Mr. Sandpit, wouldn't worry. I'm sure they'll burn safely.
Cars burst into flames at least a few times a season. It's rare now for them to be upside down (though on the side/buried in a barrier is possible), but it only has to happen once.
FIA's not winning fans with this. If it really is about safety, why is it only being enforced for F1 and not other categories of open seat racing?
There's also a question mark about peripheral vision, particularly off the start line as noise all around makes the ears less useful for pinpointing the whereabouts of another car.
Chris Grayling bolloxed it up. That's no-one's fault but Chris Grayling's. The judgment today was eviscerating.
Not for the first time, one does have to wonder why the government is either not getting proper legal advice, or is not following it. They really shouldn't be getting themselves into a position where they lose cases like this or the Article 50 case.
Sometimes, the law is not at all open and shut.
Take, for example, the case of Heather Illott and the Blue Cross. The High Court and Court of Appeal ruled in her favour, and then the Supreme Court delivered a resounding judgment against her, overturning a string of decisions in the lower courts over many years, and returning to the position of a generation ago - namely that adult children can only bring claims under the Inheritance Act 1975 in exceptional circumstances.
For all we know, the government was advised it had a good case, both in this instance and in the A. 50 case (and in the latter, three judges sided with the government).
F1: halo introduction means the time limit for cockpit evacuation will be increased from 5s to 8-10s.
Not sure that'll win over critics (I'm less critical than most, to be honest).
Nope, they shouldn't be making it take longer to get out of a car that's on fire. I've also yet to see what a car with Halo attached looks like upside down, from the point of view of evacuation.
Prof Watkins did a heck of a lot of work on this, and he often had to fight for it as part of the FIA Expert Advisory Safety Committee. I don't like Max Moseley, but he had the sense to back the prof up. As did, for the most part, Bernie.
All three men are gone. One's job has essentially disappeared, one has been replaced by a biased fool, and the third is now a corporation. I fear F1 is going to lose direction quickly.
Chris Grayling bolloxed it up. That's no-one's fault but Chris Grayling's. The judgment today was eviscerating.
Not for the first time, one does have to wonder why the government is either not getting proper legal advice, or is not following it. They really shouldn't be getting themselves into a position where they lose cases like this or the Article 50 case.
Yep - this is true. I wonder if one of the problems is that government lawyers will never earn as much as those in private practice, so are never going to be the best. That said, extensive advice would (or should) have been taken from top firms. Maybe it's a case of people not listening to what they are being told, or not properly understanding it.
It confirms that the recent fuss over student debts was CCHQ inspired. The SpAd/CS revolving door remains troublesome, though revolving doors usually do.
F1: halo introduction means the time limit for cockpit evacuation will be increased from 5s to 8-10s.
Not sure that'll win over critics (I'm less critical than most, to be honest).
Nope, they shouldn't be making it take longer to get out of a car that's on fire. I've also yet to see what a car with Halo attached looks like upside down, from the point of view of evacuation.
Prof Watkins did a heck of a lot of work on this, and he often had to fight for it as part of the FIA Expert Advisory Safety Committee. I don't like Max Moseley, but he had the sense to back the prof up. As did, for the most part, Bernie.
All three men are gone. One's job has essentially disappeared, one has been replaced by a biased fool, and the third is now a corporation. I fear F1 is going to lose direction quickly.
Sid Watkins' memoir, Life at the Limit, was a fascinating read about how F1 developed from an era where there'd be a handful of funerals a year, to today's situation.
The key turning point was when Bernie gave Sid a veto on the medical facilities, telling promotors that if the Doc says we're not racing, then we're not racing.
Indeed at the Chinese GP this year most of Friday's running was cancelled as the Shanghai smog grounded the medical helicopter. The Chinese authorities moved an entire neurological trauma centre overnight from Downtown Shanghai to another hospital closer to the circuit - because the F1 medical team wouldn't hesitate to cancel the race.
Chris Grayling bolloxed it up. That's no-one's fault but Chris Grayling's. The judgment today was eviscerating.
Not for the first time, one does have to wonder why the government is either not getting proper legal advice, or is not following it. They really shouldn't be getting themselves into a position where they lose cases like this or the Article 50 case.
Yep - this is true. I wonder if one of the problems is that government lawyers will never earn as much as those in private practice, so are never going to be the best. That said, extensive advice would (or should) have been taken from top firms. Maybe it's a case of people not listening to what they are being told, or not properly understanding it.
