FIA considering closed cockpit F1 in the future?

[Centura]

Actually, it would be more aerodynamic to have a closed cockpit. Much more streamlined airflow.

 

[Earth]

...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.

Fire is still very much a danger, even in crashes they do not involve flipping over. My suggestion would be to increase the size of the cockpit to allow easier movement, and an escape hatch on the left and right side of the canopy, like the doors on a LMP, not just on the top, to allow escape no matter how the car ends up after a crash.

 

[GOTMAXPOWER]

I haven't read this being considered before which probably means I've been reading the wrong places; Wouldn't it be better to prevent cars getting airborne from contact with the wheels than to fundamentally change the concept of the cars? Indy Car bumpers would've stopped Grosjean getting airborne of the back of Perez's car and would've meant nobody got close to Alonso's head. The only downside I can see is that the car behind is more likely to end up underneath the other car.

 

[Ardius]

^Erm:


I don't think its as straight-forward as that. A flimsy piece of bodywork before the back wheels doesn't do anything.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

The bodywork was designed to stop cars from riding up over the rear wheels of one another and being launched into the air.

As Rahal and Andretti demonstrated, there are certain conditions under which this piece of bodywork completely fails its purpose. The same goes for any other changes that any open-wheel racing would make: there is a highly-specific set of circumstances under which the parts will not do what they are intended to do, and will alwys fail when those circumstances are met. Engineers can't plan for it, and the best you can do is hope it never comes up and plan accordingly in case it does.

 

[GTPorsche]

If that rear bodywork had more support to it, it might increase the chances of eliminating that from happening. Then again, I don't think they can ever fully eliminate that from happening as long as the wheels aren't fully covered.

Not to mention with the Grosjean incident, there was somewhat of a catapult effect that occurred when Hamilton's car went straight into the back of Grosjean and as Grosjean made contact with cars ahead and spun, it launched Hamilton and Grosjean into the air.

 

[MustangManiac]

Wouldn't it be better to prevent cars getting airborne from contact with the wheels than to fundamentally change the concept of the cars?

There have been plenty that have been arguing that the new Indy cars are fundamentally changing the concept of open wheel racing. As usual, you can't please everybody. What people seem unable to accept is that racing (in all it's forms) changes through technology on it's own and in order to keep it as safe as possible for all involved things are going to have to change.

 

[Hetseeker]

There have been plenty that have been arguing that the new Indy cars are fundamentally changing the concept of open wheel racing. As usual, you can't please everybody. What people seem unable to accept is that racing (in all it's forms) changes through technology on it's own and in order to keep it as safe as possible for all involved things are going to have to change.

So you mean that as the years passes the security improves?

 

[Shoe67]

I don't think this will happen. I understand the safety standpoint, but putting cockpits in F1 cars would just force all of the teams to make new chassis. I'm guessing that it would look something like the X1 in Gt5, which I wouldn't mind. One issue would be the ability of the driver to get out quickly in case of a fire or some other incident. People could say that "just have an emergency pop off latch to take the canopy off". But what happens in the case of that latch getting damaged, so the driver can't escape his burning car?

All in all,
Do I think it will happen? No
Would I like it to happen? No

Formula 1 cars always have been (and hopefully always will be) open cockpit cars.

 

[IceMan PJN]

Wouldn't it be better to prevent cars getting airborne from contact with the wheels than to fundamentally change the concept of the cars?

Driving into wheels isn't the only way F1 cars get airborne. Also, cars getting airborne isn't the only threat to drivers with open cockpits. Anything, including flying wheels or other car debris, can impact a driver's exposed head.

 

[Peasantslayer]

I don't think this will happen. I understand the safety standpoint, but putting cockpits in F1 cars would just force all of the teams to make new chassis. I'm guessing that it would look something like the X1 in Gt5, which I wouldn't mind. One issue would be the ability of the driver to get out quickly in case of a fire or some other incident. People could say that "just have an emergency pop off latch to take the canopy off". But what happens in the case of that latch getting damaged, so the driver can't escape his burning car?

