DOF_power said:
Even if it was, it is irrelevant to the question posed.
Banning refuelling was stupid and led to driver deaths
- Thread starter DOF_power
- Start date
- Status
Even if it was, it is irrelevant to the question posed.
teabagyokel said:
How is that irrelevant ?!
Rules favoring no refueling (a.k.a. adding weight) > designers/engineers building more fragile a.k.a. lighter racecars (with little or no regards for the safety of the drivers) > drivers being injured or killed.
Former drivers and team staff admitted to cheating on the minimum weight rule, making aero cockpits that were too small and unsafe, cheating with the ride height rules and countless other rules till about the mid 90s.
We are referring to a refuelling ban, not to rules which promote a lack of refuelling.
The title is "Banning refuelling was stupid and led to driver deaths." Stop moving the goalposts.
The title is "Banning refuelling was stupid and led to driver deaths." Stop moving the goalposts.
I think the point here is being lost in a rather semantic argument. I paraphrase but I'm sure Colin Champman once said if a car fell apart as it crossed the finishing line he had made the perfect car. This has nothing to do with refueling simply taht car deisgners have always made cars that are a light as possible as any excess weight means the car is slower - whether the tanks are 1/3 full, 1/2 full or brimmed to the top.
The other problem with your argument DOF_Power is the stats simply don't support your argument. I'll requote the quote Chad Stewarthill posted.
So in the 1950's, when refueling was happening regularly, more drivers died. You could probably plot a graph comparing road deaths per mile drivern and see a similar trend to F1 fatalties. Car safety has improved due to improvements in materials and manufacturing techniques for both road cars and race cars. It has nothing what so ever to do with in race refueling.
But what the hey, don't let facts get in the way of a good argument.
The other problem with your argument DOF_Power is the stats simply don't support your argument. I'll requote the quote Chad Stewarthill posted.
So in the 1950's, when refueling was happening regularly, more drivers died. You could probably plot a graph comparing road deaths per mile drivern and see a similar trend to F1 fatalties. Car safety has improved due to improvements in materials and manufacturing techniques for both road cars and race cars. It has nothing what so ever to do with in race refueling.
But what the hey, don't let facts get in the way of a good argument.
DOF_power said:
No, it's not. The cars had to pass the scrutiny at the end of the race, when their fuel tanks were empty. While I would agree with the practices you mentioned happening, I don't believe this had anything to do with the size of the fuel tank. A smaller fuel tank means you can position it in such a way that the centre of gravity is more ideal, but the minimum weight a car had to weigh was set when the car contained no fuel. Refuelling didn't change that.
Two more points, then I'll hang up on this argument;
1. I don't have precise figures, but of the fatalities I quoted earlier for the 1950's and 60's, I believe that the overwhelming majority were caused by head injuries and/or the drivers being thrown out of their cars, not from fires. And of those that were fire related, there were often other contributing factors such as poor marshalling, long distances between marshalling posts etc.
2. The notion that, by itself, carrying twice as much fuel made fatal fires more likely, and so directly led to deaths which otherwise wouldn't have happened, is absurd. For instance, look at the example of Lorenzo Bandini's demise at Monaco. He skidded into the barrier, the car then hit a post, overturned and landed in the straw bales which then caught fire as the fuel tank ruptured, with him trapped beneath the car. Does anyone seriously think that carrying fuel for half the race distance rather than the full race distance would have made the slightest difference to the outcome? There was still plenty of fuel onboard to create an inferno. on top of which, in addition to the burns Bandini also suffered multiple fractures, and there was also a severe delay getting him to a specialist hospital.
1. I don't have precise figures, but of the fatalities I quoted earlier for the 1950's and 60's, I believe that the overwhelming majority were caused by head injuries and/or the drivers being thrown out of their cars, not from fires. And of those that were fire related, there were often other contributing factors such as poor marshalling, long distances between marshalling posts etc.
2. The notion that, by itself, carrying twice as much fuel made fatal fires more likely, and so directly led to deaths which otherwise wouldn't have happened, is absurd. For instance, look at the example of Lorenzo Bandini's demise at Monaco. He skidded into the barrier, the car then hit a post, overturned and landed in the straw bales which then caught fire as the fuel tank ruptured, with him trapped beneath the car. Does anyone seriously think that carrying fuel for half the race distance rather than the full race distance would have made the slightest difference to the outcome? There was still plenty of fuel onboard to create an inferno. on top of which, in addition to the burns Bandini also suffered multiple fractures, and there was also a severe delay getting him to a specialist hospital.
