96 replies to this topic

[Joe Fan]

I was thinking about this the other day. Is there really a need for a Nostalgia Forum when Formula One is still using open wheel, open cockpit car designs that represent late 1800's technology? I am being respectful really calling open wheel, open cockpit designs late 1800's technology because open wheel designs are really a desendent of the horse and chariot days. The last time I seen an open wheel car in person that wasn't on a race track, was in a museum. And NASCAR critics complain about the 1960's technology? At least NASCAR uses modern car designs and at least the aerodynamic technology applied to the cars can be used to improve fuel mileage and to reduce wind noise in the driver compartment in passenger models. Really, I cannot view F1 as the pinnacle of motorsports or the pinnacle of motorsports technology when it is using antiquated car design concepts. Because any way you slice it and as much technology that is being applied to F1 cars, they are still conceptually low tech. They also still use wings which are late 1960's technology.

As we aproach the new millennium, why are open wheel, open cockpit designs still being used? The 21st century is supposed to be the space age and open wheel car designs in passenger cars disappeared by the 1940's. Open wheel, open cockpit cars do not offer any real advantage. Here are some key points:

1) Open wheel, open cockpit designs are recipes for driver fatalaties and serious leg injuries. Ayrton Senna was killed because the open cockpit allowed suspension parts to be shot through his helmet. Gonzalo Rodriguez and Greg Moore were killed because the open cockpit allowed their heads to be rammed into the ground. CART officials confirmed that Greg Moore's head never hit the infield wall in his fatal crash at Fontana. Closed wheel drivers have survived high speed crashes into concrete walls due to the protection of these designs. At Le Mans this past year, a driver's car flew up into the air at a very high rate of speed (close to 200mph I heard) and the car landed in some trees upside down and the driver walked away unharmed. And there have been plenty of leg injuries due to open wheel designs.

Critics can blame high speed ovals but drivers like Gonzalo were killed on road courses due to the open cockpit. CART and F1 leadership can make modifications to the tracks to the nth degree but situations can and have happen where cars have overturned that had nothing to do with the track itself. Adding a chicane is not the answer. Critics of ovals say that they don't drive in circles but chicanes are equally artificial. How many chicanes have you encountered lately?

2) Open wheel designs do not faciliatate better racing. When two open wheel cars enter a corner, one driver has to lift to avoid wheel contact that could send both cars into a spin. Is this racing or a game of chicken? Personally I have grown tired of the Michael Andretti/Paul Tracy whinning when one plays chicken and the other doesn't give. And when your favorite driver has been eliminated due to another driver's stupid on track moves/behavior, how can you be happy with the product of open wheel racing?

3) Closed wheel cars allow each driver to race more for position into a corner and door-to-door fender slammin' action is more exciting for the viewer and requires more car controll skill by the driver.

So really why has the antiquated open wheel, open cockpit design lasted so long in major motorsports series? I can't really see why there is a need for them now except for lower formulae stepladder series (with roll bars over the cockpit) as a means to develop young drivers and for them to learn how to make a clean pass and to allow them to find the apex of a corner easier.

Spare me the bravado and deaths of open wheel, open cockpit racing and put tin-tops and fenders on them and let them race for position and reduce the risks of driver fatalities. It is the least we should expect with advanced technology.

Note: the following was not a paid advertisment for Bill France, Humpy Wheeler, NASCAR, Don Panoz, ALMS, World Rally, SCCA or any other closed wheel form of motorsport, it is the opinion of the writer and serves to make open wheel fans introspective about their favorite motorsports series.





[This message has been edited by Joe Fan (edited 12-31-1999).]

[Todd]

Joe Fan,

I like this topic. It is something I've been thinking about for twenty years. I don't think you've got a leg to stand on comparing F1 technology to Winston Cup's silhouette racers built on actual components that could have been cast 35 years ago, but the decision for open wheel cars in the two of the world's premiere racing series has always seemed backwards to me. If you look back as recently as 1955, you can see that when the Germans built F1 chassis, they recognized the inherent advantages of enclosing the wheels. Open wheels are just plain old dumb. As you've observed, they are a profound detriment to close racing. They also have an adverse effect on air flow and therefore performance and efficiency. Basically, F1 cars are open wheeled for the same reason they have small engines and restricted everything. If they had envelope bodies, the performance would be so staggering that they would have to make all sorts of other dumb rules. The flying CLK-GTR you mentioned is the sort of result you can get from ill-conceived rules attempting to regulate down force in an envelope bodied series.

Do I think F1 should go to enclosed cars? It is a difficult question. They're too incompetent to regulate performance without flying the odd envelope-bodied McLaren into the stands from time to time. If it weren't for that, I'd say do it for the sake of driver safety and close racing.

[PDA]

Good, provocative topic!

First let me distinguish between enclosed wheel cars and open roof cars.

1 enclosed wheels.

MB tried this in 1954. It didn;t work at most tracks and was abandoned in 1955 except at Monza, where the additional speed was thought to be worthwhile. Elsewhere, and open wheel bodywork was used as the car was faster in that form. Connaught and Maserati, amongst other, experimented with enclosed wheel "streamlined" designs at that time, but abandoned them. Mid 70s cars almost enclosed the wheels (front and back, exposed on top), but these were abandoned later, I think because better results were obtained with wings at the front.

Note that Panoz e.g. has converted the enclosed roof car to an open "roadster" design for 99. This was significantly faster, as a cleaner air flow to the rear wing was possible without the roof.

It is debatable whether having a roof actually makes race cars safer. It is true that the MBs flipped, not once, but three times at Le Mans, without driver injury. The works Porsche did the same thing at Road Atlanta in 98, again without injury. However, a roof is not a certain insurance against injury or death. e.g. Irvines crashes at Michigan, the forst of which almost killed him and the second of which persuaded him to retire. Nemacheck in the truck at Homestead in 98 was killed on impact. Altough not actually roofed, sprint cars have an enclosing cage, which is the equivalent, and one driver was killed in 99 in such a car. I would propose that the argument that roofed is inherently safer than open cockpit is not proven.

With regard to enclosed wheels, I must admit to finding the MB W196 with enclosed bodywork one of the most beautiful F1 cars ever, and the exposed wheel version one of the ugliest. Aesthetics is hardly a criterion to make such a decision, but it carried some weight.

As long as the cars were no wider, I accept your argument that they might make passing a safer event.

