Kubica's Crash

[werdy666 0]

Just something that I was concerned about was the fact that I have only ever seen 2 crashes that have left a drivers feet exposed after the accident. Zanardi's crash in champcar and now kubicas crash in canada.

After Zanardis accident i always thought that at least F1 would not allow that to happen. But now i dunno. He was fine afterwards etc but what would have happened if he had his feet exposed and ran straight into a wall? Should the c#ckpit stand up to that sort of crash? I know they have specific tests for the monocoque, but maybe they should make the feet area even stronger....

I don't want another accident like zanardi's again, to any driver.

[DOF_power 0]

He might have broken one leg or 2 but I think that's it.

F1 cars were safer even when Zanardi had his accident and quite some time has past and safety has been improved.

F1 ain't Champ Car, nor the Injury League

[reds88 0]

There were no broken legs, I think. I've seen two reports, one said he broke a leg, the other said he escaped with minor injuries. I think the latter one is true.

I agree I think F1 cars are safer than Zanardi's Champ car, and they ought to be since F1 is much more quicker and dangerous.

[Niall McBride 0]

Just something that I was concerned about was the fact that I have only ever seen 2 crashes that have left a drivers feet exposed after the accident. Zanardi's crash in champcar and now kubicas crash in canada.

After Zanardis accident i always thought that at least F1 would not allow that to happen. But now i dunno. He was fine afterwards etc but what would have happened if he had his feet exposed and ran straight into a wall? Should the c#ckpit stand up to that sort of crash? I know they have specific tests for the monocoque, but maybe they should make the feet area even stronger....

I don't want another accident like zanardi's again, to any driver.

even worse than a wall what if liuzzi t-boned him probably wouldn't lose a leg like zanardi but it would do a good bit of damage

[c21 0]

Kubic has only light injuries.

For the record the frontal impact was 40g, and the side 30g.

[Kay 0]

Kubic has only light injuries.

For the record the frontal impact was 40g, and the side 30g.

That's almost a full 10g more than the last high speed double impact crash I can remember (Button, Monaco 2003) and similar injuries so it shows how much safety is evolving!

EDIT: Can you post a link? I've only read a small article that talks about 28g (Recorded by the mandatory black box).

[Shane2 0]

The theoretical maximum that a human body can survive is about 100 G, so in that respect the G-Force alone was not enough to prove fatal, but if that is indeed true, it is nothing short of a miracle that Robert's injuries where so slight

[werdy666 0]

I think the thing that concerned me most was the fact his feet were exposed after the crash. What would have happened to his feet if he ran straight back into the wall on the crowd side instead of hitting it side on? I can imagine him loosing both feet in that situation. Just a little surprised that after a crash in an F1 car a driver would have his feet exposed. I have no doubt that an F1 car is near the safest thing on earth you can have a crash in!

[Kay 0]

Definitely, considering your random person can have the same injuries by falling backwards from standing and hitting their head on the floor.

[NeoData 0]

Any1 know how to get in contact with Kubica? I'm going to Las Vegas soon and would like him to pick some numbers for me

[-Rafa- 0]

I'm really impressed by how much safety has evolved.

As that crash was huge, I mean that was like Senna's crash back in 94 was it? I'm sure if it was the same car as 94 he would be dead, his crash just shows how good safety in F1 is, whoever was the prat that said there is not enough safety in F1 is stupid.

And to walk away with a sprained ankle,

[c21 0]

That's almost a full 10g more than the last high speed double impact crash I can remember (Button, Monaco 2003) and similar injuries so it shows how much safety is evolving!

EDIT: Can you post a link? I've only read a small article that talks about 28g (Recorded by the mandatory black box).

Sorry for my late reply. (I have been away for a couple of weeks)

Im afraid there is no link, I got it from a team member personally.

[DOF_power 0]

I read 75G.

And a F1 guy in the 70s survived ~179G.

[Jez 0]

I read 75G.

And a F1 guy in the 70s survived ~179G.

I read 75G too. I'll see if I can find a link.

[Jez 0]

Here it is- http://f1.automoto365.com/news/controller....p;news_id=26308

Kubica

[ecapdeville 0]

I'm really impressed by how much safety has evolved.

As that crash was huge, I mean that was like Senna's crash back in 94 was it? I'm sure if it was the same car as 94 he would be dead, his crash just shows how good safety in F1 is...

And to walk away with a sprained ankle,

Remember that Senna had really bad luck with his accident...he would walk away of that crash if that suspension bar wouldnt broke his helmet and his head...but nonetheless the security now is great and the Hans device is the biggest thing since the wheels were moved in front of the feet of the drivers.

[Autumnpuma 0]

I'm not convinced that it's good to praise the current level of safety in F1 because the result is sloppier driving. I'm not sure that's a good trade-off.

