FIA considering closed cockpit F1 in the future?

[Earth]

I read all the replies and came to the following conclusion. Many will disagree.

Openwheel racing should have a major overhaul. How openwheel racing cars look like needs should be changed to allow a roof with escape doors, like a lemans prototype. This could be accomplished over a period of time (5-10 years) to ease the cost issue. No racing series uses the same cars for more then a few years so eventually all openwheel cars can move be built from scratch to accommodate.

But notice I said "should".

Theres a noticeable crowd out there that believes because racing is inherently dangerous theres no point in worrying about the details of safety. I have a feeling if these people had been left in charge of safety in racing over the years drivers would still wear leather helmets and mounds of dirt would separate the cars from the fans.

It seems this crowd either still has the "I'm invincible" mentality or the "It will never happen (to me)" mentality. They probably don't even see the need to wear a seatbelt, beause hey, what are the odds of anything ever happening, and how can you be sure the seatbelt would help me? It might trap me in the car!!!

Closed canopies cause more problems than they solve.

Since open cars are so safe compared to tin tops, let me be the first to suggest NASCAR move to convertibles with double rolloverbars.

 

[Tornado]

Theres a noticeable crowd out there that believes because racing is inherently dangerous theres no point in worrying about the details of safety. I have a feeling if these people had been left in charge of safety in racing over the years drivers would still wear leather helmets and mounds of dirt would separate the cars from the fans.

It seems this crowd either still has the "I'm invincible" mentality or the "It will never happen (to me)" mentality. They probably don't even see the need to wear a seatbelt, beause hey, what are the odds of anything ever happening, and how can you be sure the seatbelt would help me? It might trap me in the car!!!

I've always loved how you are physically incapable of debating safety in racing cars without acting as if the people who disagree with your "I think I'm the modern day Jackie Stewart" ego-tripping want drivers to die.

 

[Earth]

I've always loved how you are physically incapable of debating safety in racing cars without acting as if the people who disagree with your "I think I'm the modern day Jackie Stewart" ego-tripping want drivers to die.

Because frankly, those who play lightly with safety disgust me

 

[Tornado]

Because frankly, those who play lightly with safety disgust me

Again, incapable of even discussing the topic indirectly without relying entirely on strawman arguments.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Theres a noticeable crowd out there that believes because racing is inherently dangerous theres no point in worrying about the details of safety. I have a feeling if these people had been left in charge of safety in racing over the years drivers would still wear leather helmets and mounds of dirt would separate the cars from the fans.

It seems this crowd either still has the "I'm invincible" mentality or the "It will never happen (to me)" mentality. They probably don't even see the need to wear a seatbelt, beause hey, what are the odds of anything ever happening, and how can you be sure the seatbelt would help me? It might trap me in the car!!!

All you're doing is proving to me that you're having a knee-jerk reaction. By all means, attack the people posting these arguments rather than the arguments themselves.

The truth is that these accidents are immensely complex, and there is no simple solution to them. When Jacques Villeneuve and Ralf Schumcher collided in Melbourne a few years ago and a marshall died, the death was the result of a 47cm tyre travelling through a 48cm gap in the wall. If you had changed one of the variables in the accident – if Villeneuve had been ten centimetres to the right of where he was at the time of the accident, or if Scumacher had been travelling five kilometres per hour faster – than the entire outcome of the accident would have changed. The same can be said of the Massa, Surtees and Wheldon accidents (though not so much de Villota’s; like I said, that could have been easily fixed by parking the transporter somewhere else). This proves that ultimately, canopies will do nothing. They are not the magic bullet that people think they are, because there will still be a very precise set of circumstances – a combination of mass, speed, angle, and so on and so forth – that will render them utterly useless, if not dangerous for the driver. In the wake of Henry Surtees’ accident, wheel tethers were strengthened and a third tether was added. And yet, as we saw in the Suranovich-Daly crash at Monaco, the wheels can still be torn free. It’s a question of physics. The wrong amount of force in the wrong place at the wrong time will always negate whatever safety measures you put in place – and you cannot plan for them until they actually happen.

 

[Earth]

All you're doing is proving to me that you're having a knee-jerk reaction. By all means, attack the people posting these arguments rather than the arguments themselves.

The truth is that these accidents are immensely complex, and there is no simple solution to them. When Jacques Villeneuve and Ralf Schumcher collided in Melbourne a few years ago and a marshall died, the death was the result of a 47cm tyre travelling through a 48cm gap in the wall. If you had changed one of the variables in the accident – if Villeneuve had been ten centimetres to the right of where he was at the time of the accident, or if Scumacher had been travelling five kilometres per hour faster – than the entire outcome of the accident would have changed. The same can be said of the Massa, Surtees and Wheldon accidents (though not so much de Villota’s; like I said, that could have been easily fixed by parking the transporter somewhere else). This proves that ultimately, canopies will do nothing. They are not the magic bullet that people think they are, because there will still be a very precise set of circumstances – a combination of mass, speed, angle, and so on and so forth – that will render them utterly useless, if not dangerous for the driver. In the wake of Henry Surtees’ accident, wheel tethers were strengthened and a third tether was added. And yet, as we saw in the Suranovich-Daly crash at Monaco, the wheels can still be torn free. It’s a question of physics. The wrong amount of force in the wrong place at the wrong time will always negate whatever safety measures you put in place – and you cannot plan for them until they actually happen.

