Maria de Villota seriously hurt in testing...

[Vette4Life]

'The reason I do it is because if you do it wrong, it will kill you.

If you think it's too dangerous then go home and cut your lawn and leave us to it.'

- Guy Martin -

Rider from the Isle of Man TT

[MickeyMouse]

Originally Posted by Chronus

No, they do not agree with you. At all.

I have read other discussions, quite similar to the above, months or years ago, by either pilots, team principals or engineers.

Yet they haven't insisted on full roll cages yet, which would be ridiculously easy to implement and safe, why is that?

Originally Posted by Chronus

But lets see:
- you said this is a "knee-jerk reaction" to Maria's accident. No IT IS NOT, it is SOMETHING that is being discussed more and more, to the point that FIA and pilots are now exposing this to the public (this piece by the BBC is one effect of that). Again: NO KNEE-JERK REACTION at all, Maria's accident hadn't happened yet. Isn't this positive?

I wasn't referring to the FIA, they aren't over reacting because they are looking for a long-term solution, rather I'm commenting on silly comments in news articles and comments in this thread.

Originally Posted by Chronus

- you say a decent solution that will be safer "but not destroy the cars". Wurz, among others, have quite an intense reaction to those comments and ideas. Wurz, in particular says, and I quote "adding some form of head protection, whether it be a canopy, roof or forward roll-hoop of one kind, would have no effect whatsoever on F1's position as the pinnacle of motorsport or on the challenge of driving the cars".

I certainly agree with that, it will still be the most technical sport and it won't make it easier to drive (actually it will probably make it more difficult). Probably all ten or twenty fans that would still watch F1 after that would agree as well.

Originally Posted by Chronus

It appears you misread the research being done and the need for it and confuse it with people "not feeling strong enough about them". What would be more important than promoting the sport and protecting its drivers? How can any of these high-profile officials or representatives of FIA and F1 not feel strongly about these measures?

An 8 second rule change and we would have full titanium roll cages tomorrow, yet they haven't done that, why? Because they know very few people actually want to see that.

Originally Posted by Chronus

which do you think will kill motorsports faster, fatalities in this day and age, or "too much" safety?

Lack of viewership due to strange looking cars, thus causing a lack of sponsorship would cause a pretty quick end I think.

Originally Posted by Chronus

Don't know you all agree with me, but one thing that is really irritating/stupid is all these hypocritical imbeciles showing up on TV commenting about how dangerous motorsports are and that in this day and age of "safety regulations" and "concerns over the environment" motorsports must be "profoundly redefined".

If the choice were banning motorsports or building ridiculous tank-like or eco-box cars, then I would be an advocate for just ending it with dignity and sticking with the safe environment of sims. We're still a long, long way off of that happening, but it is probably inevitable, IMHO.

Originally Posted by Vette4Life

'The reason I do it is because if you do it wrong, it will kill you.

If you think it's too dangerous then go home and cut your lawn and leave us to it.'

- Guy Martin -

Rider from the Isle of Man TT

Honestly I think that is a good quote. I'm a very strong believer personal freedom and accountability. When it comes right down to it, nobody is forcing anybody to do anything. It's up the driver, and the driver only, knowing the risks all too well, to decide whether they accept the risks and jump in the car or not.

[Chronus]

Probably all ten or twenty fans that would still watch F1 after that would agree as well.You are

You are going to the extreme, talking about "ridiculous tank-like" and "eco-box" cars and having audiences of 30 fans.

Good for you and the small talk of "personal responsibility".

If and when (as the BBC F1 writer has it, these things are inevitable) open-wheelers protect the head of the driver in a way that definitely helps prevent injuries similar to Maria's, then don't watch it.

Pretty easy decision.

[alless]

Crash happened and probably it was drivers fault completly and youre allready talking about safety in f1 again and i dont know what more.
She had enough space there to turn the car away from the truck and not going so close to it and even if the trucks loading ramp wouldnt be openen whit the speed she went, she would hit the truck anyway but going to the "if" points is just pointles and talking about safety here to, cause this crash is more ridicules than question of safety in F1.