[Quiet One 15]

I'm not convinced that it's good to praise the current level of safety in F1 because the result is sloppier driving. I'm not sure that's a good trade-off.

Why do you think driver's style has become sloppier lately?

Is it so?

[Autumnpuma 0]

Why do you think driver's style has become sloppier lately?

Is it so?

I think that driver's take more unnecessary risks knowing that if they shunt the car, the safety features will keep them alive and unhurt. You would rarely, if ever, see Clark or Stewart be imprecise behind the wheel (running onto the grass on exit as many current drivers do is one example). In those days, running onto the grass would send likely kill you! Kubeetza would have had a healthier distance from Trulli (was it Trulli?) if the cars were less safe and DC would perhaps have not tried his ambitious move on Wurz. The passing in the more dangerous F1 eras tended to be cleaner and more skillful and I value those qualities above all else.

I don't like risk and danger for their own sakes, but I do like to see an expert driver blaze around a circuit (and the competition) whilst looking that danger head-on. In that situation, only the most skilled of drivers would survive...and their driving would seem all the more impressive for the dangers conquered.

This sport was never for the weak at heart.

[Jem of the Shire 0]

I think that driver's take more unnecessary risks knowing that if they shunt the car, the safety features will keep them alive and unhurt. You would rarely, if ever, see Clark or Stewart be imprecise behind the wheel (running onto the grass on exit as many current drivers do is one example). In those days, running onto the grass would send likely kill you! Kubeetza would have had a healthier distance from Trulli (was it Trulli?) if the cars were less safe and DC would perhaps have not tried his ambitious move on Wurz. The passing in the more dangerous F1 eras tended to be cleaner and more skillful and I value those qualities above all else.

I don't like risk and danger for their own sakes, but I do like to see an expert driver blaze around a circuit (and the competition) whilst looking that danger head-on. In that situation, only the most skilled of drivers would survive...and their driving would seem all the more impressive for the dangers conquered.

This sport was never for the weak at heart.

ah, if only it were still 1965.

your description is of a different era i'm afraid, but I completely agree.

i've always felt F1 is safe enough; its hard to explain what i mean, but racing drivers know the job is dangerous, they accept that, so it annoys me when FIA make rules that increase safety but at the expense of the racing - smaller engines for example, slowing the cars down, huge run-off areas, that kind of thing. It also annoys me when drivers moan that a circuit like Canada 'isnt good enough' because of safety issues. You're a racing driver for christs sake, what did you expect when you started in a career in motorsport!!!

[Quiet One 15]

ah, if only it were still 1965.

your description is of a different era i'm afraid, but I completely agree.

i've always felt F1 is safe enough; its hard to explain what i mean, but racing drivers know the job is dangerous, they accept that, so it annoys me when FIA make rules that increase safety but at the expense of the racing - smaller engines for example, slowing the cars down, huge run-off areas, that kind of thing. It also annoys me when drivers moan that a circuit like Canada 'isnt good enough' because of safety issues. You're a racing driver for christs sake, what did you expect when you started in a career in motorsport!!!

@Mike: Yes now I see your point and it is quite a good one! I agree.

@Jem: Spot on! I am all for safety issues (don't like unnecessary deaths or injured) but there must be a compromise between an inherently dangerous sport and safety issues.

[cavallino 2]

I think that driver's take more unnecessary risks knowing that if they shunt the car, the safety features will keep them alive and unhurt. You would rarely, if ever, see Clark or Stewart be imprecise behind the wheel (running onto the grass on exit as many current drivers do is one example). In those days, running onto the grass would send likely kill you! Kubeetza would have had a healthier distance from Trulli (was it Trulli?) if the cars were less safe and DC would perhaps have not tried his ambitious move on Wurz. The passing in the more dangerous F1 eras tended to be cleaner and more skillful and I value those qualities above all else.

I don't like risk and danger for their own sakes, but I do like to see an expert driver blaze around a circuit (and the competition) whilst looking that danger head-on. In that situation, only the most skilled of drivers would survive...and their driving would seem all the more impressive for the dangers conquered.

This sport was never for the weak at heart.

That's plain ridiculous. Are you saying drivers did not take 'unnecessary risks' when cars were unsafe? Of course they did, multiple driver deaths every year were proof of that, and remember there are 10 close shaves for every big incident. Drivers take risks, it's just that now they don't die of it. As for sloppiness in driver skills, is this one race all you have to refer to? Is this the disgruntled JV fan in you speaking? Sure, drivers can take more risks, but that would simply lead to good racing, as it did before the FIA regulations didn't keep up with the technical guys. Drivers like Schumacher, knowing the greater safety used it to their advantage, and offered us some entertainment in the bargain. If driver skills were getting so sloppy, you'd see the old farts dominating the young kids because they came from a superior era, that hasn't happened, has it?

