Banning refuelling was stupid and led to driver deaths
- Thread starter DOF_power
- Start date
- Status
Courtesy of Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_fatal_accidents
One interesting stat, the Nurburgring (Nordschlief) has taken the lives of 5 F1 drivers, the only circuit with a greater number of fatalities is Indianapolis.
The worst "offending" teams in terms of drivers deaths (ignoring Indy) are:
Ferrari 7
Lotus & Cooper 5 each
Brabham 3
But this shouldn't come as any surprise as these teams have probably contested more races than most others. FYI no driver has died driving an F1 Mclaren (I sincerley hope that statement doesn't come back to haunt me).
So, in summary, banning refueling was not stupid and did not lead to driver deaths. Dangerous circuits and poor marshalling led to driver deaths and, via the GPDA and CSI/FISA, circuit safety (like many things in life over the last 50 years) has improved dramatically.
My last contribution to this rather silly and pointless thread.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_fatal_accidents
One interesting stat, the Nurburgring (Nordschlief) has taken the lives of 5 F1 drivers, the only circuit with a greater number of fatalities is Indianapolis.
The worst "offending" teams in terms of drivers deaths (ignoring Indy) are:
Ferrari 7
Lotus & Cooper 5 each
Brabham 3
But this shouldn't come as any surprise as these teams have probably contested more races than most others. FYI no driver has died driving an F1 Mclaren (I sincerley hope that statement doesn't come back to haunt me).
So, in summary, banning refueling was not stupid and did not lead to driver deaths. Dangerous circuits and poor marshalling led to driver deaths and, via the GPDA and CSI/FISA, circuit safety (like many things in life over the last 50 years) has improved dramatically.
My last contribution to this rather silly and pointless thread.
Dangerous circuits and poor marshaling is NOT why highly fragile cars with dual fuel tanks wrapped in magnesium (literally bombs on 4 wheels).
If you trace the routs/ history of the garagiste rise you'll see that it begun with amateurs making underpowered cars from spare parts, junk parts and motorcycle pieces (engines in particular) and their no. 1 was to be light a.k.a. highly fragile (since they lacked power) and balance. These were Formula 500 cc cars witch became Formula 3 (eligible), then they went to F2 and eventually F1.
This mindset was a far-cry from the (MB) german cars with were very reliable for their time, and their team highly professional and well funded.
The garagiste financial poverty, unprofessional approach to design and their "build it light and balanced" policy coupled with rules that favored no refuel (de facto banning refueling), and of-course dangerous circuits and poor marshaling, lead to the dead and/or injury of several drivers.
Having lots of fuel in more then one tank in garagiste racecars, notorious for their non-german/non-professional approach of prioritizing ever more reduced weight and balance over reliability and driver safety (there were some exceptions ), was recepy for disaster.
If you trace the routs/ history of the garagiste rise you'll see that it begun with amateurs making underpowered cars from spare parts, junk parts and motorcycle pieces (engines in particular) and their no. 1 was to be light a.k.a. highly fragile (since they lacked power) and balance. These were Formula 500 cc cars witch became Formula 3 (eligible), then they went to F2 and eventually F1.
This mindset was a far-cry from the (MB) german cars with were very reliable for their time, and their team highly professional and well funded.
The garagiste financial poverty, unprofessional approach to design and their "build it light and balanced" policy coupled with rules that favored no refuel (de facto banning refueling), and of-course dangerous circuits and poor marshaling, lead to the dead and/or injury of several drivers.
Having lots of fuel in more then one tank in garagiste racecars, notorious for their non-german/non-professional approach of prioritizing ever more reduced weight and balance over reliability and driver safety (there were some exceptions ), was recepy for disaster.
Ah, and now we return to your usual argument which is that it's all the fault of the "garagiste racecars" as you put it.
How is it then that the first "bomb on wheels" as you describe it was designed by Honda and that 3 of the 5 deaths by fire in the immediate period prior to the first major raft of safety restrictions were introduced, were of drivers in non "garagiste" teams?
How is it then that the first "bomb on wheels" as you describe it was designed by Honda and that 3 of the 5 deaths by fire in the immediate period prior to the first major raft of safety restrictions were introduced, were of drivers in non "garagiste" teams?
