FIA considering closed cockpit F1 in the future?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hun200kmh
  • 664 comments
  • 69,181 views
So what is a proper reaction?



Im in favor of more traditional doors with quick releases, almost like window nets in NASCAR.
Doors would be a structural weakness in a side impact, which is much more likely in any form of racing. That's why NASCAR cars have window nets: so the car can be made without doors while still keeping the driver's limbs in the cockpit.
 
The current Dallara Indycar has taken steps to reduce wheel to wheel contact, and is a good measure, I think.

In karts and in old-fashioned F1 cars from the 50's and before, you can see the driver's upper body (and face, prior to full helmets) which add to the spectator's experience.

But for today's time, I think the idea a forward rollover hoop and partial canopy would be good to explore in top-line open wheel cars.
 
The current Dallara Indycar has taken steps to reduce wheel to wheel contact, and is a good measure, I think.

In karts and in old-fashioned F1 cars from the 50's and before, you can see the driver's upper body (and face, prior to full helmets) which add to the spectator's experience.

But for today's time, I think the idea a forward rollover hoop and partial canopy would be good to explore in top-line open wheel cars.
I like the Indy Car approach with the new wheel contact prevention.

I had a question though. If you replaced the F1 with the Indy car and had it smash into the tractor would the driver be in better shape than Bianchi is right now?
 
I like the Indy Car approach with the new wheel contact prevention.

I had a question though. If you replaced the F1 with the Indy car and had it smash into the tractor would the driver be in better shape than Bianchi is right now?

It doesn't appear to be the case since the injury Bianchi is suffering from results from rapid acceleration/deceleration. It appears a full canopy wouldn't have mattered in this instance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffuse_axonal_injury
 
It doesn't appear to be the case since the injury Bianchi is suffering from results from rapid acceleration/deceleration. It appears a full canopy wouldn't have mattered in this instance.
I had a grim feeling that was the case. Using layman's terms would that be defined as whiplash or basal skull fracture? (Which is what the official fatal injury to Dale Earnhardt was?)
 
I had a grim feeling that was the case. Using layman's terms would that be defined as whiplash or basal skull fracture? (Which is what the official fatal injury to Dale Earnhardt was?)

Neither, more like extreme concussion in layman's terms. Or the brain moving around inside the skull. Really bad news.
 
Neither, more like extreme concussion in layman's terms. Or the brain moving around inside the skull. Really bad news.
Ahhh... more accurately it would be like the brain being tenderised within the skull.

When you batter a bit of beef, you break some of the proteins apart. Same difference, only with the connections between brain cells.
 
Neither, more like extreme concussion in layman's terms. Or the brain moving around inside the skull. Really bad news.
Ah I see. I know that bsf is not always fatal as Stanley Smith sustained the injury in a 1993 NASCAR race at Talladega but I wasn't sure if Bianchi sustained something similar or more dire.
 
HANS device prevents a basilar skull fracture from occurring since it prevents the head and neck from being violently whipped around.
 
@FlyingFox

An enclosed cockpit would not work for a number of reasons. Cost is certainly one, but there are fundamental design problems. What if the canopy becomes damaged by dirt / dust / debris? Do you want to look out a racecar at 185mph with cracks in front of your eyes? In case of rain - visibility will be much worse. Try driving a Red Bull on Gran Turismo 6 in the pouring rain - there will be so much water running over the car vision will be near impossible. In case of fire and / or mechanical problem needing a quick exit, how? An ejector / release system will not work - all it takes is a driver in a car rolling or going in a violent motion to perhaps bang an ejector button in the cockpit and launch it during a crash. How will a marshal be able to get in quickly, especially if the mechanism is damaged, the driver is unable to release for some reason? You want a canopy system that can withstand sparks, dirt dust, perhaps bits of carbon fibre traveling at a velocity of 100+mph yet can be released by someone with a glove on his hand?
 
HANS device prevents a basilar skull fracture from occurring since it prevents the head and neck from being violently whipped around.

While I think the HANS device is an incredible achievement in driver safety, I'd just like to post this as an aside.

This was an incident for Pedro Diniz in 1999. The cause of the rollover was a freak collision with Alex Wurz where the angles were just freakishly perfect for such a violent rollover. Dangerously however, the rollhoop dug into the soft ground and completely failed, resulting in the car lying as flat as it looks in the video.