Oh - enclosed wheel designs have much more space for sponsors logos. As F1 is driven by economics rather than sporting or engineering challenge, this should be a factor.

[Statesidefan]

Weren't the Can-Am cars of the late 70's early 80's nothing but F-5000 cars with bodywork covering the wheels? I wouldnt be opposed to F-1 and CART evolving i that direction. I saw Danny Sullivan's Can-Am car at the Atlanta Historic Races and I must say that it was a beautiful design. Apparently very fast also. It was on diplay and never ran, but I would have loved to see it.

------------------
"The strategy of a Formula One race is very simple. It's flat out from the minute the flag drops." Mario Andretti 1976

[Xaxor]

Since this is the nostalgia forum, let's remember the CanAm. Here we had closed wheel, open cockpit racing with unlimited horsepower. At Mosport for example, top F1 drivers would race CanAm cars in June and return with F1 open wheel 3 liter cars in September. It canot be said that either formula was faster, safer or more advanced. One thing is for sure, drivers were more civilized back then and didn't push each other off the road, fenders or no fenders. I don't think that NASCAR phoney bodywork suitable for bumper-car driving is in any way superior to open-wheel racing. As for deliberate side-swiping in open wheel cars, I was not a fan of Senna and am not a fan of M.Schumacher.

[Dennis David]

Joe has raised an interesting topic. According to some the open wheel single seater format comes the American Millers oif the 20's. I think that the idea here is that the F1 cars by their nature should not have to bear any fake resemblence to cars that we see on the road and are built for racing only. So to remark that one has not seen these type of vehicles on the road has no meaning. If you look at the latest Toyota LeMans race cars you can see hints of an F1 car. The trend in sports cars is open cockpit and if allowed you would see single seaters so you're left with exposed or enclosed wheels only. Not a lot to argue about there.

Back in the ground effect days the body work did indead extend to each side. I wonder if the restrictions were actually taken off whether you would see enclosed bodywork or not. I don't know if there is an obvious answer though I would gather you wouldn't. While various streamliners were indeed beautiful cars they did not to me look like "proper" Grand Prix cars.

BTW Compare older NASCAR racers and the cars they are running today. If you had them side by side you would be amazed by the differences.


------------------
Regards,

Dennis David
Yahoo = dennis_a_david

Life is racing, the rest is waiting

Grand Prix History
www.ddavid.com/formula1/

[Joe Fan]

WOW! I thought I would be hung in the public square by now with this thread. I have many more provocative statements to make but I will have to post them tomorrow morning (about 1400-1500 GMT time).

[Dennis David]

Not from me Joe!

------------------
Regards,

Dennis David
Yahoo = dennis_a_david

Life is racing, the rest is waiting

Grand Prix History
www.ddavid.com/formula1/

[Dennis David]

Many of my friends prefer sports car racing for that veryu reason but I like the exposed wheels, etc. Remember Fangio in the enclosed wheel Mercedes at the British Grand Prix. Did some work on the body he did! Couldn't place the wheels to his liking.

------------------
Regards,

Dennis David
Yahoo = dennis_a_david

Life is racing, the rest is waiting

Grand Prix History
www.ddavid.com/formula1/

[Dennis David]

Another anology is if you've ever driven a Lotus Seven or Chaterham you'll almost feel that you are driving an open wheel car rather than a sports car.

------------------
Regards,

Dennis David
Yahoo = dennis_a_david

Life is racing, the rest is waiting

Grand Prix History
www.ddavid.com/formula1/

[Joe Fan]

Is this 1899 or 1999? I am still wondering with the "turn of the last century" conceptual designs still being as prevalent as they are in major motorsports series. Although I grew weary of the same old NASCAR vs. F1 debates, arguing the same **** over and over is so redundant, this hit me like a sledge hammer. This open wheel, open cockpit late 1800's technology argument was good bait to rile up the F1/CART-only types I thought. I laughed inside as I now had new ammunition at my disposal for these people but the deeper and deeper I thought about it and with the Greg Moore crash replaying over and over in my head, disappointinlgy I found that it wasn't really funny. It actually started making some sense especially when Formula One is supposed to be the "Ultimate" and since we are entering the new millennium.

Although there will always be deaths in motorsports, I believe that there have been too many avoidable and senseless deaths and injuries attributed to the open wheel design that wouldn't have happened in closed wheel, enclosed cockpit cars. I think open wheel cars are neat looking but at the same time is this obsolete technology really worth keeping?

Racing is about man and machine and what combination is the best on a given day. There isn't racing bible that states that "real racing" must be done in open wheel cars and that racing has to cling to obsolete, antiquated technology out of tradition. So why has it been retained so long?

Any component of a race car can be replaced. If you blow an engine, you put another one in. If you tear up a wing or nose cone, you make a pit stop and replace it. But a driver isn't something that it replaceable because it is a human life that is far more sophisticated than a mechanical part. There is no price tag on a human life and money can't buy another Greg Moore to his family, friends and fans. With this in mind, shouldn't we do the very best at protecting the driver from harm?

Everyone is aware of the increased risks involved with these designs but does it make it OK? Personally the statement that "the cars are as safe as they can be" is bullshit and is what Greg Moore supposedly said before he was tragically killed. And I am getting real tired of the statement "He knew the risks" that is somehow supposed to make sense of a tragic death of a driver and to help put your mind at ease about the situation so that the show goes on. I think after 100 years, we should be better than this as we are supposed to be an advanced civilization.

And I am getting extremely pissed at the majority of the blame and emphasis is being put on the tracks. Senna would have survived his fatal crash at Imola if he were driving a closed wheel, enclosed cockpit car. I am certain that Greg Moore and Scott Brayton would have to.

Critics might say, "There goes Joe Fan, trying to convert a bunch of fans to his favourite motorsport--NASCAR" or that this is a perfect example of my zealotry but that is not what I am trying to do here, I am merely questioning the status quo. And who is really more zealous, Joe Fan or the leadership of these major open wheel series who have retained obsolete technical designs that basically haven't been used in passenger cars for 60 plus years?

Imagine what Formula One could be with Sports Car type bodies. With the influx of major auto manufacturers in the series, this could really be great as it could influence actual production model designs. Wouldn't it be something to walk into a Jaguar dealership and buy a car that had the same body style as an actual Formula One car?
And with these major manufacturers in the series are closed wheel designs the next logical progression in the future?



[This message has been edited by Joe Fan (edited 12-31-1999).]