The only thing we can do now is to wish her luck and get well soon.

[MickeyMouse]

Originally Posted by Chronus

You are going to the extreme, talking about "ridiculous tank-like" and "eco-box" cars and having audiences of 30 fans.

We all know it will happen, it's just a matter of time, I'd rather it happen later rather than sooner.

Originally Posted by Chronus

Good for you and the small talk of "personal responsibility".

Thank you for that erudite refutation.

Originally Posted by Chronus

If and when (as the BBC F1 writer has it, these things are inevitable) open-wheelers protect the head of the driver in a way that definitely helps prevent injuries similar to Maria's, then don't watch it.

Pretty easy decision.

Yes, very good advise.

Would you mind answering or refuting my previous question?:
An 8 second rule change and we would have full titanium roll cages tomorrow, yet they haven't done that, why?

[xanaxkamikaze]

Just call it F1... then make them drive street cars.... Ferrari wins!

[Chronus]

Thank you for that erudite refutation.

Your use of "personal responsibility" deserves that much. If you are honest and think a bit about it, you know why I am saying this.

Would you mind answering or refuting my previous question?:
An 8 second rule change and we would have full titanium roll cages tomorrow, yet they haven't done that, why?

Yes, I do mind.

Answer my question directly first, instead of making a comment about "strange looking cars".

Answer it directly:

which do you think will kill motorsports faster, fatalities in this day and age, or "too much" safety?

Which, one or the other?

[Chronus]

First off, some good news: Maria has spoken to her family. Thank God. One great, great step, hugely good news.

Secondly...

A few quotes for us to think about in regards to safety, tradition, danger:

We always need to keep learning and we are never arrogant enough to put our heads in the sand and say that the category is perfect.

Yes, we would like it to be challenging and a little bit daring, but we should also never exclude having the element of risk lower if we can achieve that.

There are lots of drivers who can help the sport take notice of what has happened (Wheldon and Simoncelli accidents) because these are reminders to all of us to make sure that the socks are well and truly pulled up.

- Mark Webber

-

It doesn't affect you obviously when you are driving. The effect was during the week. Those were very sad days for motorsport. I watched Dan's accident on a television replay and I was shocked for two or three days after that. Then with Marco, I saw that race live and I could not believe that these things still happen.

When you close the visor, you don't think about the risk. We love racing and we know it is dangerous, but the adrenalin it gives you blinds you to the risks. 320 km/h is approximately the maximum at this track and if something happens to your car there is a risk that you can have a big accident. But you don't think about it when you are driving.

- Fernando Alonso

-

Racing is a dangerous business. There’s a constant effort to make it safer. But in the wake of Dan’s accident we’ve redoubled the efforts … everybody really has put a new focus and hopefully that will continue to make the sport safer, not only IndyCar, but all forms of racing.

- Dario Franchitti

-

On closed cockpits:

It is feasible, but it's not something you could do overnight. It certainly would have a chance of reducing fatalities. And it's something the NHRA should do as well [for Top Fuel dragsters].

- Dr. Dean Sicking, engineer behind the development and implementation of the SAFER barrier, 2011

-

Enclosing the cockpit isn't something I would like. It doesn't really go along with what we are. But if we feel it's necessary for safety, then I wouldn't throw it out just because it isn't traditional.

- Sarah Fisher, former Indy Car driver, now Indycar Team owner

-

As far as that goes[tradition], the new IndyCar next year is not traditional. It has a much different look with all the body work around the rear tires.

So I wouldn't be opposed to looking at the enclosed cockpit.

- Larry Foyt, former racing driver, team director of A.J. Foyt Racing, 2011

It's something we briefly looked at in the committee, but didn't give it much serious consideration. We really didn't have enough detailed information about it to take a hard look at it.