The Hondas were Lola designs (Hondola) or copies of (other) british cars (at least highly influenced), and the worldwide influence of these light/ fragile car garagiste racecars was bad.
The italian cars were crap as well reliability wise, but they weren't anywhere near as ridiculous design wise as the later garagiste cars (some had fuel tanks front, rear, left and right for balance).
Those fuel rules post 57 were terrible, though knowing the amateurism that reigned supreme back then.
I've had a good look but I can't find what post 57 regulations you are talking about? The only fuel related regulations introduced in the 50s was the outlawing of alcohol based fuels making all cars use commercial Petrol fuels which occured in 1958.
It's not as simple as that.
The density was different, dispersion rate and overall power-torque output as well (witch lead to racecar weight reduction/ fragility).
There were quite some differences in the various "pump fuels" across Europe, witch lead to complete chaos and an emphasis on loading the cars with as much fuel as possible to last for the entire race.
Having the fuel fillers be hidden by the bodywork, as required by the 1961 rules basically killed refueling for good.
Alcohol based fuel dispersed a lot faster when in contact with the air, witch was good safety wise.
Hence the Indy rules after 64 requiring methanol, forcing refueling, banning side mounted tanks and limiting the overall amount of fuel/tank capacity.
The ability to accuratly calculate fuel usage didn't exist in the 50's and 60's and more often than note cars would run out of fuel before the end of the race. Far from loading as much fuel as possible teams would often load the absolute minimum as possible to complete the race.
There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that allowing re-fuelling to continue throughout the 60's and 70's would have led to any change in the number of driver deaths since the cars would still be thin skinned aluminium clad monocoques.
I would argue that far more dangerous rule changes occured when FISA banned sliding skirts making the cars run on almost solid suspensions to maintain a modicum of down force and 14 years later when the FIA banned all driver aids for the 1994 sesaon which was similar to taking a fighter jet such as the Typhoon and removing the flight computer.
I think the evidence that re-fuelling would have made that much of a diffeerence just isn't ther.
Alcohol based fuel also burns with an invisible flame, which isn't good safety wise - Hence the reason the Indy car pit crews squirt water at the back of the car.
The advantages beat the disadvantages.
If Swede Sagage's Indycar had petrol and in the same amount found in contemporary F1 racecars, the spectators that suffered burns (but survived) would have been killed.
F1 was just an amalgam on bad rules, no rules and no self policing.
Agree about the GE skirts ban and active ride ban, but not about the fuel rules.
The mid-engined, smaller, lighter, racing full distance Coopers gained a big advantage with the fuel rules.
The Maserati 250Fs, for example, became uncompetitive (due to the fuel rules) and so the bigger car with bigger engines (in the front) witch refueled formula/model (250F were copied by everyone) was abandoned in favor of light-weight/ fragile / lower / mid-engined/ no-refueling garagiste formula/model (first copying Cooper, then the Lotus death traps).
And what Lotus did was just ridiculous from driver safety perspective.
The monocoque though was the final nail in the coffin from a driver safety point of view. Now the driver couldn't get fall out of the car (sometimes) to safety.
The post 57 rules, 61 rules, garagiste racecar design mentality (and what it sadly inspired) and the finally the monocoque was a terrible string of events.
Yet Mercedes-Benz started using Magnesium for the bodies of its racing cars in 1954 and the monocoque as we all know was first introduced by Auto Union in the 1930's.
The monocoque had a far greater structural integraty than the space frame that it replaced and you could argue that being flung out of the car was as bad as being stuck in it.
As far as lightness goes, I've found these figures from the 1976 Brazilian GP just for comparison:
Minimum weight: (sorry all weights are in old money) 1,268 pounds.
March - 1272 pounds
Lotus - 1283 pounds
Ferrari - 1301 pounds
Tyrrell - 1380 pounds
Copersucar - 1411 pounds
Brabham - 1475 pounds
Interestingly, both Ferrari and Brabham were using V12 engines which means a heavier engine and more fuel so you could argue that the Ferrari was the lightest of the chassis by a fair margin.
The monocoque had a far greater structural integraty than the space frame that it replaced and you could argue that being flung out of the car was as bad as being stuck in it.