[PDA]

Joe - please see my earlier comments re safety of closed cockpit cars. Modern formula race cars (CART, F1) have roll safety structures in front of the driver and behind him (her) in such a way that in the event of the car inverting, the head odf the driver is below the line projected between the top of the front bulkhead and the rear bulkhead/roll bar. This gives a high degree of security. Take Diniz's crash at Nurburgring where he was unijured, ever though the roll bar broke. I agree with you that there is always room for improvement in the safety engineering of both cars and tracks, but I would reiterate that a closed cockpit is no certainty of increased safety.

In answer to the question "why open wheels?" - I would suggest that in those early days, aerodynamics was not a feature of any car design, and building one with no wings ("fenders" to our US colleagues) meant it could meet the other holy grail of race car designers - it would be lighter. It wasn't until the influence of airplane design and aerodynamics came in in the late thorties that we saw "streamlined" versions of GP cars running at the high speed tracks such as Avus in Germany. AS pointed out above, these enclosed wheel cars were much more difficult to place on the more usual road circuits, and Fangio's fruitless efforts at Silverstone in 54 are a good example. At the next race in Switzerland, the MB had an open wheel body, and was untouchable.

re "sports" cars being formula cars with fenders - I read a report of the evelopment of the new Reynard whioch will run next year as the Chrysler at Le Mans. The designers state that they took their F3000 design, widened it a bit, and added and enclosing body shell. The BMW which won in 99 was designed by WIlliams GP engineering, and seems to have borrowed heavily from the FW20.

[engin]

hello

well i have to agree that the open wheels cars are more dangerouse than the closed ones specially when its rolling over and drops on its top but that doesnt mean that cloesd racing or cars is better no i bitterly disagree

yes the motor sport specially f1 lost no fewer than five of its greatest drivers in open wheeled cars whether in qualifying or in race or even testing
gilles villeneuve in qualifying
ayrton senna in a race
ronniw peterson in a race
jochen rindt in qualifying i think
jim clark in f2 race

these are few examples of open wheel racing
but excuse me the worst disaster in motor racing were in 1955 lemans race made by a closed car which took alone the life of more than 80 persons at once and there are and were a fatal crashes in closed cars like last years or the year before in lemans practice when that french driver met his death .

so motor racing is dangerouse in general but i will agree that opened wheel cars are more dangerouse but we should realise that in the 90s there were only two fatal crashes in f1 ayrton senna and roland ratzenberger which is a huge improvment to the fatal crashes in the 50s 60s and 70s but its still a great loss yes .

another issue is that closed racing allows the door to door racing and the opened wheel is chicken racing huh this openion is strange why ?

it seems that some people didnt watch the huge battle in 1979 france gp between gilles and arnoux banging wheels twice and no body gave in tell the end .

1995 belgian gp that was a great race specially that fine battle between hill and shumi and they banged wheel and the race was wet not dry to add even a special taste and beside this all it was opened wheel racing.

1992 monaco gp last 7 or 8 laps remember that titanic battle between senna and mansel in such a tight track no body hit the other and still it was an opened wheel racing .

1985 australian gp between rosberg and senna although they collide but it was a very tough battle and rosberg and senna didnt gave in like chickens .

beside all of this lets go to closed racing or cars i was and still a very huge fan of nascar but a door to door racing is not a special thing because your allowed to hit the others doors in terms of not giving your position and guess what you can bump your opponent from behind also if some body likes this kind of racing because its tough not a chicken like ( f1 or open wheel in general ) ok but there is thing called justice if my opponent won the corner fair and square then do i have to push him or hit him to own the corner back or prevent him from overtaking ? no i have to fight back and try to overtake him in the next corners this is fair .

the second thing is that anybody can go and bump the driver in front of him this is very easy task i can do it so you can really because all you have to do is to push your car into your opponent's back make him lose control and pass him and is this racing ?
in my opinion this is not racing and it will never be in my eyes a true racing its usually exceeds the rules in nascar bumping is allowed but its not allowed to push your opponent outside the track by bumping .

ok this year dale earnhardt put terry labonte completely out of track and after that they said that bumping is allowed damn is it allowed to put my opponent out side it wasnt his first act the intemedator made it before but in that incedent even the 140000 fans or so who were attending booed him for a long time this is purely not racing its cheating .

there is no realy difference between bumping and ramming if i can bump from behind then with a little more speed and more force i will put my rival outside completely and this is wrong rules should be very clear.

amazingly while we always criticise f1 for not truley punishing shumi for his move in 97 against JV as they only disqualified him from second place on the championship points table only without banning him or exclude him from race wins or so , nascar didnt punish dale earnhardt at all he just escaped freely because the rules says that bumping is ok and after all this nascar is a type of closed cars racing .


after all i like nascar really and i like the closed racing as well but they should be criticise whenever something wrong exist this is one thing .

the other thing is that in terms of excitment openwheeld is very exciting and the battles in oepned wheels are very artistic and needs a special talents because you cant contact your rival because in most cases you will be out of race to battle in open wheeld cars bitterly and pass while doing no contacts that takes you and your rivals or one of you out of the race this is the stuff of legend in my opinion.

and have a nice time

bye .

[Fast One]

Joe--

I don't have much time now before the fake millenium must be celebrated, but I actually started to be the first to reply to you. While it seemed apparent to me, at least, that from your choice of words, and your own reaction, you intended this to be more flame bait, I for one am glad that everyone ignored the provocation and replied thoughtfully.

The 54 Mercedes closed bodied Grand Prix cars have been mentioned, and while they were up to a second a lap faster at high speed circuits like Reims, they were at best neutral on medium circuits, and arguably slower on technically demanding tracks. The drivers complained that they could not clip the apexes precisely enough in the closed bodied cars, due to the impaired vision a full body imposes. This makes a lot of sense.

Let's think for a moment of the types of racing that have used closed bodies on their chassis. Endurance racing for one, which tested the constuction of a vehicle at high speeds over a considerable distance or lenghth of time. Extreme precision was not required because lap times were rarely anywhere near the potential of the car. Sports car racing began with amateurs, and a few professionals racing production cars at high speed. The fact that these cars were designed to be street legal nagated the possibility of their being open wheelers. Remember the rules required closed bodies in both of the above categories. Even CAN AM cars, which had lost all pretense of being production based required closed bodies in the rules.