It should be included in every safety-related conversation from here on out. There will be plenty of naysayers, but I know before the hydroplanes did this, there were a lot of naysayers, also.

- Texas Motor Speedway president Eddie Gossage

A "view" of "why not to use closed cockpits" which explains why some people comment the way they do:

I image it would also feel like driving inside a fishbowl which can't be a pleasant experience.

That doesn't even take into account the huge historical significance of racing with open cockpits. F1 is a form of open wheel racing and always has been. A closed canopy goes against 60 years of history, and whilst safety is always the number one priority there will be some purists who argue that it would no longer be Formula One.

- EnterF1

[MickeyMouse]

Originally Posted by Chronus

Your use of "personal responsibility" deserves that much. If you are honest and think a bit about it, you know why I am saying this.

I really have no idea, you believe people should be saved from themselves I assume? I personally am diametrically opposed to a 'nanny-state'. I realize some approve of such polices however, and since you refuse to comment, I can only assume you are a member of that thought.
Personal freedom, and any resulting consequences, should be the only factor in most decisions. If the drivers decide that the cars need roll cages, then that is their decision, but they have not done that, and until they do, there should be no roll cages, IMHO.

Originally Posted by Chronus

Yes, I do mind.

Answer my question directly first, instead of making a comment about "strange looking cars".

Answer it directly:

Which, one or the other?

I thought I did:

Originally Posted by MickeyMouse

Lack of viewership due to strange looking cars, thus causing a lack of sponsorship would cause a pretty quick end I think.

If you didn't understand that, I'll rephrase:
If making the cars 'too safe' would require them to be (even more) ugly, or slow, etc., then yes, making the cars too safe would kill the sport faster than driver fatalities, considering the fact that driver fatalities require extremely 'freak-accidents' to occur in this day and age, and are now almost unheard of.

Now, please answer my question. If full roll cages have been tested for several years now, and the top concern of the FIA is driver safety, and driver safety only, as you propose, what other factor has stopped them from making it mandatory now, much less many years ago when the technology first existed?

First off, some good news: Maria has spoken to her family. Thank God. One great, great step, hugely good news.

Very good news indeed, considering a skull fracture, she has made an impressively fast improvement.

[Kazumi]

IndyCar doesn't look traditional with that, Formula Nippon don't look traditional. And current F1 is as fugly as possible anyway!

If all it improves look of the chassis.

From a pure engineering point of view it's just more then unnecessary to build the safest car ever build but leave the drivers head completely exposed and almost unprotected (helmet are not made for any direct impact at speed or with heavier objects)

Originally Posted by MickeyMouse

If making the cars 'too safe' would require them to be (even more) ugly, or slow, etc., then yes, making the cars too safe would kill the sport faster than driver fatalities, considering the fact that driver fatalities require extremely 'freak-accidents' to occur in this day and age, and are now almost unheard of.

Mhh... it's a point and the chassis are really safe on certain kinds of impacts but... have you seen Surtees accident? He died because he got hit by a just ~ 15 kg heavy wheel. Helmets are almost useless for that kind of impact. And that can happen any time with a wheel or suspension part flying off.

[Chronus]

Originally Posted by Kazumi

IndyCar doesn't look traditional with that, Formula Nippon don't look traditional. And current F1 is as fugly as possible anyway!

If all it improves look of the chassis.

From a pure engineering poinf of view it's just more then unnecessary to build the safest car ever build but leave the drivers head completely exposed and almost unprotected (helmet are not made for any direct impact at speed or with heavier objects)

Precisely.

That is one of the things some people refuse to understand: it may be 1 in a 500 000 chance of getting hit the way Surtees, Senna, Massa or Maria were, but the FACT IS IT DID HAPPEN. With terrifying consequences for some.

And I'll just post it again because some people pretend no one is seriously considering closed cockpits:

It's something we briefly looked at in the committee, but didn't give it much serious consideration. We really didn't have enough detailed information about it to take a hard look at it.

