes. Maybe I'm completely wrong here...:)

[Vultureke]

The FIA killed/kills the F1 with all their regulations:

Traction Control => even a 16-year old kid without big skills can drive a F1 car.

You may not 'fight' on track, only 1 time you may change your racingline when someone's trying to pass. When they pass each other AND touch a single bit the other car causing one of the drivers to be out of the race => 'Race control is investigating the incident between car nr X and X'
Come on! These are simple race accidents! Offcourse they're not willing to overtake anymore so you loose your position, points and maybe a penalty (something like 10 places back in next race startgrid).

We want to see skilled drivers, taking some risks while overtaking WITHOUT drivers get badly hurt/killed. That's what real racing fans like!
Remember the big fight on track in the 70's (???) between Villeneuve and Rene Arnoux. Real racing, BIG clean fight taking 3-4 laps, nobody's hurt, adrenaline everywhere! :) For the ones who don't know what I'm talking about, search the internet for the movie, you'll love it.

[Madman_CZ]

i remember watching some of the Hill, Schumacher battles 1994 and 1995 and they provided thrill and bags of excitement. Today FIA is killing F1, so many decisions over the last few years have put off some fans. The points system, the qualifying format changed x number of times and i must say personally i still prefer the 12 laps 1hour qualifying. The change of engines and a 10 place grid penalty is a silly rule and should be scrapped immediately, mechanical problems are harming drivers with penalties which had nothing to do with them and i believe last year this rule contributed most to Alsonso winning the championship.

also we must not forget why the rule changes started to appear, Ferrari have reached such perfection in the sport that they were just too strong for their opposition and this led to Schumacher winning nearly everyrace easily. :nod:

What F1 now needs is some stabillty, a set of rules to stay for a few years but the rules should be well thought through and planned out. In 2008 there will be major changes made to F1 again, lets hope for the better and they will get rid of some of these nonsense rules we have at the moment.

mad

[Christian Seidel]

I can only agree to that. Nearly everything the FIA changed in F1 regulations in the past years was complete bs. For example you may only change your engine after two races...??? WTF - it's F1 goddammit!!!!! If you want to make F1 cheaper and more competetive for lower budget teams you should ban some of the most expensive materials. I mean not everything on a F1 car MUST be made of carbon fibre. Just the monocoque for safety reasons and that's it. This would also make F1 cars heavier which would help with overtaking too.

Bah, I'm getting a bit upset about the bit-by-bit-destruction of a once great racing series by some money-driven a*******.

Should better calm down as it doesn't help anyway...:(

[keiran]

one question ive always felt to n00bish to ask, why did Senna crash?

One of the things my Dad told me, as he watched that weekend. Senna had requested for his steering wheel to be moved, so the team had to cut the column and then re weld it. The theory was that the weld gave way and caused him to lose control. My personal feeling is that could be the cause looking at some of the investigator pictures on the site below.

On a side note theres quite an interesting website with some more details : http://www.ayrton-senna.com

Keiran

[Christian Seidel]

One of the things my Dad told me, as he watched that weekend. Senna had requested for his steering wheel to be moved, so the team had to cut the column and then re weld it. The theory was that the weld gave way and caused him to lose control. My personal feeling is that could be the cause looking at some of the investigator pictures on the site below.

On a side note theres quite an interesting website with some more details : http://www.ayrton-senna.com

Keiran

You didn't read my posting, did you? :D

It was not meant as a joke or something, this was really an article about an official investigation.

[Jakg]

But one should also remember, that he wasn't primarily killed by the impact itself, but by a part of the suspension that went through his helmet visor right into his head.ow :( thats a bad way to go

[EeekiE]

The videos on that site are well suspicious. It looks as if he was going round steady, and there is a pronounced stop in the turn as if something did snap.

[Greboth]

But one should also remember, that he wasn't primarily killed by the impact itself, but by a part of the suspension that went through his helmet visor right into his head.

AFAIK as i remember the accident and seeing photos etc after, it wasnt suspension going into his head, you cant see it on the video, but the most likel cause i know of is the less heat in tyres car bottomed out threw him into the wall. From watchin the video on the link posted above it looks more like that to me as he just stops turning. Also if you see a clip before, you see sparks from him bottoming out.
As for what killed him, if you see the pictures of the crash after it doesnt appear to be suspension, which suggests to me the most likely one ive heard was the front wheel after hitting the wall broke off and hit his helmet breaking his neck. IIRC his cause of death was a broken neck too.
This is waht i remember but i will do some looking into it.