[dribbler 6]

That's plain ridiculous. Are you saying drivers did not take 'unnecessary risks' when cars were unsafe? Of course they did, multiple driver deaths every year were proof of that, and remember there are 10 close shaves for every big incident. Drivers take risks, it's just that now they don't die of it. As for sloppiness in driver skills, is this one race all you have to refer to? Is this the disgruntled JV fan in you speaking? Sure, drivers can take more risks, but that would simply lead to good racing, as it did before the FIA regulations didn't keep up with the technical guys. Drivers like Schumacher, knowing the greater safety used it to their advantage, and offered us some entertainment in the bargain. If driver skills were getting so sloppy, you'd see the old farts dominating the young kids because they came from a superior era, that hasn't happened, has it?

I have to agree. To suggest that drivers have become steadily more imprecise as the years have gone on, hand in hand relative to improved safety is untrue, in my opinion. Racers race in the blink of an eye. They make opportunist decisions without thinking of the safety implications. It has always been that way.

I don't think that i may be killed on my drive to work because i drive in a way that has a margin for error. That doesn't allow for me making a mistake or being able to alter influences out of my control though. It's the same for racing drivers. When they are flat out, they still believe that the margin is there. They must do, otherwise they would be suicidal. It doesn't appear like that from the outside because they are going faster than me on my drive to work, but relatively speaking, the margin is there.

Gilles, Ayrton and Jim? They had ridiculous speed and i love them, they just didn't consider the margin, but they gave our sport character. If Kubica had died, he would have been crowned as a true racer,pushing the envelope, not considering the margin. But because he lives, he has been damned as ill considered and foolish.

My point? You gotta die 'round here to get truely loved by the die hards who can't accept that safety is a good thing.

[Quiet One 15]

I think there is a misunderstaning here (maybe from my part) I think Mikes says that more safety encourages sloppier driving, not that sloppy drivers never existed or that silly mistakes are new to F1. Gilles accident no matter how you see it was rather silly. DC's shunt at Spa was silly. If Kimi had crashed when he made that daredevil move at eau rouge he would have been considered the sloppiest driver of all ages. He did it and he is regarded as a hero. Alonso did a similar move at Interlagos and crashed, so he is the town's fool (I guess I went far off topic here!).

Anyways, the thing is, more challenge equals more skills. Less margin for errors means better driving overall (or more horrific crashes).

(I am re reading my post and I think it does not make much sense. Sorry, I didn't have enough sleep )

[pabloh20 1]

I have to agree. To suggest that drivers have become steadily more imprecise as the years have gone on, hand in hand relative to improved safety is untrue, in my opinion. Racers race in the blink of an eye. They make opportunist decisions without thinking of the safety implications. It has always been that way.

I don't think that i may be killed on my drive to work because i drive in a way that has a margin for error. That doesn't allow for me making a mistake or being able to alter influences out of my control though. It's the same for racing drivers. When they are flat out, they still believe that the margin is there. They must do, otherwise they would be suicidal. It doesn't appear like that from the outside because they are going faster than me on my drive to work, but relatively speaking, the margin is there.

Gilles, Ayrton and Jim? They had ridiculous speed and i love them, they just didn't consider the margin, but they gave our sport character. If Kubica had died, he would have been crowned as a true racer,pushing the envelope, not considering the margin. But because he lives, he has been damned as ill considered and foolish.

My point? You gotta die 'round here to get truely loved by the die hards who can't accept that safety is a good thing.

Steve, I think Andres has maybe got the right idea below.

It's a view that Stirling Moss holds with regards to safety, he too believes that F1 is too safe in some respects these days and that some incidents have evolved because of the safety. For example, you would never have had the incidents where Senna, Prost and Schumi rammed other cars, if they were in a lot less safe cars, it would be just too dangerous to do so. I know what you're saying with regards to making split decisions, but I believe there is an inherent 'life first' switch prevalent in most, not all, of us that tries to override any stupid decisions and protect us - it doesn't always work, I grant you, but it tries. So in that example, if there was known high risk of death by ramming another car then I don't believe a racing driver would do it 99% of the time.

I think there is a misunderstaning here (maybe from my part) I think Mikes says that more safety encourages sloppier driving, not that sloppy drivers never existed or that silly mistakes are new to F1. Gilles accident no matter how you see it was rather silly. DC's shunt at Spa was silly. If Kimi had crashed when he made that daredevil move at eau rouge he would have been considered the sloppiest driver of all ages. He did it and he is regarded as a hero. Alonso did a similar move at Interlagos and crashed, so he is the town's fool (I guess I went far off topic here!).

Anyways, the thing is, more challenge equals more skills. Less margin for errors means better driving overall (or more horrific crashes).

(I am re reading my post and I think it does not make much sense. Sorry, I didn't have enough sleep )

I understood it - I am not sure what that says about me, though!