FIA considering closed cockpit F1 in the future?

[prisonermonkeys]

Getting hit in the head by debris in open cockpit racing is not unusual nor is it unlikely

It is when that piece of debris is thrown into the air and lands directly in a space measuring less than twenty centimetres by twenty centimetres without touching the ground when that space is travelling three hundred kilometres per hour at the time. It's like trying to score a three-point shot when the ring is tavelling at a hundred miles an hour. If Wilson was an inch to the left or the right when he came around the corner, or if Karam had been travelling a mile faster or slower at the time he lost control, the outcome would have been completely different.

Like I said, this accident was extremely complex - it was made up of a dozen dependent and independebt variables, and one percentile point different in any one of them had the potential to radically alter the outcome. Recreating this accident under controlled conditions would be difficult enough, much less in the uncontrolled chaos of the race itself. This is the very definition of a freak accident.

 

[GTPorsche]

Plus there's the other variable of the angle that Karam hit the wall at. Just one degree in either direction could have very well sent the nosecone in a different direction.

 

[LeGeNd-1]

Auto Motor und Sport did a article back in March showing a Mercedes with a unqiuely designed cockpit covering.

Thoughts?

I can see this being feasible solution for a couple reasons:
- It doesn't seem too complicated or costly to implement
- Preserves the "open cockpit" feel and look
- It can lift up or detach completely in case the car flips or catches fire (there should be a button that does this on the inside and outside of the car like the "N" engine kill switch)

The problem is visibility (because of the center pole) and aesthetics, for which I propose we make it out of ALON (it's literally transparent aluminium):

http://www.surmet.com/technology/alon-optical-ceramics/index.php

I'm sure Famine can find 101 reasons why this solution isn't right, but not doing anything at all seems kinda wrong IMO.

 

[FoRiZon]

Does closed cockpit impact the aerodynamics of the formula cars more? Le mans cars aren't too impacted due to its body style. But the formula cars is designed with open cockpit in mind.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Does closed cockpit impact the aerodynamics of the formula cars more? Le mans cars aren't too impacted due to its body style. But the formula cars is designed with open cockpit in mind.

Some believe they can be faster...like Newey and the X cars being closed cockpit are more aero efficient because they don't have the drivers head taking away from it and causing drag at times. Consider how the driver's head isn't always in one place and stationary and various tracks (especially high down force street circuits) tend to have very bumpy or even sections were the driver moves more than other place. Thus taking a bit away from the flow of air over the nose toward the roll hoop and then into the rear wing. But the the gains are probably not as large due to the driver helmet being designed now days for these types of cars and to keep efficiency as well how low they sit so the exposed area is just that of the helmet.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

The closed cockpit/cockpit protection debate is interesting and I'm very firmly and vehmently......on the fence about it. So I can only add a few pointers here and there.

Firstly, with respect to F1, and contrary to gut instinct I would trust the FIA on whatever judgement they might make on this on the future. I would very much doubt (or at least hope) they would rush into something because they read some people crying on forums and AMUS+others producing a photoshop. Given their track record (as far as I can recall in recent times) if they decided to make a move on this I assume it would be done in a measured and safe way.

I would take slight issue with the argument that a canopy might fail to open in some dangerous situation like a fire. That doesn't seem to be an argument against closed canopies; rather I'd see that as an argument against canopies that don't work properly. Whilst being a much simpler mechanism, would the same logic not apply to seatbelts; what if the release mechanism fails and the driver can't get out quickly? They don't, so it's not a detraction, and I think the same would apply to canopies if they could be shown to be reliable before being introduced. Also, when it comes to rollovers........I honestly can't remember an example of a driver climbing out of an upside down open-wheel car before Marshall righted it. Am I completely wrong on that?

I totally agree that accidents like Justin Wilson's (urgh......horrible just typing that out ) are freak. But one of the things I appreciate about motorsports is that hasn't usually stopped the pursuit of further safety in my time watching. For example Massa's 2009 accident was certainly freak, but I believe helmets have been further strengthened in response to that, yes? And so motorsport should continue to be in my opinion - finding ways to prevent even the freak accidents, when those ways can be shown to operate safely and as intended.

I don't see open cockpits being of essence to open-wheel racing, but then again I've not been watching for hugely long, and I'm not a driver so this may be just lost on me. Would be appreciated if someone could explain the significance of this from the driver's perspective, for the uneducated!