Having now read the judgement, I see that the Government won its case in the High Court and the Court of Appeal, so I think this is another case where the law was certainly not clear cut. The Government would not have prevailed in the lower Courts, had its arguments lacked merit.
It confirms that the recent fuss over student debts was CCHQ inspired. The SpAd/CS revolving door remains troublesome, though revolving doors usually do.
And unlike Guido, I remain sceptical that talking about Labour's more popular policies (or not policies) is good for the Conservatives. If the blue team wants to send small boys up chimneys, then pointing to Labour confusion on whether the minimum age for sweeps should be 10 or 12 does not make the first position less toxic, it makes it more toxic by bringing it back to public consciousness.
Having now read the judgement, I see that the Government won its case in the High Court and the Court of Appeal, so I think this is another case where the law was certainly not clear cut. The Government would not have prevailed in the lower Courts, had its arguments lacked merit.
Ah, that does put a different complexion on things.
I'm not sure that our laws being made by a game of judicial musical chairs is quite optimal!
So in the same week, the government announces that rail electrification projects are cancelled/curtailed because bi-mode (diesel + electric) trains are wonderful, and then announces that diesel and petrol cars will be banned.
Never mind joined up government, they can't even manage joined up policy in the Department of Transport. It wasn't this bad when Prezza was in charge!
Chris Grayling bolloxed it up. That's no-one's fault but Chris Grayling's. The judgment today was eviscerating.
Not for the first time, one does have to wonder why the government is either not getting proper legal advice, or is not following it. They really shouldn't be getting themselves into a position where they lose cases like this or the Article 50 case.
The A50 case produced a split decision so the arguments must have been fairly finely balanced. In any case, the constitutional importance of that one was so significant that it was worth the government fighting it even if it thought it only had a 20% chance of winning, simply in order to clarify the law one way or the other (and in reality, its chances were probably a good deal better than that).
What a government is allowed to do can often be a very grey area and it's not surprising that ministers will tend to push the boundaries of what might be acceptable because doing so enables them to put in place a solution that they hope will resolve whatever problem lies in front of them that day. Indeed, they have to do that because logically, the alternative is to seek permission from the courts before taking any action upon which there's any doubt (which will nearly always be the case).
F1: halo introduction means the time limit for cockpit evacuation will be increased from 5s to 8-10s.
Not sure that'll win over critics (I'm less critical than most, to be honest).
Nope, they shouldn't be making it take longer to get out of a car that's on fire. I've also yet to see what a car with Halo attached looks like upside down, from the point of view of evacuation.
Prof Watkins did a heck of a lot of work on this, and he often had to fight for it as part of the FIA Expert Advisory Safety Committee. I don't like Max Moseley, but he had the sense to back the prof up. As did, for the most part, Bernie.
All three men are gone. One's job has essentially disappeared, one has been replaced by a biased fool, and the third is now a corporation. I fear F1 is going to lose direction quickly.
Sid Watkins' memoir, Life at the Limit, was a fascinating read about how F1 developed from an era where there'd be a handful of funerals a year, to today's situation.
The key turning point was when Bernie gave Sid a veto on the medical facilities, telling promotors that if the Doc says we're not racing, then we're not racing.
Indeed at the Chinese GP this year most of Friday's running was cancelled as the Shanghai smog grounded the medical helicopter. The Chinese authorities moved an entire neurological trauma centre overnight from Downtown Shanghai to another hospital closer to the circuit - because the F1 medical team wouldn't hesitate to cancel the race.
There are a fair few stories like that. ISTR one where there was no medical car available. So Bernie and Sid went through the parking lot, found a fast car, broke into it, and used that. I daresay the modern medical cars are a little more altered for the purpose.
I'm biased as I knew Sid, and he operated on me a few times. He was a great man, with none of the airs or graces you would expect of someone in his position.
Mr. Rentool, that's a juxtaposition, but not the crucial one. Electrification cancelled in the north, Crossrail 2 confirmed for London. Electric cars (viable and easier in cities by far than the countryside and towns) being not merely preferred but the only new option in a couple of decades appears to be the height of a metropolitan-centric approach which doesn't consider or understand that the whole country isn't made of little Londons.
As I said, perhaps I'm wrong and over-egging the cake, but when Gove referred to local authorities deciding what was best for their city I did want to point out to him that an awful lot of people live in towns and villages.
Chris Grayling bolloxed it up. That's no-one's fault but Chris Grayling's. The judgment today was eviscerating.