Whatever though senna was a great driver, and got to be said a gentlemmen at times.

As for A1GP - i dont have sky sports to watch it on :(

Edit : http://www.metacafe.com/watch/52822/formula_1_ayrton_senna_crash/ tv coverage of crash. Not in english so dont know what they are saying, but you can see when the mdeics get to him hit visor is intact.

[tristancliffe]

To everyone who says F1 is boring now, but was 10/20/30/40 years ago (delete as applicable):

At THAT time (e.g. in 1994, or 1979, or 1964 etc) people thought it was boring then, and wished it was like the 'good old days'. But then, as now, they forget that the good old days were about the same as now. We see the past with rose-tinted spectacles.

Personally I've always loved F1 since I watched my first grand prix in 1987 at the age of 6 (I probably watched some previously to that, but only because I had been told to sit down and shut up my mummy and daddy), and I've always found them exciting. It might not be obvious excitement with wheel to wheel dicing that has occasionally happened (See Villeneuve/Arnoux thing above, but that was NOT normal, it was quite special even at the time), but it is nonetheless, for me, edge of the seat stuff.

When Schumi and Damon were racing for the titles in 1994 and 1995 (accidents aside which always creat excitement for some sick reason - it's the same reason why other people's misfortune is played out on TV shows, or internet clips as 'funny') people thought that the vast majority of the racing was dull, and wished it could be like the 70's or 60's (again forgetting that they were saying the same thing in the 70's and 60's). But now, 12 years on, we look back and wish F1 was as good as the good old early 90's.

The thing is, I don't think F1 has become more 'boring' or 'dull', it's just a natural human perception to fiddle memories so they are better than they actually were. Okay, so F1 is now populated by school boys (albeit talented school boys) who have to have driver aids to make them safe. I may not think the driving standards are as high as they used to be (because they don't have to be) but I still find it exciting. If we got rid of traction control, semi-auto gearboxes and all this nonsense which just adds to the cost and decreases laptimes and the chance of mistakes, but doesn't add anything to either road car development or the 'show'. People want the show. That's all the majority of people want. And as F1 is funded by the 'majority' buying things they see on the sides of F1 cars it's important for F1 to do something about it. As long as it's not brought on by either ugly cars (CDG Wings? Meh) or dumbed down cars (in terms of power or grip) then I will remain a fan. As yet BTCC, DTM, GP2 etc haven't provided me with any real excitement - it's just a load of noobs or has-beens punting each other off at every corner. No one finds that type of driving funny or acceptable in LFS, so why is it in real life?

Edit: Greboth - look for the 'Senna Files". There you see a picture of his helmet with a suspension rod sized puncture hole in the visor (and an uncovered air vent which is more easily seen, but ignore that). He died of massive head trauma brought about my penetration of his brain by a foreign body. The neck broken, although I've never heard that and I following the invesigation and rumours for years as closey as I could, wouldn' have helped, but wasn't the offical cause of death.

[Madman_CZ]

AFAIK as i remember the accident and seeing photos etc after, it wasnt suspension going into his head, you cant see it on the video, but the most likel cause i know of is the less heat in tyres car bottomed out threw him into the wall. From watchin the video on the link posted above it looks more like that to me as he just stops turning. Also if you see a clip before, you see sparks from him bottoming out.
As for what killed him, if you see the pictures of the crash after it doesnt appear to be suspension, which suggests to me the most likely one ive heard was the front wheel after hitting the wall broke off and hit his helmet breaking his neck. IIRC his cause of death was a broken neck too.
This is waht i remember but i will do some looking into it.

As for A1GP - i dont have sky sports to watch it on :(

yeah i heard about a wheel hitting his head too, before i started doing more digging into his accident and then read it was suspension going through his helmet.....

[ajp71]

Traction Control => even a 16-year old kid without big skills can drive a F1 car.

Can we get it out of our head that the TC systems in F1 are not put there for safety or too make the cars easy to drive. They are put there to allow the cars to put power down more efficentley. No matter what people may say you'll never be able to put the power down better than a computer. They may as a side effect make the cars easier to drive but this is not the reason TC is in F1 cars.

[tristancliffe]

Actually Alex TC was originally developed (for F1) with a few to making the drivers life easier, i.e. less mistake, more often on the limit = better results and fewer crashes. It's only in the last few years that TC has become sophisticated enough to be used as a tuning tool to make the cars quicker. I agree that's it's main purpose, but there is no getting away from it's driver aid roots.