It should be included in every safety-related conversation from here on out. There will be plenty of naysayers, but I know before the hydroplanes did this, there were a lot of naysayers, also.

- Texas Motor Speedway president Eddie Gossage, 2011

I have found many voicing the same opinions as Wurz and Cossage.

Still, some people, mostly those that will never sit in a single-seater, open-cockpit racer, that complain the changes that will save lives are in fact for the worst and please let the sport die before we have that. Amazing.

Let tradition be tradition in as much as it doesn't cause the death of more pilots when these could be prevented, which in turn will effectively kill the sport. Indy knows this, Nascar knows this, FIA knows this.

Mhh... it's a point and the chassis are really safe on certain kinds of impacts but... have you seen Surtees accident? He died because he got hit by a just ~ 15 kg heavy wheel. Helmets are almost useless for that kind of impact. And that can happen any time with a wheel or suspension part flying off.

Agreed.

Rubens Barrichelo was quoted as saying, some time after Massa's accident, that Ratzenberger and Senna's deaths were a big tragedy but also a great warning that F1 should change deeply; with Massa, he said, yet another warning.

Knee-jerk reaction (some say...) to what? Senna's death? Or Surtees? Or Massa's almost deadly accident? Or Wheldon's tragedy? Or Maria's?

Geez.

As someone said: "I'd rather have a suspension arm or a wheel hit something other than the pilot's head."

[MickeyMouse]

Originally Posted by Kazumi

Mhh... it's a point and the chassis are really safe on certain kinds of impacts but... have you seen Surtees accident? He died because he got hit by a just ~ 15 kg heavy wheel. Helmets are almost useless for that kind of impact. And that can happen any time with a wheel or suspension part flying off.

F2 cars are much, much more dangerous than F1 cars. As far as formula cars go, F1 is by far the safest, despite the increased speeds. You're much more likely to get injured in Formula Ford / Formula Renault / GP3 and GP2 than F1.

[Chronus]

Originally Posted by MickeyMouse

If you didn't understand that, I'll rephrase:
If making the cars 'too safe' would require them to be (even more) ugly, or slow, etc., then yes, making the cars too safe would kill the sport faster than driver fatalities, considering the fact that driver fatalities require extremely 'freak-accidents' to occur in this day and age, and are now almost unheard of.

You refuse to answer the question. People in motorsports are demanding action be taken and further improvements to safety be effected.

What is at stake is SAFETY. We know what types of safety measures are being studied, what types are being discussed at length, what types are already being implemented (the car Wheldon et al were working on has been deployed and all Indy drivers have it, so that is one such example); there is no need for you or anybody to talk about tanks, box-like cars, because all these committees are not working with them in mind.

So...

So, answer the question, I don't care about your IFs and BUTs, all I am asking is that you answer what I asked and not beat around the bush as usual. Certainly, you have an opinion on this, don't mask it further with secondary considerations.

Answer my question directly first.

Answer it directly:

which do you think will kill motorsports faster, fatalities in this day and age, or "too much" safety?

Which, one or the other?

We know where you stand on these accidents. Now, answer the question with NO IFs OR BUTs.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by MickeyMouse

F2 cars are much, much more dangerous than F1 cars. As far as formula cars go, F1 is by far the safest, despite the increased speeds. You're much more likely to get injured in Formula Ford / Formula Renault / GP3 and GP2 than F1.

If I may, Kazumi...

The issue is not F1, or F2 or Indy. It is open-wheelers in general, their safety, and that's what these committees are re-thinking.

Just to be clear about F2 being "much much more dangerous than F1 cars":

The Williams F1 designed Formula 2 cars comply with the FIA 2005 F1 safety standards, including the fitment of wheel tethers to reduce the risk of wheels coming off in accidents. The F2 car also includes the latest F1 standards of driver head protection with high cockpit sides and lateral deformable structures. As with F1 however, wheel tethers cannot provide an absolute guarantee that a wheel will not come off in an accident and in a single-seater race car the front of the head is inevitably exposed to the risk, however small, of being hit by another car or component.