Somehow if say 2+2 make 4 it ends up implying I hate no. 5 or no. 3 or some other nonsense.
When the FIA mandated the fuel tank to be between the driver and engine it was 1984 already and crash tests for it came in 88 (way too late).
The foam, bladder and all that stuff was B*, as seem by the death of Piers Courage, the accident on N. Lauda and such.
The cars had been designed with multiple fuel tanks usually one in front one in the back, and some had tanks even in the side-pods for balancing purpose (till the 80s rules).
I remember a documentary from the 70s, and the no. 1 fear of the drivers was fire. Andretti said that if they could do something about the fire some drivers might have a chance of retiring alive.
Those cars with dual/ multiple fuel tanks (and maybe magnesium bodies) were just incendiary bombs on wheels. It was the fire extinguishers that helped things a bit, and the fire-suits and full helmets, not the foam and bladder rules with were just useless. And the crumpling zones were pretty useless as well.
It was a bad, bad decision to allow/encourage such monstrosities to ever be build.
When the FIA mandated the fuel tank to be between the driver and engine it was 1984 already and crash tests for it came in 88 (way too late).
The foam, bladder and all that stuff was B*, as seem by the death of Piers Courage, the accident on N. Lauda and such.
The cars had been designed with multiple fuel tanks usually one in front one in the back, and some had tanks even in the side-pods for balancing purpose (till the 80s rules).
I remember a documentary from the 70s, and the no. 1 fear of the drivers was fire. Andretti said that if they could do something about the fire some drivers might have a chance of retiring alive.
Those cars with dual/ multiple fuel tanks (and maybe magnesium bodies) were just incendiary bombs on wheels. It was the fire extinguishers that helped things a bit, and the fire-suits and full helmets, not the foam and bladder rules with were just useless. And the crumpling zones were pretty useless as well.
It was a bad, bad decision to allow/encourage such monstrosities to ever be build.
DOF_power said:
Or more specifically,
You say 2+2=6
We say 2+2=4
You say you were asking 3+3, which indeed equals 6.
We say the original point was 2+2.
You accuse us of Political Correctness.
teabagyokel said:
If you ever get the change, step into an old Formula 1 from the late 50s to early 80s.
When you stumble upon the front fuel tank with you legs and realize there's no fancy unbreakable kevlar/ composite bladder/tank, and that any fuel tank protection is B* (no kevlar or crash tests till late 80s), then you'll realize what a "brilliant" idea it was to have a rule-set favoring such monstrosities.
Just get into one of those cars and observe those fuel tanks a little bit.
teabagyokel said:
Apart from the discussion going on here, I have little doubt that if refuelling hadn't been banned in 1984 there would have eventually been a serious disaster involving drivers, pit crews, reporters, cameramen, "security guards", privileged guests, general onlookers, and whoever else might have found their way into the incredibly cramped and crowded pit lanes of the early-80's.
In 1983 the teams had to plan around each other's pit stops. There was sort of a gentleman's agreement that was involved so that they wouldn't have mayhem in the pit lane. You'll find it unsurprising that Bernard Ecclestone's Brabham outfit frequently pitted off schedule.
Ok, here's a list of all the drivers who, while in practice, testing or an F1 Race, were killed directly as a result of injuries sustained from car fires or whose injuries were potentially survivable had a fire not taken hold:
1) Stewart Lewis Evans - Vanwall - 1958
2) John Taylor - Private Brabham - 1966
3) Lorenzo Bandini - Ferrari - 1967
4) Jo Schlesser - Honda - 1968
5) Piers Courage - De Tomaso - 1970 (though it is believed that Piers was killed on impact)
6) Jo Siffert - BRM - 1971
7) Roger Williamson - March - 1973
8) Ricardo Palleti - Osella - 1982
9) Elio De Angelis - Brabham - 1986
Between 1966 and 1971 there were 8 deaths in Formula one and 5 of which were fire related. I believe this is down to one main reason, in 1966 the sport switched from 1.5 ltr to 3 ltr engines. This substantialy increased the amount of fuel that cars had to carry and increased the size of tanks within the cars. F1 cars of this period were small and skinned in light gauge aluminium. Most monocoque cars carried the fuel in tanks that ran down the sides of the driver and in tanks behind the drivers seat. Couple this with the introduction of magnesium parts which really started to appear from 1968 and these were serously dangerous cars to crash. The use of large quantities of magnesium was banned from 1972 onwards and substantial regulation of fuel tanks size, tank protection, fire extinguishers, retardent materials and clothing was introduced between 1969 and 1975. (and continued to be updated and ammended there after).