All in all,
Do I think it will happen? No
Would I like it to happen? No

Formula 1 cars always have been (and hopefully always will be) open cockpit cars.

I can't remember the last time I saw an F1 car burst into flames but I do remember Alonso's near miss in Spa, Webber's backflip in Valencia, Massa being hit by debris in 2009 and Henry Surtees tragically losing his life due to a tyre hitting him in the head. A well designed closed cockpit will surely be used in the future, or at least a high screen which surrounds the cockpit so that the driver can still climb out easily but is protected from horizontal impacts.

 

[Skuh]

I would say after listening to people in F1, that a closed cockpit of some kind is inevitable in the future. Not sure what they will go to, a drag style cage seems to be the way of thinking for some.
This is from Charlie Whiting....


"How are things going at the FIA with your investigations into cockpit safety?

That’s a big project and we’ve tried fighter jet canopies. They work but there are quite a few problems with those. They need to be 30 millimetres thick which presents sufficient optical difficulties. We need to try and get something that you can see through when you’re sat down there and that’s very hard. We tried a roll structure. It’s an ugly thing but it did the job. So next we’re trying to find something that’ll be a deflector. In the end we may have to end up with something that will help a lot but won’t eradicate the likelihood of something hitting a driver. It may not prove to be impossible to completely eradicate that. Even if you put a driver in a closed car, there’s no guarantee a wheel won’t fly through the windscreen for example."


I think it is only a matter of time.

Source http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2012/06/09/f1-fanatic-roundup-96/

 

[Shoe67]

I can't remember the last time I saw an F1 car burst into flames but I do remember Alonso's near miss in Spa, Webber's backflip in Valencia, Massa being hit by debris in 2009 and Henry Surtees tragically losing his life due to a tyre hitting him in the head. A well designed closed cockpit will surely be used in the future, or at least a high screen which surrounds the cockpit so that the driver can still climb out easily but is protected from horizontal impacts.

I like the idea of that...just not a full covering

 

[fangio85]

People arguing against closed cockpits due to the fire danger need to remember that since the refuelling ban its almost impossible to catch fire in an f1 car. The fuel tanks are puncture proof due to kevlar being used in their construction. Closed cockpits would actually further decrease the risk of fire in the cockpit in the event that refuelling makes a return. The problems I see with the proposition are driver cooling and wet weather vision problems (water, oil and rubbish off the track, and screen fogging) but I think f1 designers are smart enough to work these out. I don't mind either way whether it goes ahead or not personally.

 

[Ardius]

Just because fires are unlikely doesn't mean it shouldn't be a consideration...otherwise why have all on-track personnel wear fire-proof clothing?

And:

 

[Northstar]

its almost impossible to catch fire in an f1 car.

Edit: Tree'd

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

A certain Turn 1 incident at Spa is also mention-worthy.

Alonso almost lost his head, again! (The first time being a figure of speech, me calling him a lunatic for not beating Vettel )

 

[Wilbur]

So let me get this right. They have tried options that are either too thick to offer good visual or ugly but worked, I get F1 cars are beautiful machines but you would think something could be worked that looked good.

I'm actually a fan of closed canopies if they get them to work because it just seems be a good move overall. I'm curious since Indycar had issues with if car was on it's side or roof that driver couldn't get out, but I have a few ideas that could or couldn't work.

Why do they need to be fully closed and not open sides with net on sides which allow the ability to get out but keep the canopy over the drivers front and head area with braces (some reason reminds me of some of those futuristic bubble things we saw in 70s with ideas in general) or you could have some sort of system that if a car lands on side or roof, it will force the canopy open with push of a button or on it's own from remote switch by safety similar to say ejection seat but not that much force or on the seat itself.

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

So let me get this right. They have tried options that are either too thick to offer good visual or ugly but worked, I get F1 cars are beautiful machines but you would think something could be worked that looked good.