[ajp71]

Actually Alex TC was originally developed (for F1) with a few to making the drivers life easier, i.e. less mistake, more often on the limit = better results and fewer crashes.

Ferrari also said that they had no number 1 driver. Then look at Austira 2003 ;)

IMO it's total bullshit that TC systems were put there for safety anymore than BAR's extra fuel compartment was there to presurise the fuel system. I think that whilst it may have been first proposed by a technical commitee for safety reasons the teams interpreted it as a way of going faster and more consistantley from the off (if they weren't using it already with all the bent clever diffs).

[JJ72]

TC was there to allow the drivers to concentrate more on the driving and race tactics, as Marc Gene pointed out few years back, over one lap a driver can be as quick as the TC, but over a race distance the TC will give an edge in consistency.

It wasn't there to speed up things in the first place.

[JJ72]

Anyone read the article by Bernie a few issues back in F1 Racing, it's the "lost interview" which was done in the 70's, which bernie was pressed on a lot of issues very similiar to today's F1.

I agree with Tristian on his points, and honestly the current generation of F1 drivers are still in my eyes people who does amazing stuff, yes a 16 year old can drive a F1 car but racing and be competitive is another matter, the racing in F1 nowadays is just as hard or even harder than ever, and even the most experienced will have to react to the rapidly changing situation so F1 is still no way a walk in the park, and F1 still remain the most challenging racing series in the world.

[colcob]

If I recall correctly, the reason traction control and launch control were re-allowed back into F1 was because it was strongly suspected that some teams were using a combination of engine and transmission management electronics to acheive TC and LC by subterfuge.
The systems were so complex and software based that it was impossible for the FIA to detect if this was happening, so to make things fair for poorer teams, or ones who had chosen to play fair, the systems were made legal again.

This is the whole reason why traction control cant be fully banned until standardised ECU's are brought in.

[SkyNet]

That is correct. 1mm wear is all they allow.

Isn't it 1cm (10mm) ?

[ajp71]

This is the whole reason why traction control cant be fully banned until standardised ECU's are brought in.

IMO TC and LC are small prices to pay if it means the cars can stay different. F1 is not a single make series and the engines should not be ruled by a single ECU IMO.

[tristancliffe]

The single ECU doesn't mean they all have to run the same engine configs etc. It will, without a shadow of a doubt, a fully mappable and configurable device, that will work with any engine they desire. The only difference is that the engineers won't have complete freedom in this area (but who really cares). The engineers will then move their efforts from making a really good ECU that works perfectly with their engines, to optimising their engines and systems to work within that ECU to get the desired goals. The engines will remain as different as they are today imo.

And I think it's a small price to pay to make the cars 0.2 seconds slower but 99% more fun to watch as the drivers won't have computer backup. then you will see smooth drivers (Buttons, Schumachers, Raikkonens) being better (at first) than the people that rely on TC to balance the car (Alonsos, Montoyas, Massas). As long as the standardised parts don't go too far, I'm all in favour.

[Christian Seidel]

If I recall correctly, the reason traction control and launch control were re-allowed back into F1 was because it was strongly suspected that some teams were using a combination of engine and transmission management electronics to acheive TC and LC by subterfuge.
The systems were so complex and software based that it was impossible for the FIA to detect if this was happening, so to make things fair for poorer teams, or ones who had chosen to play fair, the systems were made legal again.

This is the whole reason why traction control cant be fully banned until standardised ECU's are brought in.

Correct. This was said to be the reason. It's OK, since it's pointless anyway to have rules without the possibility to enforce them. :shrug:

[colcob]

Nah, the plank is 10mm thick.

[Madman_CZ]

here you can have a read of the FIA F1 regulations! LINK (http://www.fia.com/resources/documents/1603301296__2006_F1_TECHNICAL_REGULATIONS.pdf)

mad

edit* i just read that the plank under the F1 is 5cm thick.

[travbrad]

Get rid of traction control, and F1 is fixed IMO. That way the drivers actually have to feather the throttle instead of just letting the TC do most of the work. It's not like these drivers don't know how to do it. They all came from motorsport where there was no TC, i just don't see the point in TC in motor racing. Why not let the drivers do the work?:shrug:

The problem is teams found a way around the rules, as was mentioned earlier. So there seems to be no solution to the problem. The FIA just basically doesn't have the ability to enforce their own rules

[keiran]

You didn't read my posting, did you? :D

It was not meant as a joke or something, this was really an article about an official investigation.