The death of Roger Williamson has been well documented and brought about a total overhaul of stewarding in F1. Elio De Angelis should never have been killed and wouldn't have been if his crash occured during a race however there was only the most limited stewarding at his test session.
I guess it is true to say that if re-fuelling was in use during the transition from 1.5ltr to 3ltr cars then the fuel tank size may have remained the same however cars hadn't been re-fuelled in races for years prior to 1966 and therefore the problem wouldn't even have been considered.
1) Stewart Lewis Evans - Vanwall - 1958
2) John Taylor - Private Brabham - 1966
3) Lorenzo Bandini - Ferrari - 1967
4) Jo Schlesser - Honda - 1968
5) Piers Courage - De Tomaso - 1970 (though it is believed that Piers was killed on impact)
6) Jo Siffert - BRM - 1971
7) Roger Williamson - March - 1973
8) Ricardo Palleti - Osella - 1982
9) Elio De Angelis - Brabham - 1986
Between 1966 and 1971 there were 8 deaths in Formula one and 5 of which were fire related. I believe this is down to one main reason, in 1966 the sport switched from 1.5 ltr to 3 ltr engines. This substantialy increased the amount of fuel that cars had to carry and increased the size of tanks within the cars. F1 cars of this period were small and skinned in light gauge aluminium. Most monocoque cars carried the fuel in tanks that ran down the sides of the driver and in tanks behind the drivers seat. Couple this with the introduction of magnesium parts which really started to appear from 1968 and these were serously dangerous cars to crash. The use of large quantities of magnesium was banned from 1972 onwards and substantial regulation of fuel tanks size, tank protection, fire extinguishers, retardent materials and clothing was introduced between 1969 and 1975. (and continued to be updated and ammended there after).
The death of Roger Williamson has been well documented and brought about a total overhaul of stewarding in F1. Elio De Angelis should never have been killed and wouldn't have been if his crash occured during a race however there was only the most limited stewarding at his test session.
I guess it is true to say that if re-fuelling was in use during the transition from 1.5ltr to 3ltr cars then the fuel tank size may have remained the same however cars hadn't been re-fuelled in races for years prior to 1966 and therefore the problem wouldn't even have been considered.
Wombcat
Podium Finisher
How about the mechanics? You could easily argue that refuelling provided additional danger to the mechanics working in the pits. Same with tyrechanges now that they have to be done in about 4 seconds, it puts a lot of stress on the mechanics and chance of errors. There have been penty of wheels coming off from cars after a pitstops and fuelhoses being dragged across the pit street to prove the dangers of pitstops.
Not to mention the inpitfighting between drivers that sometimes happens.
How many mechanics were injured in pitstops since 1994?
Not to mention the inpitfighting between drivers that sometimes happens.
How many mechanics were injured in pitstops since 1994?
snowy
Champion Elect
Are the non champion race fatalities included ?!
The secondary reason is that without the added fuel car designers wouldn't have been forced to shed so much weight ,thus several driver were injured/ killed due to this/ indirectly.
The main problem was balancing the cars, witch required constant weight shedding (on one end) and moving it forwards and backwards.
Thus multiple tanks and hyper fragile cars.
There was constant resistance to safety features (witch added weight) from the teams, even roll bars were said to mess up the balance, let alone crumpling zones (witch were never that efficient).
At Le Mans C. Chapman once argued with the officials saying that paper doesn't burn (the firewall on the Lotus was made of paper). That how far the garagiste were pushing things.
The fuel rules and garagiste design mindset were a terrible combination.
- Status
Similar threads