Final thoughts though, even given all this I kinda hope we don't see some form of canopy/extra protection in F1 or otherwise for many, many years. Unless a lot has been done in private, it seems clear that it's still early days for research in this technology. And motorsport has certainly proved on many occasions that it's hard to rush big changes through, even if it's what some fans or drivers want. If somewhere down the line the FIA or whoever come out and say "we've been researching canopies for a decade now, and with approval of other bodies, industry and drivers this technology is now safe and practical and can be introduced", I'd probably be behind that.

 

[Earth]

No, it's because it would need to affect ALL tiers that use open cockpits and this would utterly destroy motorsports as anything other than a plaything for rich kids.

As for your examples, Bianchi's injury came from sustaining a ludicrous deceleration, Senna's death could have been prevented with HANS and a higher cockpit (which is why modern cars have this), Campos's car rode a concrete wall upside down and it's unlikely a lid would have saved him and Krossnoff's crash was an absolute plane crash that nothing could have prevented - the car and the driver were utterly obliterated. I dare anyone to watch that and come back with "a closed cockpit would have saved him".

Whenever the cars are ready to be replaced they can just build them to a different formula.

Just remembered another driver who died from a head injury as a result of an open cockpit.

People need to stop using this word;

View attachment 436658


freak accident ‎(plural freak accidents)

1. An incident, especially one that is harmful, occurring under highly unusual and unlikely circumstances.

Getting hit in the head by debris in open cockpit racing is not unusual nor is it unlikely, as proven by the number of life changing incidents and fatalities that have occurred over the last 7 years.

A freak accident would be Steve Park's serious Darlington crash. He lost control while pacing 40mph under a safety car and spun directly into the path of a car that was driving by go get in line.

This is a 1 in a million freak accident that no safety measure could have prevented or lessened

It is when that piece of debris is thrown into the air and lands directly in a space measuring less than twenty centimetres by twenty centimetres without touching the ground when that space is travelling three hundred kilometres per hour at the time. It's like trying to score a three-point shot when the ring is tavelling at a hundred miles an hour. If Wilson was an inch to the left or the right when he came around the corner, or if Karam had been travelling a mile faster or slower at the time he lost control, the outcome would have been completely different.

Like I said, this accident was extremely complex - it was made up of a dozen dependent and independebt variables, and one percentile point different in any one of them had the potential to radically alter the outcome. Recreating this accident under controlled conditions would be difficult enough, much less in the uncontrolled chaos of the race itself. This is the very definition of a freak accident.

Plus there's the other variable of the angle that Karam hit the wall at. Just one degree in either direction could have very well sent the nosecone in a different direction.

C'mon, you guys sound just as bad as the people who say God is directly responsible for everything good or bad that happens in people's lives, only your the opposite extreme, claiming that these things are 100% random chance that can never be prepared for.

At LeMans, in the run from Mulsanne corner to Indianapolis, the straight has a couple of kinks. The outside barrier of one of the kinks is the only area of the straight that has a catch fence. The organizers understand that if there is an accident at the kink, its very likely one of the cars will be launched towards the outer barrier at that exact spot. So at that exact spot is where 100 yards or so of catch fencing is installed. Its about expecting possible disastrous results and planning for them ahead of time.

I remember one Indycar driver at the Michigan 500 who showed a black mark on his tiny 2" windshield at the end of the open cockpit and told the reporter thats where another car's tire hit in an accident, and that if circumstances were just a little different, he would not be talking to him right now.

Over my lifetime of watching auto racing I have seen openwheel drivers have near misses with flying debris numerous times. Just because drivers dodge them 999 times out of 1000 doesnt mean the 1 time it results in serious injury or a fatality should be overlooked. Drivers crash into walls 10,000 times, but only 1 of those times has the right circumstances for a fatal basal skull injury. Doesnt mean it should not be accounted for.

Even flying cars can be a hazard

 

[Liquid]

@Earth As has been pointed out, Senna shouldn't have been driving a car with a known fault and certainly shouldn't have been hitting a concrete wall at ~150mph. De Villota shouldn't have hit a lorry at a private testing session.

Better barrier construction, suspension geometry and trackside vehicle management would have saved both of them. Not closed cockpits.

 

[Famine]

Whenever the cars are ready to be replaced they can just build them to a different formula.