Formula One didn't mandate open wheel design originally. The open wheel designs were chosen because it was felt they were faster. And on most tracks, they were. So your contention that the technology was antiquated early on is absurd. By the time aerodynamics had reared its ugly head, the idea of a pure racing machine having open wheels was kind of set. But even if it wasn't in the rules, I think that open wheelers will always be faster on tecnically demanding tracks because the driver can place his wheels more precisely.

On ovals there are usually several "grooves" which a driver can choose among; in Grand Prix racing there is always only one correct line. Oval racing does not require the same kind of precision from the car and the driver, so a closed body, with its greater inherent safety is preferrable. I personally don't like seeing open wheelers on high banked ovals. They are just too fast and too fragile in my opinion.

With the exception of CAN AM cars, almost all closed body formulae have been production based, and therefore the open wheel option has not been available. Personally, I prefer open wheelers. If you haven't seen one outside a museum, you need to get out more. They demand more from the driver, as the consequenses of contact are so much more severe. High speed contact does not, as you alleged, require more skill. It requires more stupidity and rather less skill. Your contension that it is more exciting for the fans is equally "subjective". It doesn't thrill me; it only makes me shake my head and wonder aloud how anyone could hire such incompetent morons to drive their cars. When auto racing crosses purposes with the World Wrestling Federation, its time to ban it entirely. I lived through too many driver deaths growing up to admire in any way the "bump and run". That crap belongs in the Roman Colosseum, not on a racing track.

So I don't agree that on the short staights and slow configurations of modern Grand Prix racing that closed bodies would be preferrable. They might even be slower.



[This message has been edited by Fast One (edited 12-31-1999).]

[Dennis David]

I don't think that it was flame bait. That's not Joe's style. I think that he was just setting himself up in case that happened as we know has happened to him in the past. Joe likes all forms of motorsport.

------------------
Regards,

Dennis David
Yahoo = dennis_a_david

Life is racing, the rest is waiting

Grand Prix History
www.ddavid.com/formula1/

[Joe Fan]

Well I have to many people to respond to so I will do my best.

Fast One, the intent of this post was not to flame bait. I did make some rather "closed-minded"(I like that word for some reason ) Humpy Wheeler-like blunt statements that would get the juices flowing in the open wheel-only types but sometimes if you pretty things up too much, people fall asleep reading your posts (especially when they are lengthy) and you get few responses. The real intent of this post was to step back and question the concept of open wheel, open cockpit car designs.

Please note that I said that the only open wheel cars I have seen >not on a race track< was in a museum. I went to a CART race this year so how is getting out more going to increase my odds of seeing open wheel cars off of a race track? Perhaps I might someday pull up next to a Plymouth Prowler but I have better odds seeing one at a car show than on the street.

I am quite aware that open wheel designs weren't mandated early on but at some point they were and they are today. If open wheel designs are being used because they are felt to be faster, wouldn't closed wheel designs be a better solution to slowing the cars down than stupid grooved tires?

I agree with you that I prefer seeing open wheel designs on road courses over ovals. I also do not advocate "Bump and Run" tactics but on short ovals I feel that it has its place.

I disagree with you that contact doesn't require more skill. When you are hit from behind or from the side it makes the car loose thus a driver has to exhibit car control skill to keep the car pointed in the right direction and on the track. I love my Sony Playstation Grand Turismo 2 game for this reason (Dennis this is a must buy for you and your son).

PDA, I am aware of the roll bar behind the head of the driver being projected higher to prevent the driver's head theoretically from coming into contact with the ground when the car overturns. However, on grass or sand surfaces it is useless when the car overturns with great force because it diggs into the ground. And even on concrete surfaces, I am not sold that it would withstand the force in which Greg Moore's car hit the ground. I think this roll bar is simple protection for a slight overturn of the car on a hard surface.

Although I agree that an enclosed roof is no guarantee of safety, I still feel it would prevent more fatalities as long as there was adequate roll bars. I have seem quite a few Winston Cup stock cars overturn at high speed on concrete, sand and grass surfaces and the drivers walked away unharmed.

Engin, I am not trying to say that open wheel racing is not exciting and that it doesn't have its merits but I just feel that closed wheel racing is more condusive to the side by side racing. I am certainly not advocating the elimination of open wheel racing by any means. I just feel that the major motorsports series need to at least look into protecting the head of the driver more and/or shelve the open wheel/open cockpit designs altogether due to the speeds and horsepower that these cars produce. I just feel that open wheel designs would be better suited for the stepladder series. And to quite honest, I am a little disappointed that I am not seeing space-age looking car designs in the top motorsports series as we enter the new millennium.



[This message has been edited by Joe Fan (edited 01-01-2000).]

[Ray Bell]

Was it not for the incoming 1.5-liter formula of 1961 that the ban on enclosed bodywork was introduced?
Had those cars used enclosed wheels, would it have been likely to withstand the slightest touch with an opponent's wheels?
Or would it more likely have fallen to bits, subsequently being torn up on the airstream and created more trouble than it had ever been worth?
Would a perspex cockpit cover have save Senna's life? Perspex perhaps 3mm thick?
Or even Lexan. Maybe, with chance deflection. But only maybe.
As for the statement about wings being used like those of the sixties, remember that the other aerodynamic aids that have been banned were because the incredible pace of F1 technology since the eighties made them outlandishly successful in keeping cars on the track.
Don't lose sight of this technological race in F1 that outstrips any other racing. Even back in the sixties it was credited by Bruce McLaren with keeping him ahead in Can-Am.
One point that is right - Nascar may well seem to be more applicable to the everyday road car - but who's listening? Last time I looked, there were only a few cars on the American market that hadn't gone over to front wheel drive.
Or is Nascar the proving ground for new technology for pickups?

[Don Capps]

Except for giving engineers a break from the normal routine of developing production cars -- Alfa Romeo, Mercedes, and Honda were all very good at this -- and the (very) occasional serendepitious innovation, racing exists simply as a means of doing something with machines that could be called a "sport."

Ray is correct that until 1960, the F1 regs didn't restrict full-bodied race cars. Personally, I thought it was a dumb idea even back in late 1958 when the new regs were first announced. The MB problem was not the bodywork -- whining and sniveling to the contrary -- it was the horrid Continental tires they were on. They were about a millimeter above the wretched Engleberts that Ferrari used in 1955 & 1956. Had MB used Pirellis I am sure it would have been a different story.