Not for the first time, one does have to wonder why the government is either not getting proper legal advice, or is not following it. They really shouldn't be getting themselves into a position where they lose cases like this or the Article 50 case.
Yep - this is true. I wonder if one of the problems is that government lawyers will never earn as much as those in private practice, so are never going to be the best. That said, extensive advice would (or should) have been taken from top firms. Maybe it's a case of people not listening to what they are being told, or not properly understanding it.
The outcome of court cases is no more predictable than anything else is, even to the lawyers involved, largely because there is a filter inherent in the system - predictable cases either don't become cases at all, or settle.
Mr. Jessop, aye. Whilst I think Mosley's attitude to free speech is pathetic, his work on safety was very good.
Well .... yes and no. You can argue that the tragedies in 1994 could be directly laid at the FIA's door under his direction: banning traction control / electronic drivers aids so hurriedly in ?June? 1993 left teams with little time to regress their developments before the 1994 season.
to his credit, he and the FIA reacted quickly after Imola. But perhaps the tragedies could have been avoided in the first place.
Mr. Rentool, that's a juxtaposition, but not the crucial one. Electrification cancelled in the north, Crossrail 2 confirmed for London. Electric cars (viable and easier in cities by far than the countryside and towns) being not merely preferred but the only new option in a couple of decades appears to be the height of a metropolitan-centric approach which doesn't consider or understand that the whole country isn't made of little Londons.
As I said, perhaps I'm wrong and over-egging the cake, but when Gove referred to local authorities deciding what was best for their city I did want to point out to him that an awful lot of people live in towns and villages.
*One* electrification has been cancelled in the north (Windermere to Oxenholme). AFAIAA the main electrification - Manchester to Leeds - is still ongoing.
Chris Grayling bolloxed it up. That's no-one's fault but Chris Grayling's. The judgment today was eviscerating.
Not for the first time, one does have to wonder why the government is either not getting proper legal advice, or is not following it. They really shouldn't be getting themselves into a position where they lose cases like this or the Article 50 case.
Yep - this is true. I wonder if one of the problems is that government lawyers will never earn as much as those in private practice, so are never going to be the best. That said, extensive advice would (or should) have been taken from top firms. Maybe it's a case of people not listening to what they are being told, or not properly understanding it.
The outcome of court cases is no more predictable than anything else is, even to the lawyers involved, largely because there is a filter inherent in the system - predictable cases either don't become cases at all, or settle.
Judges are very good at providing reasoned arguments for their decisions. Reading the Supreme Court judgment, you'd think what was the point of the Government defending the action.
But, if you were to read the judgements of the High Court and the Court of Appeal, you'd no doubt think what was the point of Unison bringing the action.
Mr. Jessop, you're more up on the particulars of that than me, although I would say the general direction of travel was very much for the better.
They banned driver aids that the cars relied on, left precious little time for the teams to adapt, and allowed the cars to go as fast. It was a recipe for disaster.
Even before Imola people were saying it had made the sport far more dangerous. It shows that post-Imola the first thing they did was slow the cars down.
Mr. Jessop (1), on the electrification: it's still a poor juxtaposition. Can't find millions for the north, can find billions for London.
Mr. Jessop (2), I've been a lot more neutral on the halo than most people (some journalists seem to like it, and the FIA, but the fans seem to hate it) but the recent news on cockpit evacuation is not fantastic. Cars now are generally very safe, but if safety is paramount then the sport may as well be banned. Driving at 200mph is inherently dangerous. Doubling cockpit evacuation times due to adding a safety feature already widely considered to be of dubious merit is not necessarily going to win over a swathe of hitherto unimpressed fans.
F1: halo introduction means the time limit for cockpit evacuation will be increased from 5s to 8-10s.
Not sure that'll win over critics (I'm less critical than most, to be honest).
Nope, they shouldn't be making it take longer to get out of a car that's on fire. I've also yet to see what a car with Halo attached looks like upside down, from the point of view of evacuation.
Prof Watkins did a heck of a lot of work on this, and he often had to fight for it as part of the FIA Expert Advisory Safety Committee. I don't like Max Moseley, but he had the sense to back the prof up. As did, for the most part, Bernie.
All three men are gone. One's job has essentially disappeared, one has been replaced by a biased fool, and the third is now a corporation. I fear F1 is going to lose direction quickly.
Sid Watkins' memoir, Life at the Limit, was a fascinating read about how F1 developed from an era where there'd be a handful of funerals a year, to today's situation.
