You make a good argument, Miggins, but I have to agree with Ernie because I'm not thinking about the mph when I'm watching F1 even though I know the speed is instrumental in the thrill of it.
Miggins, some of the best racing and smart manouvers take place at the slowest corner's, ultimate top speed DOES NOT add to the events, like Max say's one does not enjoy the fastest overtakes more than the slower speed overtakes, in fact I bet an observer generally cannot define the racing speeds during such events and does not care if its 100mph or 200mph.
Ok, now I'm home I've been able to access some journals, and I agree with you that 15g is sustainable for most human beings. However, lab studies have shown that 80-100g regularly results in 'aortic transection', or a tear of the aorta, which is frequently fatal. Kubica walked away from his accident at Montreal after experiencing a peak g force of 75g. This demonstrates that crashes in F1 are already approaching the sort of forces which can cause an aortic transection. If everything else is kept the same, but the speed of the cars increases, you can already see that the g-forces quickly enter the territory of being genuinely life-threatening. This is purely caused by the speed of deceleration, it doesn't matter if nothing flies up and hits the driver, the sheer g-force alone will be enough to rip the aorta. This in itself is not a barrier to increasing the speed of the cars, you just need a way to manage the g-force on impact. To my mind this can be achieved by: a) Slowing the Car down before impact: This would require increased run-off areas, which for some circuits may mean relocating stands, changes to the landscape, new catch-fencing for debris etc, which all costs money. Barcelona, Hockenheim and the Nurburgring have all recently said they are struggling to afford the cost of running a grand prix, the sort of investment needed to make these improvements would force them to pull the plug. b)Increase the duration of impact: To my mind, this is where the changes would have to come. Tech-Pro barriers as I mentioned previously are tested to a certain level. If cars are to travel faster, firstly these barriers need testing at higher speeds to see what peak g-force the driver is experiencing, to see if it is still below the 80g threshold of serious injury. If not, the barriers will require serious work. Again, this requires serious investment and there will be a lead time to development. However, in terms of track design it means barriers can be simply replaced, at a much lower cost to circuits. c) Increase human tolerance: Simply, this isn't possible. My Biomedical Scientist girlfriend reckons that strengthening the aorta, by calcification or otherwise, would stiffen the aorta, which leads to hypertension. That would kill the F1 driver before they even set foot in the car. An artificial support would be useless as the aorta would simply rip against it. So yes, whilst ultimate speed could be increased, the impact g-force is finite. Personally, I would find it difficult to support a sport where the machines are capable, even in a perfectly executed high speed accident, of killing the driver.
Various things so far discussed are of fundamental importance; and it is great to see such solid arguments weighed against the passion which brings us here in the first place. For this reason, I have thoroughly enjoyed reading the last couple of pages of comments, and look forward to further developments. But clearly, in this post-Roman 'gladiatorial' era (arena?) of non-extremes, there needs to be some moderation (reasonable balance) between two fundamentally opposed concepts: total, boring sanitisation; or complete, reckless abandon. Good points have been made from both camps but the general tone of DHCanary's logical, reasonable - and in my opinion - valid arguments, have said many of the most fundamentally important things. Ultimately, a deregulated F1 would present little sustainable spectacle for a wide enough audience and would likely revert to the killing years I am fortunate enough to have survived, which we associate with the (now - but not previously 'politically incorrect') experimentation of the 50s, 60s and 70s; eventually appealing to only a minority - since few, if any circuits currently in existence would be able to accommodate such potential. Have we got the balance right? - Well, I suppose that's a bit like asking whether a government which presides over its people has ever 'got it right'. A democrat might say that what ultimately matters is that the majority get what they want. But of course, a dictator might think he/she knows betterâ¦ââo0oââ Hmm⦠Bernie: do you think we should put it to a poll? - Or will you take advice from your mates to ensure that the bottom line leaves you with a legacy?
Cosi, yes I think the balance is about right, we still have speed, 200mph plus is fast enough and the racing still makes me jump out of my chair on occasion and most importantly drivers do not die, having said that there are times when the application and interpretation of the rules could be standardized.
Thanks Ernie. I also think we're pretty close to the optimum, especially considering the circuits. I do hope you didn't mistake my tongue-in-cheek final line as a question directed at yourself. When I said "Bernie", my question was aimed squarely at Ecclestone: the ringmaster himself. It wasn't a typo!
I don't see how I've lost a debate when my point has been clearly overlooked, instead we've had some sort of 'death-race 2000' scenario, painted by DHCanary, of exploding chests, popping eyes, and all sorts of science fiction, all backed up with figures pulled from a theoretical game car, that isn't even and open wheeler. I have not asked for all the banned technology to be introduced, just that, in regard to the Engine (and the Turbo), the teams are allowed to use the full Power rather than a restricted amount, rev limits, on an F1 car, seriously, WTF!!!! why would any fan think this is a good thing? restricting engne power is for amatuers on track days, not the pinnacle of motorsport. Go sandpaper your fingers and dip them in vinegar for typing such blasphemy. The cars won't go that much faster with the boost turned it's max, maybe 20 or 30 mph more, but it'll get there quicker making overtaking on the straight easy, similar to the DRS, just with a bit more down force AND an opportunity for the attacked driver to defend by cranking his up. It's a double edged sword though, with fuel consumption. The new Turbo rules won't allow for this, they're too restrictive, it's a quarter of a century since the turbo era, a quarter of a century of processional races, the world has moved on, technology has moved on but people still cling to the myths of the past. Full Turbo boost is not dangerous, badly made cars are, even the HRT is better made than the best of the turbo cars.
they have telemetry these days you know, this is the 2nd decade of the 21st cetury. They can see a problem long before it retires the car, and no team is going to be irresponsible enough to lose engines, F1 has moved on along way since wooden pit boards.
you say that - but there are still instances of drivers creeping back dropping all sorts. - and bits of tyre flailing and shredding everywhere.