Anyhow, Joe has dropped an excellent question into our midst and one that seems to be getting some serious consideration and discussion.

------------------
Yr fthfl & hmbl srvnt,

Don Capps

Semper Gumbi: If this was easy, we’d have the solution already…



[This message has been edited by Don Capps (edited 01-01-2000).]

[Fast One]

The problem, Joe, is how to define "space age".How many times have we looked back on a previous era's idea of the future and laughed at how silly it looked. Check out most sci-fi from any older decade and you'll see what I mean. So whose to say that today's Grand Prix cars don't look space age. As you know, I'm a Big John Surtees fan, and this past month Brumm came out with three 1/43 scale models of his '64 Ferrari type 158s. Jeezus, those things were tinier than my Healey 100 (which, incidently, is dwarfed by a Honda CRX!). Today's F1 cars are gigantic by comparison! They also look nothing like the cars from Surtees' day.

I think you have it backwards. Closed bodies serve less talented and less experienced drivers because they are more forgiving of mistakes. And that's kind of how it's played out in real life. Tin tops are for the guys who fall a little short on the talent it takes to race open wheelers. I'm leaving NASCAR out of the equation, because for one, it is a world inbred unto itself, not really connected to the mainsteam of the motoring world, and because, as you know, I consider oval racing to be primarily entertainment and not serious racing. But in road racing, the tin top guys are down a notch or two on talent from the open wheelers. To drive an open wheeler in traffic at speed requires a level of skill that I don't think any other form of racing can match.

Are you coming to the USGP. If so, Stateside and I challenge Leroy and you to continue this friendly debate over single malt and beer at some unlucky pub in Indianapolis!!!

Oh, and Dennis...yes it was, but it's so kind of you not to notice.

[Joe Fan]

Fast One, I totally disagree with your statement: "Closed bodies serve less talented and less experienced drivers because they are more forgiving of mistakes."

While closed bodies cars are more forgiving of mistakes, this does not directly translate to any kind of fact that the cars require less skill to drive. In fact, it is just the opposite. The fender to fender contact causes a driver to use more skill in controlling the car. The contact forces a driver to have to correct the car to keep it on track or to get through a corner. In open wheel cars--this skill cannot be utilized for obvious reasons. In an open wheel car, contact that results into putting a driver out of a race is usually not due to lack of true driving skill or lack of driver control, it is a result of brain fades or not giving in to the other driver in the corner (playing chicken like we see Paul Tracy, Juan Montoya and Michael Andretti do). I think you are putting too much emphasis in a driver not being able to steer an open wheel car in a straight line or point his car correctly into a corner. A case in point was in the season ending IRL race when Scott Sharp pulled a bonehead move on Sam Schmidt and tried to pass him on the grass. The result was two drivers out of the race, no chance to utilize car control in this situation racing in open wheel cars and Sam Schmidt had to have surgery to repair his foot. STUPID open wheel designs! Scott Sharp is a very good driver but he simply pulled a stupid move in this situation.

This might be oversimplying things here which is fair when you have oversimplied them in your argument that closed wheel designs require less driving skill. You might have a valid point about car control when these open wheel cars are in traffic but this is usually only for the first lap or two then everyone settles into position.




[This message has been edited by Joe Fan (edited 01-02-2000).]

[PDA]

Joe - I dont think the argument for closed roof or caged cockpits has been made. Anecdotal evidence suggests that (e.g Diniz at Nurbirgring, Andretti at Mid Ohio) open cockpit drivers are not at any greater risk when the car overturns. However, in the case of gregg Moore, although I saw the crash happen live, I have not reviewed it in retrospect, so I cannot say at what stage he received the blow(s) to the head. I haven't seen an official CART report stating what happened either, so I am not willing to speculate. Would he have been safer if additional bars went above the head from the front of the cockpit to the rear? I don't know. I suspect that the answer would be not very much. I didn't see the Laguna Seca crash, so can make no comment.

[Joe Fan]

PDA, a while back I reviewed Greg Moore's crash in super slow mo (something that was more horrifying than at regular speed) and his head never hit the infield wall. His head was rammed into the ground on subsequent rolls. I read in Champ Car magazine where they confirmed what I saw that his head never hit the infield wall.

I also read in Champ Car magazine where CART officials believe that Gonzalo was killed on impact because a bystander near the seen believed so. How ridiculous is this statement? As fast as it happened how could someone say on the spot that he was dead on impact. I know that the crash could certainly cause serious neck injuries but I reviewed this crash in super slow mo too and I believe that he was killed when his head was rammed into the ground. The sand allowed the overturned car to dig into the ground and therefore he had tremendous weight and force being thrust down on his head. I think CART is trying to avoid the real facts with the claim made above to avoid negatism about the open cockpit design. But that is just my opinion.

Open wheel, open cockpit designs do not make the quality of racing better, so why should this anitique conceptual design be kept? I think that too many people have bought into the myth that these designs require more skill. The "Do not pass go and do not collect $200" mentality that if you make a mistake you are out of the race doesn't mean that there is more actual driving skill involved. It may mean that you have to have better peripheral vision and it definately means that you have to more patient in passing attempts and that you have to use better judgement to prevent getting yourself knocked out of the race but I am not sold that these designs require more actual driving skill. Just more patience and better judgement. Patience is a virtue not a skill and judgement is totally cerebral.

[This message has been edited by Joe Fan (edited 01-02-2000).]

[davo]

We can argue forever as to which category contains the most "skilled" drivers. Some categories require very specific skills to be a success - drafting in Nascar and dealing with traffic in Indy ovals are two that spring to mind.

However I would suggest that F1 requires particular skills not needed in most other categories.

To a certain extent most open wheeler formulas (and certainly F1) define a car which is light, very stiff in the chassis and stiffly sprung and damped. As a consequence the reaction time of the vehicle is very quick.

A lot of sedan based motor sport has a relatively heavier vehicle with less chassis/spring stiffness and a slower reaction time.

This all gets a little more complex with carbon fibre ground effects sports cars and such but the generalisation is still fairly valid.

Drivers can typically drive cars that have a slower reaction time than there "standard" mount fairly easily. It all "happens" at a slow rate for them and often they will feel that the chassis is less precise, certainly more forgiving. This has nothing at all to do with the straight line speed of the vehicle but the rate at which it responses to driver inputs.

The disappointing performances of various Indy car drivers (Andretti, Zanardi etc) may have a lot to do with this (Indy being a substantially heavier more softly sprung vehicle than F1).