I read your post. At this juncture there is no point in me disagreeing with you and dragging this out further. You've had the last word and made your point, and I've made my points. I'm stepping out because I'm becoming too emotionally involved. I regret some of what I posted and would delete it if it had not already been quoted.

 

[F1 fan]

But the point is that your suggestions are normally knee jerk reactions and are I'll thought out as a consequence. The "holier than thou" attitude that Toronado pointed out is rather annoying too.

The simple fact is that we all want increased safety in the sport and there are already people working on it. People who have access to far more data and the means and intelligence to do something about it. Your one man crusade is rather pointless and I must say that I find it disgusting that you think that none of us care. If you could have seen me after any one of the countless accidents it has been my misfortune to witness, you wouldn't be saying that.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

The simple fact is that we all want increased safety in the sport and there are already people working on it.

Then do something practical about it. I've seen people claim that Maria de Villota's accident could have been avoided by including a cockpit canopy into the car design. And I absolutely agree. A canopy would have gone a long way towards preventing this.

But do you know what else would have worked? Parking the team transporter somewhere else.

So on the one hand, you've got people investing tens of thousands of dollars - if not more - conducting feasibility studies into the best way to introduce perspex canopies and make them as safe as they are durable ... while on the other hand, you could spend about five dollars printing off a new set of regulations mandating that the team transporter must not be parked on any section of tarmac being used for a test, and maybe a dollar fifty on the petrol needed to move the truck off the runway once the car has been delivered, and then back onto the runway once the test has been completed.

Which of these is cheaper to implement? Which is easier? And most importantly, which is the most practical?

Using Maria de Villota's accident as a case for cockpit canopies being introduced is ridiculous. The Formula 1 community watched in horror as it happened. The FIA probably doesn't need to set up these rules dictating where a transporter should be parked because the teams will have seen what happened at Duxford and will take pains to make sure it never happens again.

And yet, very few people seem to be taking the common sense approach to this. They come into this thread and talk up the need for cockpit canopies, ignoring any other alternative to what was a tragic, but ultimately very avoidable accident. And when people refute the idea, they respond poorly to it. You think I have a "holier than thou" attitude? Go back and read some of the posts in this thread, like the ones that accuse the people appealing to common sense of being unsympathetic to driver safety.

All I'm asking is that you look at this with a little bit of context. Compare the number of accidents where cockpit canopies would have saved drivers from injury or death against the number of accidents where drivers walked away unscathed without a canopy. And then compare the number of drivers that canopies would have saved against the number of accidents where canopies would have done more harm that good.

I'm not saying that driver safety doesn't matter. I'm saying that eventually you get to a point of diminishing returns. Cockpit canopies might have saved Massa, Surtees, de Villota and Wheldon from death and injury - but they probably would have hurt a lot more drivers.

 

[F1 fan]

I think there has been a big misunderstanding. My post was directed at "Earth" and not you.

 

[Greycap]

The wrong amount of force in the wrong place at the wrong time will always negate whatever safety measures you put in place – and you cannot plan for them until they actually happen.

While that is true it can be turned around, why have any safety measures at all because they're all worthless when enough bad luck is involved? Wearing a helmet is useless for perhaps 99.998% of the time but when something goes wrong it's a damn good thing to have on. The same goes for seat belts, crash structures, fire extinguishers... you get the clue. When things go wrong enough they simply can't help yet they're used because common sense says that when something happens they save lives. Common sense also says that wrap-around windscreens would have saved at least one driver from death and two from serious injury but for some reason people are hell bent on proving that they're a bad idea. The only situation in which I can see such a construction being a bad idea is one in which the car is upside down and on fire, and I can't remember that happening during the last 15 years at least in F1.

 

[Earth]

NHRA moving to closed canopies

...in all of motorsports we've seen open-wheel cars injure drivers much more then we've seen in closed cars. We're trying to go to a safer form of racing.

Theres a quick release mechanism for driver or mechanics/safety crew

 

[Ardius]

I guess its a straight-forward decision for drag racing, the problem there isn't the debris or wheels hitting them on the head.

 

[hawkeye122]

Im pretty sure Podracing was more dangerous than Drag racing, and they dont have closed cockpits, so.....


*Yeah, I'm kidding.