As far as lightness goes, I've found these figures from the 1976 Brazilian GP just for comparison:
Minimum weight: (sorry all weights are in old money) 1,268 pounds.
March - 1272 pounds
Lotus - 1283 pounds
Ferrari - 1301 pounds
Tyrrell - 1380 pounds
Copersucar - 1411 pounds
Brabham - 1475 pounds
Interestingly, both Ferrari and Brabham were using V12 engines which means a heavier engine and more fuel so you could argue that the Ferrari was the lightest of the chassis by a fair margin.
Auto Union had no monocoque, but they had the engine in the back and contemporary driver-fuel tank-engine-gearbox layout.
Voisin I believe build the first GP monocoque racecar in the 20s (in 1923 I believe).
If look at the 38/39 Mercs witch went full distance or at least tried, they had over 400 kilos of fuel. That led to the death of Dick Seamen.
The americans were first to try a mid-engined monocoque racecar in the 40s at.
However none of the was so radical (with regards to the seating position, packaging and lack of driver safety) as the Lotus 25 monocoque car.
By 1973 minimum weight limit were imposed and cars also had crumpling zones. 73-74 is when the big cars or shop cars replaced the gargiste cars for good.
But the fuel tanks in front were not banned till the early 80s and crash test for the fuel tanks (and thus the mandatory use "unbreakable" kevlar/composite tanks/ protection) came only in the late 80s.
Voisin I believe build the first GP monocoque racecar in the 20s (in 1923 I believe).
If look at the 38/39 Mercs witch went full distance or at least tried, they had over 400 kilos of fuel. That led to the death of Dick Seamen.
The americans were first to try a mid-engined monocoque racecar in the 40s at.
However none of the was so radical (with regards to the seating position, packaging and lack of driver safety) as the Lotus 25 monocoque car.
By 1973 minimum weight limit were imposed and cars also had crumpling zones. 73-74 is when the big cars or shop cars replaced the gargiste cars for good.
But the fuel tanks in front were not banned till the early 80s and crash test for the fuel tanks (and thus the mandatory use "unbreakable" kevlar/composite tanks/ protection) came only in the late 80s.
Also most cheated with regards to the minimum weight.
For example former Brabham staff admitted in using a special ultra heavy inspection wing. Everyone cheated in one way or another about their weight, and every car was basically 50 to 150 kilos lighter then the official records show.
Having looked into the 1954 Mercedes though, it would seem that they pioneered all that you say was so dangerous with F1.
That car had a full Magnesium body, Extra fuel tanks bolted in, an ultra light chassis (all be it in space frame form) and ran a non stop no re-fuelling strategy.
You can't blame the garagistes for that surely?
http://www.emercedesbenz.com/Jul08/...ver_Arrows_Return_To_Formula_One_In_1954.html
That car had a full Magnesium body, Extra fuel tanks bolted in, an ultra light chassis (all be it in space frame form) and ran a non stop no re-fuelling strategy.
You can't blame the garagistes for that surely?
http://www.emercedesbenz.com/Jul08/...ver_Arrows_Return_To_Formula_One_In_1954.html
yep, I've read them.
You got me on the AU monocoque by the way.
As for the rest, 6 drivers were killed in the 50's driving front engined Maseratis and Ferraris. Not one driver was killed driving a Lotus 25.
You got me on the AU monocoque by the way.
As for the rest, 6 drivers were killed in the 50's driving front engined Maseratis and Ferraris. Not one driver was killed driving a Lotus 25.
But how many were killed or injured in cars that copied it because they couldn't get out or were killed on impact (due to its fragility) ?!
The dominant design is always either banned or copied, sometimes both.
This problem was only partially solved with the crumpling zones in 73, and it took the appearance of composites and the fuel tank crash rules of the late 80s to fix the problem properly.
Not banning the side tanks and front fuel tank till the early 80s was sheer stupidy, as was the lack of self policing and constant cheating.
And the proper spacey monocoque for the pilot, that we take for granted today, wasn't made until the rules of the early 2000s. A lot dumb luck saved a lot of people.
It took decades to finally fix the flaws.
- Status
Similar threads