Winning in any category open wheeler, closed wheeler or truck requires real skill. Driving a "fast" chassis is a skill of only a few drivers. More... Different...

I believe F1 does require more skill. Not specifically because the wheels or helmets are exposed or the risk of serious injury is higher but because the reaction time of the chassis is so quick. If you like an analogy from gymnastics the beam is narrower.

It is interesting to consider that retired F1 drivers Often drive the autumn of their careers (quite successfully) in other categories with more forgiving (slower)chassis.

[Keith Steele]

PDA I read that Cart still doesnt know exactly what happened. They do know that Greg was fighting for control of the car and that his head did NOT make contact with the infield wall. I still havent watched the tape, with no plans to either,maybe in a few years. I agree with the obvious sentiment that safety can always improve. I did look at Gonzalo's crash close and believe that his death occured because the car landed upside down on unlevel terrain. A tin top most likely would have saved him, but so may the tire barriers Cart placed around the turn following the wreck in preparation for the race.

As far as tin tops on road courses, what does the jury think about Paul Gentilozzi? He's almost always had good equiptment in a series plagued with problems, but there is undoubtedly a lot of talent there.

[engin]

hi

well joefan i know that nascar needs the talents just as any kind of motor sport and yes the guy who has been bumped should be tallented to keep his car on the track i wont disagree but its the concept it self why do i have to bump the car in front of me to pass it thats the thing which i dont agree about doing it without bumping needs more talent i think .

thanx.

[Fast One]

Joe--

It's harder to control a car when it's rolling over, too, but that doesn't suggest you're a better driver for having flipped it!

[Dennis David]

Fast - I always have problems when I get the ol' Rambler on two wheels. I keep having to saw the steering wheel. And that push button gear changer just feels kind of funny.

------------------
Regards,

Dennis David
Yahoo = dennis_a_david

Life is racing, the rest is waiting

Grand Prix History
www.ddavid.com/formula1/

[Fast One]

Dennis--

I wish I had a scanner...I have the picture of Surtees two wheeling his Ferrari at (I think) Silverstone. I'm sure you've seen it. I'd love to post it!

[PDA]

I see that the argument has now drifted from whether roofs are safer to whether roofed vehicles are easier to drive! If you put a roof on existing F1 cars, they would be just as difficult to drive as they are now, as essentially, they would be no different except that the weight would be slightly higher, and the C of G higher. The same applies to adding fenders. the BMW Le Mans prototype is, in essence, a widened Williams F1 car with enclosed wheels. It weighs 900 kilos rather than 530, which will make a difference, but not making it any easier or more difficult.

Whether it is easier to drive is beside the point. the Maserati 250F is an old F1 car that all reports say is easy to drive. However, it was always faster when fangio was driving it and bringing up the rear when Harold Gould was driving. As I see it, the better drivers are just better, whatever they drive. If Jeff Gordon was given the time and testing to acclimatise to F1 cars and circuits, I have no doubt he would end up giving very good qualifying performances, as he obviously has the natural attributes and talents which make a quick driver. Similarly, micheal Schumacher could do the same in a NASCAR stock car. All this would mean is that both are good drivers with exceptional physical attributes. performing equally well in the corresponding races would no doubt take a little longer to learn.

[F1razor]

I applaud everyone for staying civil and it's nice to see.

Having said that, this arguement about NASCAR designs and the 'antique' open wheel, open cockpit F1 racers versus the 'Modern' NASCAR closed cockpit design, is without a doubt, THE most counter intuitive racing technology debate I have ever seen on the internet.

If you can convice me that tubular steel frames are higher tech than Carbon Fiber monocoques, and passenger car aerodynamics is a more precise science than winged car aerodynamics...then maybe I'll join the debate.

But the premise is extremely flawed in my opinion. You are completely ignoring the fact that passenger cars is the premise of design for NASCAR. Which is why the drivers seat isn't in the center of the car.

Formula One is not restricted by the need to make a Mclaren look like a Mercedes 500SL!

It's like trying to convice me that a quarter horse is superior to a thoroughbred racing horse! Safety is a seperate issue from the dynamics of racing car design where speed is the only criteria. A winged car can corner faster than one without wings. It's a pretty simple concept. A driver without passenger car restictions like large raked windshields and seating design to accomidate a passenger can simply see more, and do more.

LOL!

[Joe Fan]

This thread has been out for awhile but no one has convinced me that there is really a need to retain the open wheel, open cockpit design. Some have said that they are faster (this is debatable) but this is more importantly irrelevant as we reached a point in technology long ago that we can a car go as fast by being more lenient in other areas that sanctioning bodies restritc. Take away from one area of the car (any performance gain from the open wheel, open cockpit design) and give back to another area the engine or tires (slicks Max!). Result: improved safety and same speeds obtained.

[F1razor]

Frankly, Joe, no one ever convinces you of anything. As usual, you atack F1 from all angles, and this is your latest incarnation.

I can't help but feel like this is a bit of the by product of the NASCAR propaganda machine, I have heard this from other NASCAR fans, that is, banish open wheel racing.

I worked at Microsoft during the period when it was openly stated to all of us to kill UNIX.

That was wrong. And so is this. If this movement gains any inertia, rest assured OW fans and principles alike will counter attack.

[Fast One]

Thanks for seeing it as well, Razor. This is just another new chapter in the Gospel According to Bill France. We love ya Joe, but you have just about the screwiest view of things I have ever encountered. I guess it DOES keep us honest.

[Incal]

Joe Fan, Greg Moore may have died as a result of his head hitting the ground. The reason his head hit the ground was because the car hit the concrete wall on the infield. Now that is a track safety issue and not a car issue. As to open vs closed in design, well I'm not convinced by your argument but it is certainly food for thought.

[Joe Fan]

Razor, I like open wheel racing and I like open wheel cars. I am not on an anti-F1/CART kick I just think open wheel designs are antiquated, unsafe and would be better served to be used in stepladder series where speeds and horsepower are lower. I will always love USAC sprints and the World of Outlaws series and I don't think there is any reason to change these car designs. Same goes for other stepladder series with some modifications.

I have valid points in my argument. It is time to rethink open wheel, open cockpit designs in major motorsports series and begin to make changes. Are you a reactionary or a visionary?

I foresee a time in the future where open wheel, open cockpit designs will die of natural causes in major motorsports series. Eventually I see the following happening:

1) Formula One will be a pinnacle Proto-type Sports Car series in the world.