Does that somehow make them not considerably more expensive and unaffordable to the teams and drivers who buy them to race?

Just remembered another driver who died from a head injury as a result of an open cockpit.

She didn't die as a result of an open cockpit. She died as a result of driving into a tail-lift truck.

The platform of a tail-lift is made to hold several hundred kg of stuff - in this case to hold at least an entire F1 car with a safety margin, so over half a tonne. It's made of 5mm mild steel and has a sharp, pointy edge. It would carve through a CF/Lexan roof like a hot knife through fog.

Bringing Maria de Villota up as an example of someone who died as a result of their accident because the car has an open cockpit is no less disingenuous than using Jules Bianchi as an example. Or Jeff Krossnoff.

Over my lifetime of watching auto racing I have seen openwheel drivers have near misses with flying debris numerous times. Just because drivers dodge them 999 times out of 1000 doesnt mean the 1 time it results in serious injury or a fatality should be overlooked.

Since we've already established the odds to be a generous 40,000:1 when debris hits the car, you're now suggesting the odds of the debris even hitting the car are 1,000:1, making the incident odds 40,000,000:1.

And for this you want to kill junior motorsport and make Pastor Maldonado the world champion...

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Just remembered another driver who died from a head injury as a result of a driver error that saw her improperly engage the launch protocol of her car and crash into a trailer.

There, I fixed it for you.

C'mon, you guys sound just as bad as the people who say God is directly responsible for everything good or bad that happens in people's lives, only your the opposite extreme, claiming that these things are 100% random chance that can never be prepared for.

Not at all. We simply appreciate that these accidents are the result of extremely complex variables that nobody could reasonably predict would be a likely possibility.

 

[spacecowboy73]

At LeMans, in the run from Mulsanne corner to Indianapolis, the straight has a couple of kinks. The outside barrier of one of the kinks is the only area of the straight that has a catch fence. The organizers understand that if there is an accident at the kink, its very likely one of the cars will be launched towards the outer barrier at that exact spot. So at that exact spot is where 100 yards or so of catch fencing is installed. Its about expecting possible disastrous results and planning for them ahead of time.

The way you've been carrying on I'm surprised you think this amount of catch fence is sufficient. A tire or suspension failure can happen anywhere and cause a big accident, not just at a kink.

 

[IforceV8]

For example Massa's 2009 accident was certainly freak, but I believe helmets have been further strengthened in response to that, yes? And so motorsport should continue to be in my opinion - finding ways to prevent even the freak accidents, when those ways can be shown to operate safely and as intended.

The Zylon panel has protected 2 drivers already. http://autoweek.com/article/indycar...visor-strips-indianapolis-500-wake-grand-prix I forgot about the Plowman hit after that mess at the start of the Indy GP last year.

Canopy news. http://www.racer.com/indycar/item/1...urer-open-to-testing-options-for-dallara-dw12

I like the idea but the addition of a canopy creates other issues such as temperature control, rain visibility, oil/bugs etc.

 

[catamount39]

It works for dragsters because they only do a run down the track and then go back to the pits to prepare for the next run a decent amount of time later. For a car doing races of 2 and more hours in length (and F1 doing 1:30:00 races usually) you'd need A/C, wipers, emergency opening if the car goes upside down...it's not a simple fix.

An extended windscreen that goes above the drivers helmet and wraps around the cockpit (but is still open up top) would be better. Debris isn't going to be like artillery shells and land straight down (or it's highly unlikely that'd ever happen anyway).

 

[IforceV8]

It works for dragsters because they only do a run down the track and then go back to the pits to prepare for the next run a decent amount of time later. For a car doing races of 2 and more hours in length (and F1 doing 1:30:00 races usually) you'd need A/C, wipers, emergency opening if the car goes upside down...it's not a simple fix.

An extended windscreen that goes above the drivers helmet and wraps around the cockpit (but is still open up top) would be better. Debris isn't going to be like artillery shells and land straight down (or it's highly unlikely that'd ever happen anyway).

I wonder if a motorcycle style deflection screen could be installed and then the top between the screen and the roll hoop could be tied together with a window net type mesh material. That would allow air to flow which would eliminate the need to install a ventilation system that the cars currently do not have the room for and would protect the driver from any debris from entering the cockpit.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I like the idea but the addition of a canopy creates other issues such as temperature control, rain visibility, oil/bugs etc.