This was before HANS was introduced into F1 and I am not sure whether Diniz would have survived had his head been fixed in place, crushed by his own body and cockpit; a closed canopy might not have helped either.

When I watched this live, I honestly thought Diniz had been killed.



Of course, I'm not posting this to say HANS is bad don't get me wrong, just as a curious aside from the annals of history where a safety device might have been a hindrance.
 
In that case, and situation, it probably is true, but keep in mind that the car was not designed around a driver wearing a HANS device and the bigger issue with that crash is that the roll hoop didn't withstand the impact of the crash.

diniz.jpg


My memory of late 90s/early 00s F1 isn't that great, but I think this accident led to the cars being strengthened against these kind of impacts(?)
 
@GTPorsche

That is one dangerous looking image. Never seen that still/angle before. You're right, it did lead to increased safety and better design in other ways. But it's another factor to consider when analysing closed cockpits; what is its structural relationship to the rear rollhoop should the rollhoop fail? Of course the hoops are tougher now than they were in 1999 and the odds of a rollhoop failure are fewer, but it's still something that could happen. It was completely freak odds that led to Bianchi to hitting that particular vehicle at that particular angle; a few inches to the left and he might have been mortally wounded, closed cockpit or not.

Just my ramblings... I've just always had the Diniz incident in mind when cockpits, HANS and rollhoops come into discussion.
 
@FlyingFox

An enclosed cockpit would not work for a number of reasons. Cost is certainly one, but there are fundamental design problems. What if the canopy becomes damaged by dirt / dust / debris? Do you want to look out a racecar at 185mph with cracks in front of your eyes? In case of rain - visibility will be much worse. Try driving a Red Bull on Gran Turismo 6 in the pouring rain - there will be so much water running over the car vision will be near impossible. In case of fire and / or mechanical problem needing a quick exit, how? An ejector / release system will not work - all it takes is a driver in a car rolling or going in a violent motion to perhaps bang an ejector button in the cockpit and launch it during a crash. How will a marshal be able to get in quickly, especially if the mechanism is damaged, the driver is unable to release for some reason? You want a canopy system that can withstand sparks, dirt dust, perhaps bits of carbon fibre traveling at a velocity of 100+mph yet can be released by someone with a glove on his hand?
The dirt/dust problem could be fixed with tear off sheets like NASCAR uses during pit stops however I don't think they would work well in the rain.
 
That's probably the biggest issue with closed cockpit for open wheel. If the roolhoop, which would also be the main mounting point for the canopy, were to fail somehow, then the canopy would be rendered useless in regards to protecting the driver and could potentially end up being even more dangerous than not having the canopy on the car.

It's also difficult to build an open-wheel car to withstand a hit against something it's not designed to potentially come into contact with, like Bianchi's car coming into contact with a recovery vehicle.

There's also what happened to Kovaleinen at Catalunya in 2008 when the car went under the tire barrier and knocked him unconscious momentarily.
20080429elpepudep_7.jpg


A canopy would have helped there, as he was knocked unconscious by his head contacting the barrier.
 
@FlyingFox

An enclosed cockpit would not work for a number of reasons. Cost is certainly one, but there are fundamental design problems. What if the canopy becomes damaged by dirt / dust / debris? Do you want to look out a racecar at 185mph with cracks in front of your eyes? In case of rain - visibility will be much worse. Try driving a Red Bull on Gran Turismo 6 in the pouring rain - there will be so much water running over the car vision will be near impossible. In case of fire and / or mechanical problem needing a quick exit, how? An ejector / release system will not work - all it takes is a driver in a car rolling or going in a violent motion to perhaps bang an ejector button in the cockpit and launch it during a crash. How will a marshal be able to get in quickly, especially if the mechanism is damaged, the driver is unable to release for some reason? You want a canopy system that can withstand sparks, dirt dust, perhaps bits of carbon fibre traveling at a velocity of 100+mph yet can be released by someone with a glove on his hand?