2) CART will be a pinnacle GT class Sports Car series in the world.

3) NASCAR Winston Cup will continue to be the pinnacle Stock Car series in the world.

This scenario makes a great Le Mans or Daytona 24Hrs race a real possibility doesn't it?

[This message has been edited by Joe Fan (edited 01-06-2000).]

[F1razor]

I'm the reactionary?

LMAO!

That is an interesting fantasy Joe.

[Joe Fan]

As I correctly predicted on 12-31-99 1431 GMT time the "critics" would show up and suggest that this is a typical Joe Fan NASCAR vs. F1 issue when it is not. This is about whether major motorsports series like F1 and CART should shed the antiquated technology for the sake of safety. I think it is time to move on as these open wheel, open cockpit designs have proven to be less safe than closed wheel, enclosed cockpit cars statistically. You don't even need a calculator just look over the past six years: Ayrton Senna and Roland Ratzenberger in F1, Scott Brayton in the IRL and Greg Moore and Gonzalo Rodriguez in CART compared with Neil Bonnett in NASCAR Winston Cup, John Nemechek in the NASCAR Craftsman Truck Series and no drivers in NASCAR Busch Grand National.


We don't need to keep allowing a higher percentage of deaths to continue due to these designs. It is stupid for an advanced civilization to continue to allow these sacrifices to happen in greater numbers to please who--the racing gods? The bottom line here is that the motorsports world is less due to the losses of drivers like Senna and Moore. At the NASCAR race in Atlanta, I sat next to a guy from Austria who was at that California race when Greg Moore was killed. He said when it was announced that he was killed he left the race. He left it like it was a bad movie except no credits would roll in front of your eyes later to make you feel better. This speaks volumes for what I am trying to get across. This was real life. A precious life that cannot be replaced like a part on a car. I have no problem with someone dieing for their country or to protect their family but why should we accept our heroes dieing in greater percentages for the sake of motorsport?

F1Razor, I think you are confused with the meaning of reactionary. A reactionary is someone who opposes progress that wants to live in the past.

[Fast One]

Joe--

You have in no way made a convincing case that open wheel design is antiquated technology. Your arguments have addressed just about everything BUT how that technology can be considered antiquated, when a Minardi would blow the wheels off any Winston Cup car you'care to name.

You can stand back and act innocent, but given the choices you had in how to present this argument, the option you elected can only be considered inflammatory. Still, everyone answered politely and gave your argumnet serious consideration.

Safety is a different issue then tehnologically obsolete. Open wheelers may be more dangerous, but they are faster and technically about three decades more advanced then the fake stock cars you so admire. So don't obfuscate by tossing us red herrings. The real reason you'd like to see open wheelers banned is that then NASCAR would be the only show in town.

[Joe Fan]

Fast One says, "The reason you'd like to see open wheelers banned is that then NASCAR would be the only show in town." Give me a break! I have said that these series should move to closed wheel, enclosed cockpit designs not fold. I have complete faith that F1 and CART could transform their series into top closed wheel series. CART might as well now because it is better to be a pinnacle of something than a second tier series for another. And with the rise in popularity of NASCAR in the U.S. (where the majority of their events are held), perhaps they could ride NASCAR's coattails and boost their attendance and TV ratings.

[This message has been edited by Joe Fan (edited 01-07-2000).]

[Fast One]

Joe--

But why would CART WANT to switch to closed bodies if open wheelers are faster. You're still ducking the issue, which is that open wheel bodies are not demonstrably obsolete.

[Joe Fan]

Fast One, who is ducking the central issue here? You can make anything fast if given enough freedom. Open wheel cars like sports cars and stock cars are regulated for this very reason in any series. You can change the designs and still retain the same speeds with freedom given in other areas. Like I said earlier, the last open wheel car I seen not on a race track was in a museum. These designs are desendents from the horse and chariot days. Perhaps this is why Julius Caesar wanted to take over the world because his open wheel, open cockpit chariot overturned in 46 BC and hit his head.


[This message has been edited by Joe Fan (edited 01-07-2000).]

[Fast One]

Joe--

Being older does not automatically render something obsolete. Internal combustion engines of the sort used today in racing are also 19th century technology. So what? Should we ban them and require gas turbines, jets, or nuclear reactors? They still work and they are still fast. Why have tires on cars? It's more of that ox cart and chariot stuff you're trying to get rid of. Racing cars could be hovercraft of the sort I've crossed the Channel on. Hell, they're pretty neat! Why have driver's at all? The idea of a man guiding the craft he is moving in is as old as the first bark canoe or cart. Modern remote control technology can allow the cars to go fast without the driver being at any risk. And aren't tracks obsolete. I mean roads have been around in one form or another for 100,000 years or more. Our remote control nuclear hovercraft need not be restricted by such antiquated technology.

So where does it end, Joe? Do you see how stupid this is? You simply cannot pick out one aspect of a type of racing and jump on it as automatically obsolete. Open wheel cars, whether in F1 or CART are decades more advanced than the pushrod, tube framed, replicars NASCAR foists off on the public as "stock cars". Does this mean NASCAR should be banned? No, because while I may think it is swill for the unthinking masses, there are alot of unthinking masses out there who enjoy it. I only draw the line when they try to tell me it is superior to the racing I like.

So give it a rest, Joe, please, because you see to what absurd lengths your line of reasoning can be taken. You brought up an interesting point, but your argument fell way short. That doesn't mean it wasn't worth examining, nor does it mean you should not bring up more ideas that you have. It only means this one didn't lead anywhwere productive and it's time to move on.

[This message has been edited by Fast One (edited 01-07-2000).]

[Joe Fan]

Fast One, so my argument falls way short? Did you hear that IRL driver Sam Schmidt was injured yesterday in a testing crash and could be paralyzed for life as a result?

[F1razor]

Joe,

You mean like someone who doesn't want to concentrate on track safety? You mean like someone who has decided that thier opinion is Gospel? You mean like someone who sees Open Wheel as different than thier 'Holy Grail' and is using reactionary concepts to project his ideas backwards in an attempt to completely abolish a sport that he doesn't like? How is your concept of turning Open Wheel racing into closed wheel racing any different than burning books?

Maybe reactionary is the wrong adjective, but now you are telling us that the only solution is to kill Open Wheel racing.