- Formula 2 boss Jonathan Palmer

What more is there to say than the above, bud?

[MickeyMouse]

Originally Posted by Chronus

What is at stake is SAFETY. We know what types of safety measures are being studied, what types are being discussed at length, what types are already being implemented (the car Wheldon et al were working on has been deployed and all Indy drivers have it, so that is one such example); there is no need for you or anybody to talk about tanks, box-like cars, because all these committees are not working with them in mind.

The new Indy Cars aren't tank-like, yet, but they have made a big jump towards it. Those enclosed fenders look terrible, IMHO. I really don't know why they didn't just make the series ALMS V2 and go with enclosed prototypes instead. This 'lip-service' to open wheel racing is just silly, even a borderline slap in the face, again IMHO. This goes back to what I said earlier about just ending the sport. If the only choices were those franken-cars or killing off American open wheeled racing completely and going to fully enclosed prototypes only, the latter would be far preferable, again IMHO.
Humm, I wonder if that has anything to do with IndyCar's ratings being significantly lower in every race except the 500 this year, just thinking out loud....

Originally Posted by Chronus

So...
So, answer the question, I don't care about your IFs and BUTs, all I am asking is that you answer what I asked and not beat around the bush as usual. Certainly, you have an opinion on this, don't mask it further with secondary considerations.

Answer my question directly first.

Answer it directly:

Which, one or the other?

We know where you stand on these accidents. Now, answer the question with NO IFs OR BUTs.

No reason for any venom…

Anyway, my response would be that your question is flawed because it is unreasonably constrained... It would be like asking "What 2 positive integers sum to 3, but you can not use the number 2?" It's impossible to answer. The machines can never be made significantly safer without radically altering their appearance or performance, so appearance and performance must, by definition, be involved in any answer I give, I’m sorry if that isn’t good enough for you.

If we bend logic a little…
If the cars could be made significantly safer without altering their speed, or appearance (a Star Trek force field generator perhaps?), then the increased safety would not negatively impact the sport, IMO. If tachyon force fields get invented within the next few years, then yes, driver fatalities would clearly kill the sport faster. Short of force fields, then 'too much' safety would kill the sport faster, in my opinion, considering the fact it is physically impossible, within the currently known laws of physics, to make the cars significantly safer without radically altering their appearance, most likely for the worse in terms of subjective cool-factor and tradition-factor (and hence impacting the life blood of the sport, money).

I don't know how I can answer that question any more clearly. I'll even put it in connectives if it will help:

Significant Safety Increase → (Appearance Changed | Performance Changed) → Loss Of Viewers → Loss Of Funds → Sport Ends

If you disagree with me and my assertion, then fair enough, I don’t have a problem with that, but I resent your accusation that I’m avoiding your flawed question.

As for F2:
The cockpit design is sort of similar (F2 cars have that funny cut out between the dash and side head support). But there are other factors not related to the top of the cockpit, such as smaller carbon fiber bulkheads (reduces cost), more mass (about 200lb, thus more kinetic energy), less grippy tires (don't slow as fast), smaller tires (possibly more dangerous since they are less likely to bounce off the dashboard or rollbar when landing near the cockpit, also making them harder to see and more bouncy), stronger suspension parts (can get away with more of the wheel-to-wheel bumping that F2 is known for, but also makes them more likely to flip from contact), and less stringent track requirements (probably the largest contributor, F1 would never even think of racing at a track like Brands in this day and age), all of these factors make F1 safer, and it shows in the statistics.

[Chronus]

You're one to talk about venom, bud. And how erudite of you to "put in connectives" when you are the one having trouble answering a simple question.