I don't really believe that Senna lost the car like that :s. As has been said no real conclusion has come from this whole thing.

Also from having watched a video of just before the accident Senna is at the apex when the car breaks. He didn't miss the apex at all from what I can see. The car just strightens up and heads off. Theres also some telemntary views on the vid and some of the values jump when the car goes stright.

The cause of Sennas death was a suspension rod which went through his visor and into his head. Look at the senna site and you can see a picture if you want, although not the nicest of things to look at ...

Keiran

[colcob]

here you can have a read of the FIA F1 regulations! LINK (http://www.fia.com/resources/documents/1603301296__2006_F1_TECHNICAL_REGULATIONS.pdf)

mad

edit* i just read that the plank under the F1 is 5cm thick.

Nah, the central zone where the plank is has to be 50mm below the rest of the underbody work, then the plank in another 10mm below that.

[Christian Seidel]

I don't really believe that Senna lost the car like that :s. As has been said no real conclusion has come from this whole thing.

Also from having watched a video of just before the accident Senna is at the apex when the car breaks. He didn't miss the apex at all from what I can see. The car just strightens up and heads off. Theres also some telemntary views on the vid and some of the values jump when the car goes stright.

The cause of Sennas death was a suspension rod which went through his visor and into his head. Look at the senna site and you can see a picture if you want, although not the nicest of things to look at ...

Keiran

What you believe or not is rather pointless because the facts of the telemetry data have nothing to do with what you believe.

1.: On the video I found on the site you linked I can clearly see that Senne is not right on the apex. From that camera angle it is hard to see how much exactly he is away from the inside of the corner but I would guess that it's about 1 m.

2.: It is also clearly to see in that vid that the car steps out with its rear at first. This is also what was in the article I mentioned, just didn't make it clear in the post I told about it. Senna corrects this (with his supernatural reaction) by going wide but this put him on the dirty part of the track where he could not keep the car on the track anymore. So the theory that his steering broke is bs. If that was the case the car would not have stepped out with the rear at first, it would have gone straight and nothing else.

I know it's hard to believe for some people that Sennas death was caused by a mistake he made on his own as he is considered some kind of racing-god. But after all he is just a human being - and these do make mistakes however perfectly they can drive. :shrug:

And what do you mean with "no real conclusion has come from this whole thing" ????? The telemetry data are crystal-clear facts. Of course real conclusions have come from this. Or is it just the fact that you don't believe what I wrote? I'm really sorry that I can't tell you anymore where I read that article, but please understand that this was over 10 years ago.

And concerning the suspension rod - this is just what I said.

[tristancliffe]

Wow, Christian, I bet they wish they had you on the prosecution team, managing to do in two posts what incredibly expensive lawyers and world class engineers and drivers couldn't - find the cause. Yes, there is evidence to support he made a mistake, but it's NOT overwhelming eveidence in light of all the other evidence for other things.

[keiran]

I wasn't refering to you on the suspension rod, was others :p

I still wont believe it and not because he was super talented. If it was something as simple as that there wouldn't be this huge confusion over the cause of his death. You can see from the on board video that the car is suddenly snapped off and strightened up. You even see Sennas head move left more. Your initial reaction to something like that is to turn left, why did Sennas wheels stay stright ? There are also reports of the steering wheel having so much play on the onboard videos that the movement was said to be CMs.

Keiran

[Christian Seidel]

Wow, Christian, I bet they wish they had you on the prosecution team, managing to do in two posts what incredibly expensive lawyers and world class engineers and drivers couldn't - find the cause. Yes, there is evidence to support he made a mistake, but it's NOT overwhelming eveidence in light of all the other evidence for other things.

:)

What can I still do?

I only told you what the official investigation found out by analyzing the telemetry data and people tell me that this can't be, just by looking at some crappy low-res videos which can give you a rough idea what was happening but nothing special can be seen on this.

I really don't get it why nobody seems to be willing to believe this. But maybe some conspiracy theory is more convincing to most people than facts.

I never said to know myself what exactly happened but the telemetry is the only clear facts that are to be investigated after the crash. A low-res TV-picture just is not capable to deliver any rock-solid facts. So as a conclusion I believe more in the investigation of the facts as in the uncounted theories derived from blurry video material.