Sorry Joe, but you have lost your perspective. Your solution is to completely destroy the sport that we love. The FIA responded to 1994 with safety initiatives on the track, and there has not been a death since. Take us to court with this idea, and you will lose. You can't use CART and the IRL to kill F1. It's against the law.

You see Joe, the elders of this board, namely Don Capps, have asked us to be a kindler gentler force of criticism against your radical ideas. To accept your NASCAR centric ideas and to tolerate your transparent anti-anything-NASCAR fascism, and we have fallen in line. We have accepted the checks and balances of tolerance...only for you to take you infamatroy attacks to am all new low.

Now, we are not only supposed to tolerate your NASCAR agenda with maturity...we are supposed to smile and accept your latest attack. Which is, the complete genocide of our sport. And the Nostalgia forum too according to the title of this thread.

Well I have had enough. I will not stand by while you burn down Rome.

You are wrong. If you hate Open Wheel racing then go away. No one is arguing that safety doesn't need to become a priority. But the complete destruction of Open Wheel racing is not the answer. There are other solutions, like this for example: How about simply leaving oval racing to NASCAR? How about simply running only on dedicated natural terrain road courses with plenty of run off and chicanes? Sound familiar?

Get the open wheel cars off the ovals. In fact, let's get rid of ovals altogether!! They are SO 'antique'! Don't like that idea? Isn't that a reactionary stance?

The psychology of what you have done on this board is quite amusing. You show up promoting NASCAR above all else on an F1 board, people react predictably, the admins slap our hands, so you turn up the heat. We all react predictably yet again, and again the admins attack the natural reaction of defending our home turf.

So everyone apologizes and falls in line, and you launch a barrage of nuclear missles. Now the expected behavior is for us to smile as the warheads hit the homeland and say; "We may be about to die, but we are better people for it."

Let's all ride NASCAR's coat tails everybody. They will save the world from the evil scourge of Open Wheel racing. NASCAR is the real high tech series. Nevermind what your own logic says.

Everybody!!! Rise up!! Repeat after me!!

HAIL NASCAR!!!!

HAIL NASCAR!!!!

HAIL NASCAR!!!!

HAIL NASCAR!!!!

HAIL NASCAR!!!!

HAIL NASCAR!!!!

HAIL NASCAR!!!!

HAIL NASCAR!!!!

HAIL NASCAR!!!!

Yeah right Joe Fan. You can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time. After this latest barrage, try and convince me one last time that you are a fan. The admins can ban me for all I care, at least I'll go down for what I believe in.

I am here because I am a Formula One enthusiast. The name of the site is atlasf1. At the end of the day, I like to think that counts for something.

I'll ask the eternal question yet again:

Why are you here?????

[Fast One]

Joe--

I wrote a response earlier that was lost when the Board went down for maintenance. I thought about rewriting it, but what's the point. Your argument doesn't hold up and you know it. Now, with nothing left to say, you wave the bloody shirt. I thought better of you than that. What the accident of some third rate driver on an oval has to do with open wheel road racers being technically obsolete is lost on me. But I do not see the world through reflecting sunglasses.

I've tried to be interested and respectful, Joe, but at some point you have to accept that the case wasn't made and move on.

[Joe Fan]

F1Razor, there you go again trying to put words into my mouth, attempting to make this another Joe Fan NASCAR issue and clinging to your antiquated car designs. Seriously do you read what I post? I have said that open wheel designs can stay in lower formulae where horsepower and speeds are lower (preferably with better roll cage/bar designs). Do we need to learn over and over that these designs are not safe? How many eulogies will it take before progressive thinking moves in the right direction? Have you ever had someone really close to you die young? I think it should reshape your thinking if you put yourself in the shoes of the family who have had lost a loved one or had one paralyzed needlessly "for the sake of sport." This is about real life and it is not like a computer game when you crash badly and you can hit the reset button. Risks are a part of motorsport but safety should be the priority over keeping traditional car designs that have proven to be less safe. Get the NASCAR vs F1 BS out of head. This isn't what it is all about! Somebody has to speak up on this issue because it deserves more attention than it receives. It deserves to be questioned after 60+ years.

The reason why others have treated me respectfully on this controversial issue is that they respect life and are good people. They understand that the central issue that I am talking about is not NASCAR vs. F1 related, that it is about safety and human life.

To answer your final question of why I am here?, because I am a motorsports enthusiast. I am also someone who is a leader not a follower.



[This message has been edited by Joe Fan (edited 01-07-2000).]

[F1razor]

Yeah right. My father died young, genious. In a car accident.

You're not fooling anyone, Joe. Accept yourself. You want open wheel racing left to lower Formula's because you don't like the concept that Formula One is the pinnacle of motorsports, pure and simple. You want NASCAR to assume that role.

We have given you plenty of time to prove that your concepts are objective and not driven by an egenda, and you haven't changed a bit. We've done our part. You have not budged an inch.

Fast One is spot on. And track safety is an alternative to your rant about killing OW racing at the highest level. Yet you refuse to even acknowledge it, even though it has 6 years of success as a precedent.

Now that your stance here is to kill the sport, all bets are off. I won't degenerate to base insults, but expect rigourous counter arguements from me going forward everytime you continue to preach your genocide. There are clear and proven alternatives to your over the top solution. That is something you simply cannot change.

As to your self proclaimed vision and declaration of leadership status...well...there is a line in a very famous movie called Star Wars that I would like to quote:

"Who is more foolish? The fool? Or the fool who follows him?"

[Fast One]

Joe, you are taking yourself way too seriously. This is starting to get ugly; everyone's patience is wearing thin. I could point out the obvious contradiction of allowing more dagerous open wheelers in lower formulae, where they will be driven by less skillful drivers than the one's for whom the cars are too dangerous at the upper levels, but why. I think you see this stuff already. Agitating isn't leading, Joe, nor is it wisdom to confuse indulgence for admiration. We all promised to avoid escalating these arguments on this forum, and this one is clearly about to get out of hand. So please, Joe, let it go now. You've said everything you can say. Those of us who can be swayed are swayed, those of us whocan't won't benefit from anymore of this. Can we move on now?

[Keith Steele]

Refresh me so I can better understand... Are we having a problem with the open wheel or the open cockpit?

[Fast One]

At first Joe had a problem with the Nostalgia Forum idea because open wheel/open cockpit cars are antiquated. I'll leave it to others to follw that rationale. In his first post, Joe designated both.