I'm actually a fan of closed canopies if they get them to work because it just seems be a good move overall. I'm curious since Indycar had issues with if car was on it's side or roof that driver couldn't get out, but I have a few ideas that could or couldn't work.

Why do they need to be fully closed and not open sides with net on sides which allow the ability to get out but keep the canopy over the drivers front and head area with braces (some reason reminds me of some of those futuristic bubble things we saw in 70s with ideas in general) or you could have some sort of system that if a car lands on side or roof, it will force the canopy open with push of a button or on it's own from remote switch by safety similar to say ejection seat but not that much force or on the seat itself.

This is all very technical. While the F1 stage seems to like technicalities, most of these technicalities deal directly with going faster, and not always driver's safety.

The best option I see is what they do in drag-boat racing (i.e., "driver capsules") which are fireproof capsules that normally break-free of the frame of the boat (or car,) simply so that the g-forces are lower, and the capsule always floats (generally irrelevant.)

Imagine if that whole compartment was designed to "come apart" from the car, while remaining intact. That would be a safer design, I believe. Don't quote me, I'm not a scientist (I don't have time for research,) it just seems like it's the best alternative to an open-cockpit.

The NASCAR-like idea you had (with solid roof and mesh side-windows) just won't work based on the size. The aerodynamic effect would be huge.

 

[Wilbur]

This is all very technical. While the F1 stage seems to like technicalities, most of these technicalities deal directly with going faster, and not always driver's safety.

The best option I see is what they do in drag-boat racing (i.e., "driver capsules") which are fireproof capsules that normally break-free of the frame of the boat (or car,) simply so that the g-forces are lower, and the capsule always floats (generally irrelevant.)

Imagine if that whole compartment was designed to "come apart" from the car, while remaining intact. That would be a safer design, I believe. Don't quote me, I'm not a scientist (I don't have time for research,) it just seems like it's the best alternative to an open-cockpit.

The NASCAR-like idea you had (with solid roof and mesh side-windows) just won't work based on the size. The aerodynamic effect would be huge.

I figured it was over my head but that was kind of where my thoughts were overall with something like the drag boats. I was actually watching a few videos yesterday where they went under water and actually it is pretty sealed off from the water which surprised me. The only thing is I'm sure there will be some weird slow speed crash that would cause it to act as if it was violent and disengage from the body of the car but pretty much if you wreck in F1 you are done for.

 

[daan]

Water is a completely different environment to air and tarmac. A capsule like that will work in water where the water will envelop the capsule and stop it. If it was detached from a car, it would tumble and roll down the track until it stopped of it's own accord, or until it hit a wall, with the nice squidgy driver being inside this out of control pinball.

but pretty much if you wreck in F1 you are done for.

Do you watch much F1?

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

I figured it was over my head but that was kind of where my thoughts were overall with something like the drag boats. I was actually watching a few videos yesterday where they went under water and actually it is pretty sealed off from the water which surprised me. The only thing is I'm sure there will be some weird slow speed crash that would cause it to act as if it was violent and disengage from the body of the car but pretty much if you wreck in F1 you are done for.

But, even though drag-boats run the same g-forces as F1 cars, (numerically speaking) excluding Eau Rouge, it doesn't happen in drag-boating. I'm surprised, personally, that the boats only come apart when it's a crash.

But, it's in the engineering. The capsule is barely attached to the boat at all. Any time the very slight reinforcements holding the two together are broken (only happens in crashes, generally,) the whole compartment-engineering makes the boat disintegrate; intentionally.

The concern I've just thought of, is what happens if the capsule is struck by the (sharp/pointy/blade-edged) front cone of another car. Yes, the front nose cone of the Formula 1 cars is designed to break away, but... Would the capsule be effective to stop the injury?

And, I think this is pretty clearly going to be a dearly discussed topic, since Ayrton Senna's crash was caused by a sharp piece of debris that found its way PAST all of the chassis of the car (i.e. the deflector bits beside the driver's head) and through his helmet visor. A similar thing is mentioned in the original post (Massa, at Hungaroring in (iirc) 2008.)