But hey, believe whatever you want, I'm fine with that...:)

[keiran]

:)

What can I still do?

I only told you what the official investigation found out by analyzing the telemetry data and people tell me that this can't be, just by looking at some crappy low-res videos which can give you a rough idea what was happening but nothing special can be seen on this.

I really don't get it why nobody seems to be willing to believe this. But maybe some conspiracy theory is more convincing to most people than facts.

I never said to know myself what exactly happened but the telemetry is the only clear facts that are to be investigated after the crash. A low-res TV-picture just is not capable to deliver any rock-solid facts. So as a conclusion I believe more in the investigation of the facts as in the uncounted theories derived from blurry video material.

But hey, believe whatever you want, I'm fine with that...:)

Those clips were used in court :shrug:

What Tristan is getting at, you may have watched something but it probaly wasn't official. If thats 100% rock solid, why does the confusion still go on, why did it take them god knows how many years (and still counting) to still try figure this out ?

Keiran

[Darkone55]

There was no definitive conclusion reached in the end. There was a theory his steering column broke, there was a thoery he bottomed out due to cold tyres, there was a theory he ran over debris and got a puncture, there wasa theory he blacked out (he used to hold his breath during really quick laps to focus), there was a theory someone shot him (okay we're into the conspiracy theories now, so I'll stop).

Well, I don't think he blacked out. I saw that onboard shot, in the Tamurello, and there he tries to steeds, but goes straight ahead. So it could be a broken steering column, or he bottomed out. I think the last one is most likely. But who am I to say that.

[keiran]

Well, I don't think he blacked out. I saw that onboard shot, in the Tamurello, and there he tries to steeds, but goes straight ahead. So it could be a broken steering column, or he bottomed out. I think the last one is most likely. But who am I to say that.

Someone else who notices this :). Well my personal conclusion has always been that the steering column broke where the team welded it after Senna wanted it moved away from him. The fact that the steering wheel came out the car broken (okay some will say the impact could have caused it) just adds more to this for me.

Keiran

[ajp71]

The single ECU doesn't mean they all have to run the same engine configs etc.

Didn't know that the standard ECU would be that configurable.

Still don't like it though as I'd of argued the way to get round the problems would to allow teams a lot more freedom and setting the engine size up to 4 litres to make lower revving engines. I'd of also said that these engine life rules should be scrapped, somethings wrong if someones choosing not to finish 4th because of the penalty they'll have next race :shrug:

If they can keep the designs moving there won't be time to have to stand around for a year spending hundreds of millions developing exactly the same design as your rivals.

[Christian Seidel]

Those clips were used in court :shrug:

What Tristan is getting at, you may have watched something but it probaly wasn't official. If thats 100% rock solid, why does the confusion still go on, why did it take them god knows how many years (and still counting) to still try figure this out ?

Keiran

:)

OK, for the last time:

What I was reading (not watching) was an article about the official investigation by the FIA and Williams, containing the official report. You can believe this report or not.

And of course the pictures were used in court as they give you an overall idea of what happened. But they are way too blurry to draw any solid conclusions about the initial cause of the accident.

The telemetry on the other side tells you exactly what the car did and what Senna did. Quite everything is monitored in that data. Suspension travel, g-forces in any direction, steering input, pedal input, whatever you like to have, and all of this at a very high recording rate.

What the telemetry can NOT deliver is for example why Senna did what he did. And it also can't tell you how slippery the road really was outside the racing line and stuff like that.

So it doesn't give you everything one would like to know about it. But I'd rather base my opinion on facts than on unclear observations. And in this case the facts that we have (the telemetry) do not leave too much room for further speculations. At least IMHO.:)

[Dygear]

For me, its give the car all the horsepower and grip it can handle, then lets see what the so called race driver is really made of.

[keiran]

:)

OK, for the last time:

What I was reading (not watching) was an article about the official investigation by the FIA and Williams, containing the official report. You can believe this report or not.

And of course the pictures were used in court as they give you an overall idea of what happened. But they are way too blurry to draw any solid conclusions about the initial cause of the accident.

The telemetry on the other side tells you exactly what the car did and what Senna did. Quite everything is monitored in that data. Suspension travel, g-forces in any direction, steering input, pedal input, whatever you like to have, and all of this at a very high recording rate.

What the telemetry can NOT deliver is for example why Senna did what he did. And it also can't tell you how slippery the road really was outside the racing line and stuff like that.