Many of those technical problems have been overcome in LMP design, the worry for F1 is that the only real safe way (in my opinion) is to ape LMP entirely by having side-exits from beneath the canopy.

Fire has to be a big concern, we still see many more cars on fire than we see being hit by debris.

 

[GTPorsche]

Debris isn't going to be like artillery shells and land straight down (or it's highly unlikely that'd ever happen anyway).

That is essentially what occurred with Justin's incident and the odds of it actually happening were insanely improbable... unless everything happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

[catamount39]

That is essentially what occurred with Justin's incident and the odds of it actually happening were insanely improbable... unless everything happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Wait it came straight down? I only saw the few shots on Sunday while watching the race so I have to apologize if I got that part wrong. It was hard to watch.

 

[GTPorsche]

Wait it came straight down? I only saw the few shots on Sunday while watching the race so I have to apologize if I got that part wrong. It was hard to watch.

It was almost straight down on top of him. It was definitely not in his line of sight.

 

[catamount39]

It was almost straight down on top of him. It was definitely not in his line of sight.

Well in that case we do need something for the top as well I suppose.

And now that you say that I do remember it coming down on him from above...ugh.

 

[Peter.]

I think that if there's any problem here it is more to do with how dangerous it is to have open wheel, open cockpit vehicles on a high speed oval than the absence of closed cockpits. IndyCars are faster, spread more debris, move more unpredictably in a crash due to their weight, and offer less protection for the driver than NASCAR. Obviously we can't just stop racing on ovals overnight, as that would be almost as big of a knee-jerk reaction as fundamentally altering the design of the cars to trade one safety hazard for another.

 

[catamount39]

I think that if there's any problem here it is more to do with how dangerous it is to have open wheel, open cockpit vehicles on a high speed oval than the absence of closed cockpits. IndyCars are faster, spread more debris, move more unpredictably in a crash due to their weight, and offer less protection for the driver than NASCAR. Obviously we can't just stop racing on ovals overnight, as that would be almost as big of a knee-jerk reaction as fundamentally altering the design of the cars to trade one safety hazard for another.

We've gone over this....AT ANY track it could happen. Look at Hichcliffe's accident at the Indy Road course last year, Massa's incident back 6(?) years ago at Hungary, and then that incident in a Formula 2 race at Brands Hatch in the 2009. It's all dangerous when debris is flying at your helmet and your driving at race pace.

 

[MatskiMonk]

a Formula 2 race at Brands Hatch in the 60's.

If you mean Henry Surtees, that was 2009...

 

[catamount39]

If you mean Henry Surtees, that was 2009...

.....wat. o-o Okay so that's an edit and a half...

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

The problem with the canopy not being viable is a bit silly, if a driver were to flip and be pinned in the car currently (sand run off or grass) where the car flips and the hoop digs the driver deeper into the run off they're trapped and if the car is on fire the only hope is a fast response time for trackside safety. If it is a normal situation, I don't see why nothing can't be engineered to allow the team or driver to disengage the top to let the driver slip out. Similar to how the current shoulder rests keep the driver in the car more tightly yet have measures to be removed by the driver as seen once the race ends and they've come back to the pit lane.

 

[mustafur]

What about a perspex Screen that wraps around the cockpit at a level the height of the helmet or slightly lower but tilted in a way that would make objects go over it, and have an easy release mechanism like the shoulder rests.

Of course it will still very much be open cockpit but it would add a level of protection without changing the fundamental design of the car.

 

[GTPorsche]

Whatever the material, it has to be ballistic grade in terms of protection level.

 

[Liquid]

And unobstructive to the driver's view. It has to not be compromised by water, oil and insects in addition to generally being perfectly see through in a way clear plastics struggle with. With the visor on the helmet, another layer for drivers to see through could be equally dangerous in its own right.

 

[GTPorsche]

And if it completely, 100%, covers the cockpit, there needs to be some form of ventilation and air cooling for the driver.

Which is why the kneejerk reaction of "they need to add canopies or quit racing these cars" is ridiculously asinine.... and it's always the same people any time something happens...

 

[05XR8]

Smoke(fire, exhast fumes, electrical) in the close confines of an f1 cockpit are way more dramatic than in an LMP closed car. Used almost need something like this

 

[AJ]

This.