 

[Dhalism]

i don't understand how can anyone call it a knee-jerk reaction. Of course the thread gets bumped every time there is an accident - how is that any different from any other disaster? A person can not walk around thinking about how exposed are F1 drivers to flying debris all the time.

i don't understand how can peopel dismiss this idea entirely either - thats exactly why there is testing, and it's exactly why it is public. The FIA is trying to find an acceptable solution through science and a dialogue with public. That's how progress is made, and you have to appreciate that, or learn how to appreciate it.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

And how on earth would a closed cockpit have saved anyone at Spa?

 

[emmettbrown1955]

And how on earth would a closed cockpit have saved anyone at Spa?

Do we always have to wait until someone gets hurt? I for one think cockpits (or other forms of improving safety for the drivers' heads) should at least be discussed. And they don't need to look awful. The X2010 and this concept prove it: http://www.iacoski.com/wp-content/uploads/iacoski_ferrari_FX-i1_concept_KUB_1200px_RBG-600x375.jpg

Of course there are safety problems with cockpits too (getting out).

 

[Earth]

Do we always have to wait until someone gets hurt? I for one think cockpits (or other forms of improving safety for the drivers' heads) should at least be discussed. And they don't need to look awful. The X2010 and this concept prove it: http://www.iacoski.com/wp-content/uploads/iacoski_ferrari_FX-i1_concept_KUB_1200px_RBG-600x375.jpg

Of course there are safety problems with cockpits too (getting out).

Did you just mention the fictional X2010 to make a point?

I think you just made some members very mad!!!! They're gonna blow!!!

Oh, wait...

You simply said the X2010 is one example that a closed openwheel car doesnt have to look ugly.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Do we always have to wait until someone gets hurt?

The problem with your statement is that you're assuming someone will get hurt - and that if closed canopies are introuced, they won't get hurt anymore. Which is patently wrong. There is still the potential for drivers to be injured with a closed canopy.

The pile-up in Spa simply demonstrates how unnecessary canopies are. They would not have contributed even a little bit to saving anyone, because everyone was already safe.

 

[ZEROX]

But the tech chief said the opposite.

 

[MUSC4EVER]

I dont know if this has been brought up but if a driver has to retire the car due to an engine fault and then the car suddenly sets on fire, the driver has to evacuate within 10 seconds, so long as theres a button that makes the canopy pop open/off in such emergencys then im all for it!👍

 

[Tired Tyres]

I hate reading articles like that.

It all sound so plausible until you think about this:

Being trapped in a burning car is supposed to be a drivers biggest fear?

I would have thought that the prospect of being burned to death trapped in car you can't get out of couldn't be described as a good idea, and please, no one mention explosive bolts.

It is not a solution. It just exchanges one problem for another problem.

That is not how you define solution. Ever.

 

[Blaze_409]

I the car ends up upside down on a catch fence then won't the driver be trapped in the canopy? Unless they rig it to Mclaren explosives.

 

[MUSC4EVER]

If a modern F1 car is upside down and on fire, it woulld take quite an effort to turn the car the right way up and free the driver..if a canopy is fitted it would take precious more minutes...

 

[Greycap]

It is not a solution. It just exchanges one problem for another problem.

...while having open cockpits exchanges one problem (being trapped in the car) for another problem (getting killed by flying debris or even cars) so which is better? When did you last see an overturned car burning so badly that it would have killed or even injured the driver, vs. when did you last see someone getting hit and hurt or killed by flying debris? The former dates back to the '70s, the latter a couple of years back.

 

[scarslasher]

Not only is it safer, it's also more aerodynamic. The only issue I can see is weight.

We've had a couple of close calls this season, most recently the Grosjean x Alonso love connection. I don't see why don't stop "considering" it and go straight into looking into it.

Maybe they just feel open-cockpit is in F1 DNA?

 

[scarslasher]

...while having open cockpits exchanges one problem (being trapped in the car) for another problem (getting killed by flying debris or even cars) so which is better? When did you last see an overturned car burning so badly that it would have killed or even injured the driver, vs. when did you last see someone getting hit and hurt or killed by flying debris? The former dates back to the '70s, the latter a couple of years back.

What about looking into just a windshield? Sort of like how the tiny windshield on the Ariel Atom is enough to stop people from looking like Jeremy Clarkson?
Just have a windshield substantial enough to deflect flying debris?

It at least sounds more than possible. There's some seriously strong glasses out there.

 

[Greycap]

Personally I'd say a curved windscreen in the Lotus 49 fashion but high enough to completely surround the driver could be the way to go. It wouldn't be effective against things falling right from the sky but I guess some compromises have to be made.

 

[Watt2159]

This is a great idea....wait this is by the FIA? They actually have GOOD ideas?

 

[Hetseeker]

If a F1 car has a closed cockpit, does this means that the car will behave completely different?

 

[PeterJB]

It would be slightly heavier, and less aerodynamic, so not that much. Plus visibility would be reduced as you would get glare coming off the glass and the frame would impede your view from certain angles.