So, this will likely be a hot topic from now, on, since the FIA isn't seeming to rule it out anymore. I imagine we'll see all sorts of ideas, and that only a select few are even remotely safe.

Water is a completely different environment to air and tarmac. A capsule like that will work in water where the water will envelop the capsule and stop it. If it was detached from a car, it would tumble and roll down the track until it stopped of it's own accord, or until it hit a wall, with the nice squidgy driver being inside this out of control pinball.

I'd rather tumble around, and be dizzy, than be struck in the face with a large 20 kg. tire/wheel combination, and then still go tumbling and rolling until the car stops of its own accord or hits a wall. The problems I see are g-forces, and blunt-force-trauma protection. Where's the happy medium between an impenetrable fortress of kevlar (i.e., absolutely no crumple zone) and a thin layer of ice cream covering the driver, to make him (or her) slide better, further reducing g-forces.

Yes, a weird example, but... The point remains, there has to be a happy medium between protection (not smashing a 20 kg. tire with one's head) and g-force protection (not hitting a brick wall at 200 mp/h, immediately dying of a fatal neck injury, or trauma to the internal organs, as the driver's arteries find their way to the other (far) side of the rib cage in uncomfortable fashion.

 

[Barra333]

But, even though drag-boats run the same g-forces as F1 cars, (numerically speaking) excluding Eau Rouge, it doesn't happen in drag-boating. I'm surprised, personally, that the boats only come apart when it's a crash.

But, it's in the engineering. The capsule is barely attached to the boat at all. Any time the very slight reinforcements holding the two together are broken (only happens in crashes, generally,) the whole compartment-engineering makes the boat disintegrate; intentionally.

The concern I've just thought of, is what happens if the capsule is struck by the (sharp/pointy/blade-edged) front cone of another car. Yes, the front nose cone of the Formula 1 cars is designed to break away, but... Would the capsule be effective to stop the injury?

I think comparing the tech in drag boating to F1 is a bit far - the capsule in the boat would be to protect the driver from the effects of hitting the water at high speed - protruding limbs (including the head) hit the water and stop suddenly while the rest of the boat and person continue on. I know personally of a kid who died after a boat flipped - his head hit/went into the water, breaking his neck and killing him instantly. Also, watertight, to stop drowning. Neither of these issue would be up there in the list of concerns in F1.

I'd rather tumble around, and be dizzy, than be struck in the face with a large 20 kg. tire/wheel combination, and then still go tumbling and rolling until the car stops of its own accord or hits a wall. The problems I see are g-forces, and blunt-force-trauma protection. Where's the happy medium between an impenetrable fortress of kevlar (i.e., absolutely no crumple zone) and a thin layer of ice cream covering the driver, to make him (or her) slide better, further reducing g-forces.

Yes, a weird example, but... The point remains, there has to be a happy medium between protection (not smashing a 20 kg. tire with one's head) and g-force protection (not hitting a brick wall at 200 mp/h, immediately dying of a fatal neck injury, or trauma to the internal organs, as the driver's arteries find their way to the other (far) side of the rib cage in uncomfortable fashion.

I'm with Daan on this one - keep me with the car. All of the ancillary bits - wheels, sidepods, wings etc absorb force and create friction to slow the whole thing down before hitting a solid object. A detachaed pod will have next to no friction, or protection for the driver until it hits the wall. Doesnt matter how much high density foam is there (in reality it would be no more than a couple of inches think), it will end bad for the driver.
Think about it, would you rather be strapped into a current spec F1 car sliding at a wall, or strapped into a slightly padded plastic drum tumbling end over end?

 

[Northstar]

I'd rather tumble around, and be dizzy, than be struck in the face with a large 20 kg. tire/wheel combination, and then still go tumbling and rolling until the car stops of its own accord or hits a wall.