So it doesn't give you everything one would like to know about it. But I'd rather base my opinion on facts than on unclear observations. And in this case the facts that we have (the telemetry) do not leave too much room for further speculations. At least IMHO.:)

The thing I'm getting at is this offical report. Why is there still confusion over the death of Senna ? Can't be that solid. That videos have telementary read outs and the on board video called cam car shows a lot IMO.

I've attached a picture of where Sennas car was before it suddenly went stright on. Doesn't look out of line to me. Had he lost the car over a bump he wouldn't just let the car go stright like it did, the wheels point stright on until he hits the wall. Your initial reaction is to turn left, and I'm sure Sennas would be to.

I reckon we will never know what actually happened, only the people at Williams will know. The world we live in today is what makes these things difficult, someone admits the steering column killed Senna. The next thing you know it, the mechanic who cut it and welded it is in court facing man slaughter charges etc.

We all have our own opinions on what happened but I don't think there can be much of a solid official statement as I've never heard of this Senna ordeal being solved with people agreeing 100% on the cause. If it was a simple driver error I doubt such a huge investigation would have gone ahead.

I think this thread needs to be re-named now :razz:

Keiran

[5th Earth]

I may as well chime in, everyone else is.

The problem with F1 is that it is a fundamentally unsafe racing format. Open wheels and cockpits cause accidents and injuries that simply don't happen in other forms of racing. What would be a minor nudge in a closed-wheel class can result in a wheel being ripped clean off, or worse, in an open-wheel class. And having your head exposed is obviously risky.

Is it worth the risk? You tell me. :shrug:

[RMachucaA]

If any of you saw Montoya or JV in cart, you would know why TC is nuttering auto racing, seeing the guys man handle the cars is a thing of beauty, skill, and cojones.

Now with TC, its like an amraam guided missle, *point and shoot*. yawn.

[skiingman]

To everyone who says [kids are worse now, food is worse now, people are dumber now] , but wasn't 10/20/30/40 years ago (delete as applicable):

At THAT time (e.g. in 1994, or 1979, or 1964 etc) people thought [kids were jerks, food was bad, people were dumb], and wished it was like the 'good old days'. But then, as now, they forget that the good old days were about the same as now. We see the past with rose-tinted spectacles.

Well said. I took some liberty with your words. One of my huge pet peeves are people papering over the past with rose colored lenses. This seems to happen in all aspects of life. I love when flipping morons tell me about how safe cars were in the 1950's. Or old folks lament teen pregnancy "today" when teen pregnancy fifty years ago occurred at double today's rate.

Oh: Senna made a mistake and paid the ultimate price. Or something broke, although the evidence I've personally seen doesn't support that. Not even a kangaroo court and millions of dollars worth of handwaving could determine otherwise, as tristan and others have noted.

In fact, this kind of stupid bickering over something that is over and done with a decade ago wouldn't be going on if it wasn't for irresponsible government officials and their media-friendly kangaroo court antics. There never should have been all of that public money spent on such a fruitless, pointless exercise. Sillyness in the extreme. The same damn thing always happens when famous people die, because politicians see opportunity.

I was a wee little kid watching that race that morning (live in the US, on ESPN back then IIRC), and it was pretty somber for me.

[tristancliffe]

I was 13. I was REALLY into F1 by then. That morning we sat down to watch the first half of the race, but we were flying down to Maidstone (about 40 minutes away by air) to look at some puppies. When Senna crashed, and it was obvious he wasn't okay, I grabbed the air-radio and began searching through all the stations I could find (at ground radio frequencies) to get some info. It was horrible not knowing. I remember the whole day quite clearly.

We later did get a puppy from that litter (a Bernese Montain Dog) who sadly passed away last weekend from old age. That gog has a surprising connection for me with Senna.

[ajp71]

Open wheels and cockpits cause accidents and injuries that simply don't happen in other forms of racing. What would be a minor nudge in a closed-wheel class can result in a wheel being ripped clean off, or worse, in an open-wheel class. And having your head exposed is obviously risky.

Is it worth the risk? You tell me. :shrug:

Open wheeled racing cars do have risks attached to them. They are safer than club racing closed wheeled cars and it's only the extremely safe high contact series that actually have safer cars. Given the speed an F1 car reaches (and the number of crashes they have) they are actually pretty safe. It's only in the last 15 years as tin tops have become slower and safer that single seaters may seem more dangerous but your a lot safer in a F1 car than anything you'd see at an average club meet.