The key turning point was when Bernie gave Sid a veto on the medical facilities, telling promotors that if the Doc says we're not racing, then we're not racing.
Indeed at the Chinese GP this year most of Friday's running was cancelled as the Shanghai smog grounded the medical helicopter. The Chinese authorities moved an entire neurological trauma centre overnight from Downtown Shanghai to another hospital closer to the circuit - because the F1 medical team wouldn't hesitate to cancel the race.
There are a fair few stories like that. ISTR one where there was no medical car available. So Bernie and Sid went through the parking lot, found a fast car, broke into it, and used that. I daresay the modern medical cars are a little more altered for the purpose.
I'm biased as I knew Sid, and he operated on me a few times. He was a great man, with none of the airs or graces you would expect of someone in his position.
Ah, you were indeed a lucky man to have known Sid. He was indeed famous for playing down his weekend job, would usually be back at his surgery in London by Monday.
Today's medical cars are Mercedes C63 AMG road cars, and are surprisingly mechanically standard bar a sports exhaust. Ditto the safety cars, which are Mercedes AMG GT S models. Both full of lots of equipment though.
Ah, you were indeed a lucky man to have known Sid. He was indeed famous for playing down his weekend job, would usually be back at his surgery in London by Monday.
(Snip)
Anecdote alert.
When I first met him in 1993, I didn't know who he was. All I knew is that after many years, this was a doctor who was confident he could fix me. Then one day I went for an appointment and his secretary said: "We've been trying to contact you. Sid's asked me to tell you he's got an urgent appointment, but he's really playing golf with Ayrton Senna."
As an F1 fan, my jaw hit the floor (and no, that wasn't what he was operating on).
He was a gent. I was in hospital after one operation and he came into my room, smoking a cigar and with a bottle of whisky. "None of my friends are in London, so I thought we could have a drink." He checked my medication and poured me a couple of very generous tipples.
He fancied Glenmorangie. Apparently because although it's not the best whisky, he could find it in most places around the world.
Few people get to genuinely change lives for the better, but he did mine.
Mr. Sandpit, they need a faster safety car, though. Azerbaijan was a farce with tyre warming issues (partly down to the circuit, admittedly).
It's a £150k sports car with 600bhp, there's not a lot that would be quicker while maintaining reliability and all- weather capabilities. I'd agree about Azerbaijan, but that's an unusual circuit in that the final corner is so far back.
It would be difficult to make the SC much quicker without using a racing car, it just shows how much quicker an F1 car is than anything else.
Plenty of people I sat near when I went to a Referendum public debate were against immigrants and they made their views noisily clear throughout proceedings.
Ah, you were indeed a lucky man to have known Sid. He was indeed famous for playing down his weekend job, would usually be back at his surgery in London by Monday.
(Snip)
Anecdote alert.
When I first met him in 1993, I didn't know who he was. All I knew is that after many years, this was a doctor who was confident he could fix me. Then one day I went for an appointment and his secretary said: "We've been trying to contact you. Sid's asked me to tell you he's got an urgent appointment, but he's really playing golf with Ayrton Senna."
As an F1 fan, my jaw hit the floor (and no, that wasn't what he was operating on).
He was a gent. I was in hospital after one operation and he came into my room, smoking a cigar and with a bottle of whisky. "None of my friends are in London, so I thought we could have a drink." He checked my medication and poured me a couple of very generous tipples.
He fancied Glenmorangie. Apparently because although it's not the best whisky, he could find it in most places around the world.
Few people get to genuinely change lives for the better, but he did mine.
So in the same week, the government announces that rail electrification projects are cancelled/curtailed because bi-mode (diesel + electric) trains are wonderful, and then announces that diesel and petrol cars will be banned.
Never mind joined up government, they can't even manage joined up policy in the Department of Transport. It wasn't this bad when Prezza was in charge!
Although as the theme of May's government has turned from 'Strong and Stable' to Shambles, then this is of a piece.
"Blair may have embraced some ethical middle-class beliefs, but Corbyn goes much further and is all the more popular for it. No doubt he also appeals to fiftysomething leftists nostalgic for a return to ‘real’ Labour values, but his main constituency is well-to-do public professionals with the DAB set permanently to Radio 4."
Comments
Cars burst into flames at least a few times a season. It's rare now for them to be upside down (though on the side/buried in a barrier is possible), but it only has to happen once.
FIA's not winning fans with this. If it really is about safety, why is it only being enforced for F1 and not other categories of open seat racing?