No it's not a flawed question, you simply refuse to answer it in a straight way ("deaths will kill the sport faster" or "too much safety will kill the sport faster"), and I also see you quite artlessly pretend to ignore all the things pilots, engineers and team owners have said on the matter. Maybe their concerns could resonate with you as they do with a lot of us, but it is obvious they do not.

And artlessly you pretend to ignore that you have stated "F2 cars are much, much more dangerous than F1 cars" when the boss of F2, Jonathan Palmer, explained to the press and Surtees family at the time of Henry's death that "The Williams F1 designed Formula 2 cars comply with the FIA 2005 F1 safety standards, including the fitment of wheel tethers to reduce the risk of wheels coming off in accidents. The F2 car also includes the latest F1 standards of driver head protection with high cockpit sides and lateral deformable structures".

This should be a reminder and a testimony that much remains to be done in regards to pilot's safety (namely, his/her head:"in a single-seater race car the front of the head is inevitably exposed to the risk, however small, of being hit by another car or component").

As this is going circular and Jonathan Palmer and all others quoted above (and Kazumi, btw) have put it in very clear words in due time, there is no point in continuing this discussion. I respect your opinion, strongly disagree with it as I consider it harmful in the way it looks at pilot safety and the sad deaths of pilots, but that is it for me.

Have it your way, bud.

As for the raison d'etre of this thread: I hope, as many do, that Maria recuperates and finds happiness in her life in whatever she decides to do.

[ChrisDanger]

Great thread guys. Really going in a positive and encouraging direction.

[Klapaucjusz]

Maria de Villota out of sedation and talking to her family, recovery 'remarkable' says team
It's good that she is able to talk, so there's no major brain damage.

[Chronus]

I read that earlier. With all she's been through, simply amazing. Great will to live.

[Hitman_M3]

Yes Chronus it also makes me vomit how annoying that is. But, try to point out to those freaking environmentalists that thousands of bycicle riders die each year while using the roads FOR FUN. Man, I can accept and applaude that someone does commuting in a bycicle, but come on, is it really necessary to go out sundays and saturdays all over the roads FOR FUN causing a danger to themselves and potentially causing accidents to people who are travelling in their cars or working with their trucks?

Now go reason with those sob environmentalists that it is also a dangerous thing done for fun that could be prohibited to save lifes ... with the same argument as motorsports.

[Chronus]

@Hitman_M3,

for a couple of seconds you got me in a deer in the headlights moment. What the heck...?

Then (on the 3rd second...lol), I realized you are probably referring to a post in which I commented about the hypocrites pointing the finger at motorsports - right?

Well, motorsports is not, imo, intrinsically dangerous, but the potential for harm is there. Like flying: it can be safe and it can be horribly dangerous if something fails.

J. Bergmeister's brother had an accident several weeks ago at Fuji for the Super GT. No part of him was exposed, the roll cage did a fantastic job, but hitting a barrier sideways at over 160 kph is not a walk in the park. Collapsed lung and broken ribs. The car did its job, Tim too, the barriers too. And that is precisely the point: you are not going to forbid motorsports because these things can happen. These things can also happen on a highway or a large avenue and you lose control and hit something...or you are just driving normally and get hit by someone...or you're driving normally and something happens to a tire and you veer onto something.

Motorsports can be dangerous EVEN with all the rollcages and Cars of Tomorrow and SAFER barriers. Like the Jazz the Man said, speed doesn't kill you, suddenly becoming stationery is what kills you.

So, if even with SAFER barriers, rollcages, carbon fibers that absorb the impact and disintegrate accidents can happen, having a vital part of the pilot exposed is a risk I believe is both foolish and unnecessary. Yeah, I agree, closed cockpits are the opposite of tradition, I'll remember for the rest of my life the green and yellow helmet of Ayrton Senna, closed cockpits seemingly separate even more people from the drivers...but unless something is done in that respect (closing the cockpit), the hypocrites will jump on every chance (accident or worst, death) to remind us all that the world will be better off with the egg-like cars of Gordon Murray (T25s and T27s and similar horrible objects) than with sports cars, super cars, hyper cars...and race cars.