On the same token, I don't think I would want to be hit in the face with a 400lb(181kg)* rolling hunk of carbon fiber with a driver in it who could also be injured in the incident. The ejectable cockpit idea could work in a time trial environment but not when there are multiple cars on track.

*Just a rough guess as I couldn't find any stats on how much just the cockpit weighs.

 

[braunracing88]

It'd likely be like the X1 in GT5's cockpit, I'm guessing from a safety standpoint to get out as fast as possible it'd include a sort of 'pop off' feature to allow the driver to get rid of the canopy and bail.

You mean like the pyrotechnic door hinge bolts on the Mercedes-Benz SLS AMG?

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

On the same token, I don't think I would want to be hit in the face with a 400lb(181kg)* rolling hunk of carbon fiber with a driver in it who could also be injured in the incident. The ejectable cockpit idea could work in a time trial environment but not when there are multiple cars on track.

*Just a rough guess as I couldn't find any stats on how much just the cockpit weighs.

Valid point, yes. But, the point you forgot is that every driver would be enclosed in a pod. That's the idea; you won't get hit, because Car 1's airborne frame/parts will (hopefully) bounce off of Car 2's sturdy new cockpit design, which, in hindsight, probably actually won't be similar to my idea.


And, the rough guess bit is a bit weird, given that no one would release the weight of "just the cockpit," since F1 cars don't have detachable cockpits. That's the reason you can't find the info.

I think comparing the tech in drag boating to F1 is a bit far - the capsule in the boat would be to protect the driver from the effects of hitting the water at high speed - protruding limbs (including the head) hit the water and stop suddenly while the rest of the boat and person continue on. I know personally of a kid who died after a boat flipped - his head hit/went into the water, breaking his neck and killing him instantly. Also, watertight, to stop drowning. Neither of these issue would be up there in the list of concerns in F1.



I'm with Daan on this one - keep me with the car. All of the ancillary bits - wheels, sidepods, wings etc absorb force and create friction to slow the whole thing down before hitting a solid object. A detachaed pod will have next to no friction, or protection for the driver until it hits the wall. Doesnt matter how much high density foam is there (in reality it would be no more than a couple of inches think), it will end bad for the driver.
Think about it, would you rather be strapped into a current spec F1 car sliding at a wall, or strapped into a slightly padded plastic drum tumbling end over end?

Though, I wish it were easier to think of some way to solve this problem. It seems like a big issue, as it is, so... I want to see it solved, but, obviously, there are too many variables in crash survival for me to consider without taking a course specific to it. The articles I've read and such, obviously, don't offer quite as much insight as I'd hoped.

 

[Northstar]

Valid point, yes. But, the point you forgot is that every driver would be enclosed in a pod. That's the idea; you won't get hit, because Car 1's airborne frame/parts will (hopefully) bounce off of Car 2's sturdy new cockpit design, which, in hindsight, probably actually won't be similar to my idea.

My point still stands though, with a detachable cockpit you are risking multiple driver injuries in what would probably be a 1 car crash.

And, the rough guess bit is a bit weird, given that no one would release the weight of "just the cockpit," since F1 cars don't have detachable cockpits. That's the reason you can't find the info.

Thought it was obvious I was talking about the weight of a powerboat cockpit, seeing that's what you were talking about as an example.

 

[GTracer98]

I was thinking about something: why not make the tyres less bouncy? I might sound ridiculous but I don't think it's impossible. Maybe using different materials or something else because it's always staggering to see the height that a tyre can bounce up. This would lower the risk of fatal crashes by quite a bit (Henry Surtees for example)

 

[Dustone]

I was thinking about something: why not make the tyres less bouncy? I might sound ridiculous but I don't think it's impossible. Maybe using different materials or something else because it's always staggering to see the height that a tyre can bounce up. This would lower the risk of fatal crashes by quite a bit (Henry Surtees for example)

Maybe some sort of mechanism that deflates it as soon as the wheel is detached? But wheels arent the only problem

 

[Doth1s]

So, instead of a high speed bouncing rubber tire you wish to have a high speed bouncing rim?