There's also a question mark about peripheral vision, particularly off the start line as noise all around makes the ears less useful for pinpointing the whereabouts of another car.
Take, for example, the case of Heather Illott and the Blue Cross. The High Court and Court of Appeal ruled in her favour, and then the Supreme Court delivered a resounding judgment against her, overturning a string of decisions in the lower courts over many years, and returning to the position of a generation ago - namely that adult children can only bring claims under the Inheritance Act 1975 in exceptional circumstances.
For all we know, the government was advised it had a good case, both in this instance and in the A. 50 case (and in the latter, three judges sided with the government).
So it's official? Heaven help DExEU.
All three men are gone. One's job has essentially disappeared, one has been replaced by a biased fool, and the third is now a corporation. I fear F1 is going to lose direction quickly.
Sid Watkins' memoir, Life at the Limit, was a fascinating read about how F1 developed from an era where there'd be a handful of funerals a year, to today's situation.
The key turning point was when Bernie gave Sid a veto on the medical facilities, telling promotors that if the Doc says we're not racing, then we're not racing.
Indeed at the Chinese GP this year most of Friday's running was cancelled as the Shanghai smog grounded the medical helicopter. The Chinese authorities moved an entire neurological trauma centre overnight from Downtown Shanghai to another hospital closer to the circuit - because the F1 medical team wouldn't hesitate to cancel the race.
I'm not sure that our laws being made by a game of judicial musical chairs is quite optimal!
Never mind joined up government, they can't even manage joined up policy in the Department of Transport. It wasn't this bad when Prezza was in charge!
What a government is allowed to do can often be a very grey area and it's not surprising that ministers will tend to push the boundaries of what might be acceptable because doing so enables them to put in place a solution that they hope will resolve whatever problem lies in front of them that day. Indeed, they have to do that because logically, the alternative is to seek permission from the courts before taking any action upon which there's any doubt (which will nearly always be the case).
I'm biased as I knew Sid, and he operated on me a few times. He was a great man, with none of the airs or graces you would expect of someone in his position.
As I said, perhaps I'm wrong and over-egging the cake, but when Gove referred to local authorities deciding what was best for their city I did want to point out to him that an awful lot of people live in towns and villages.
to his credit, he and the FIA reacted quickly after Imola. But perhaps the tragedies could have been avoided in the first place.
But, if you were to read the judgements of the High Court and the Court of Appeal, you'd no doubt think what was the point of Unison bringing the action.
Even before Imola people were saying it had made the sport far more dangerous. It shows that post-Imola the first thing they did was slow the cars down.
Mr. Jessop (2), I've been a lot more neutral on the halo than most people (some journalists seem to like it, and the FIA, but the fans seem to hate it) but the recent news on cockpit evacuation is not fantastic. Cars now are generally very safe, but if safety is paramount then the sport may as well be banned. Driving at 200mph is inherently dangerous. Doubling cockpit evacuation times due to adding a safety feature already widely considered to be of dubious merit is not necessarily going to win over a swathe of hitherto unimpressed fans.
Today's medical cars are Mercedes C63 AMG road cars, and are surprisingly mechanically standard bar a sports exhaust. Ditto the safety cars, which are Mercedes AMG GT S models. Both full of lots of equipment though.
https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/features/2017/2/driving-f1-medical-car-worlds-fastest-ambulance.html
We can cut immigration by crashing the economy.
If immigration falls, the economy will suffer.
As predicted...
When I first met him in 1993, I didn't know who he was. All I knew is that after many years, this was a doctor who was confident he could fix me. Then one day I went for an appointment and his secretary said: "We've been trying to contact you. Sid's asked me to tell you he's got an urgent appointment, but he's really playing golf with Ayrton Senna."
As an F1 fan, my jaw hit the floor (and no, that wasn't what he was operating on).
He was a gent. I was in hospital after one operation and he came into my room, smoking a cigar and with a bottle of whisky. "None of my friends are in London, so I thought we could have a drink." He checked my medication and poured me a couple of very generous tipples.
He fancied Glenmorangie. Apparently because although it's not the best whisky, he could find it in most places around the world.
Few people get to genuinely change lives for the better, but he did mine.
It would be difficult to make the SC much quicker without using a racing car, it just shows how much quicker an F1 car is than anything else.
Although as the theme of May's government has turned from 'Strong and Stable' to Shambles, then this is of a piece.
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/why-the-middle-classes-love-jezza/20119#.WXjF_dPyvgF