Oh, and the Lord Forbid, race cars pollute, so pollution plus danger to the drivers and possibly the audience...? Bad motorsports...get my drift?

Imo, for sure.

[DragonGaru]

Originally Posted by Klapaucjusz

Maria de Villota out of sedation and talking to her family, recovery 'remarkable' says team
It's good that she is able to talk, so there's no major brain damage.

great news!

All the best for Maria!

[Hitman_M3]

Then (on the 3rd second...lol), I realized you are probably referring to a post in which I commented about the hypocrites pointing the finger at motorsports - right?

Yes sorry I realized too late I had forgotten to quote it and was in a hurry to go back to office LOL

[tjc]

Originally Posted by Klapaucjusz

Maria de Villota out of sedation and talking to her family, recovery 'remarkable' says team
It's good that she is able to talk, so there's no major brain damage.

Indeed, this is very good news and I`m very glad to hear it.

[wpsracing78]

To answer a question further up - which will kill motorsport quicker - deaths in this day and age or too much safety?

Well I can tell you this - 2 deaths in the V8 Development series, forgotten
Dan Wheldon, forgotten
Simoncelli, forgotten

I don't mean forgotten literally - but nothing happened apart from a night or two of news reports... no action towards ending motorsport!! Infact if we're honest, the general public pays attention when people die, so if anything it's giving it better publicity - and that's the truth.

So IMO too much safety will kill it - out of the two choices.

HOWEVER - If there are crowd fatalities from a NASCAR or IRL crash - American racing might get bumpy for a period.

[Chronus]

Fair enough - though you don't explain why "too much safety" will kill the sport.

I do believe, though, that

a)the interest of the press in tragedies (tsunami 2004, tsunami in Japan, earthqueakes in the Middle East, the volcano eruptions in latin america, etc, etc) is volatile,

and

b) these deaths were not forgotten - teams and the organizations behind the series scrambled to discuss and try and improve the safety of motorsports (though I don't know what MotoGP did in regards to Marco's death).

I read a piece by Zak Brown following the deaths of Marco and Dan Wheldon. He stated sponsors are well aware of the risks associated with deaths of motorsports drivers/pilots. Aware of the investments (billions) and what they stand to lose.

Someone once said there are 2 kinds of audiences of Formula 1. Once is irrelevant (the public attending the event) and the other is all powerful (the millions watching the event, the sponsors associated with that time slot, etc).

Following the death of Dale Sr, sponsors scrambled to pull up ads and introduce other campaigns.

This brings us to the one big "problem" in motorsports: it costs billions. The only way to get those "millions" and investors and sponsors is to have audiences. Audiences attract sponsorship, audiences and sponsors bring in fresh money. Money is, we know, the blood of motorsports, without it there'll be no cars, no development, no series, no drivers.

The reason why these deaths haven't caused even more harm is due to the fact that whenever something like this happens (from Ratzenberger/Senna to Dale Sr) motorsports governing bodies usually scramble to promote better safety (HANS, SAFER, Cars of Tomorrow, etc).

Hence why I said in regards to open-wheelers: avoiding what can be avoided is important, otherwise people such as columnist Jill Singer will have their day.

[ChrisDanger]

Originally Posted by ChrisDanger

Really tough luck to have your dreams obliterated in such a brief moment. But that's how life is sometimes I guess. I'm sure she will grow from this experience though. Nothing is 100% bad.

Not to revive the silly arguements that transpired here, but like I was saying, this experience has opened her "inner eye."

"Before, I only saw Formula One, I only saw myself in a car competing and did not see what was important in life, the clarity to say 'I am alive'," she told reporters at the headquarters of the Spanish sports council.

"This eye has given me my bearings, given me back what is important, and I accept it with the energy to say I am going to live out this chance 100 percent."

De Villota said she did not know what her future would be now.