1) The canopy would be made of plexiglas, which doesn't crack or break because it's basically thick, transparent plastic.
2) Rain-X would be applied to the canopy if it's expected to rain, and the safety car could be deployed if drivers begin reporting severe vision problems.
3) An ejector system would work. If you look at the dashboard on a Red Bull, you'll notice two levers - one to cut off electrical systems, and another to (possibly) use the exploding bolt on the canopy joint to jettison the canopy. They're on top of the dashboard, which would be completely out of the way unless you specifically reached for them.
4) The rear locking mechanism would use an exploding lock which could be triggered by race control or the safety crew tending to the car. Triggering the lock's explosive would also trigger the exploding bolt. All that would be left do do would be to lift the canopy off and extricate the driver.
 
1) The canopy would be made of plexiglas, which doesn't crack or break because it's basically thick, transparent plastic.
2) Rain-X would be applied to the canopy if it's expected to rain, and the safety car could be deployed if drivers begin reporting severe vision problems.
3) An ejector system would work. If you look at the dashboard on a Red Bull, you'll notice two levers - one to cut off electrical systems, and another to (possibly) use the exploding bolt on the canopy joint to jettison the canopy. They're on top of the dashboard, which would be completely out of the way unless you specifically reached for them.
4) The rear locking mechanism would use an exploding lock which could be triggered by race control or the safety crew tending to the car. Triggering the lock's explosive would also trigger the exploding bolt. All that would be left do do would be to lift the canopy off and extricate the driver.

1. Nothing is indestructable.
2. So SC every time there is rain? yay!
3. Err no...
4. Race control? Really?
 
That happens in the NHL after the glass takes multiple impacts. Jet canopies, like the FIA tested, would withstand greater forces than that.
 
1. Nothing is indestructable.
2. So SC every time there is rain? yay!
3. Err no...
4. Race control? Really?
1. I know that. Plexiglas is better than glass because it's more flexible, so obviously it's your best bet.
2. No, SC every time there's rain severe enough to prevent drivers from seeing.
3. Yes, there are. Look again.
4. Not sure what you mean by this. Race control having an exploding bolt trigger themselves would allow the bolts to be triggered regardless in case the safety crew can't for some reason.

Plexiglass breaking....


Fair enough, but obviously it would be thicker than it is in the NHL. It's about a quarter of an inch thick in NASCAR, if I remember correctly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@FlyingFox

An enclosed cockpit would not work for a number of reasons. Cost is certainly one, but there are fundamental design problems. What if the canopy becomes damaged by dirt / dust / debris? Do you want to look out a racecar at 185mph with cracks in front of your eyes? In case of rain - visibility will be much worse. Try driving a Red Bull on Gran Turismo 6 in the pouring rain - there will be so much water running over the car vision will be near impossible. In case of fire and / or mechanical problem needing a quick exit, how? An ejector / release system will not work - all it takes is a driver in a car rolling or going in a violent motion to perhaps bang an ejector button in the cockpit and launch it during a crash. How will a marshal be able to get in quickly, especially if the mechanism is damaged, the driver is unable to release for some reason? You want a canopy system that can withstand sparks, dirt dust, perhaps bits of carbon fibre traveling at a velocity of 100+mph yet can be released by someone with a glove on his hand?
Theres also the issue of heat on the hotter circuits. The drivers already get very hot now in an open cockpit. They will roast in a very tight environment with a plexiglass canopy.
 
Theres also the issue of heat on the hotter circuits. The drivers already get very hot now in an open cockpit. They will roast in a very tight environment with a plexiglass canopy.
So again, just pull a NASCAR and have the driver's helmet hooked to a duct to let hot air out. They also have cool suits which circulate cold liquid around to cool them off.
 
So again, just pull a NASCAR and have the driver's helmet hooked to a duct to let hot air out. They also have cool suits which circulate cold liquid around to cool them off.

So are you going to pay for this and pay to have it implemented in the junior formulae too?
 
Last edited:
And where do you propose such a system can go?
I'll admit I'm not sure, but unless you want full-on air conditioning in the car it's pretty much the only option.

So are you going to pay for this and pay to have it implemented in the junior formulae too?
Depends on the formula. Lower formulae wouldn't have it, while higher formulae would.
 
Lower formulae need F1's safety improvements at the same time that F1 implement them, so if the lower formulae can't get them, then the implementation won't happen.
 
In the LMP cars as crashed by McNish and Davidson there is no movable canopy; the windscreen is a non-moving body fixture. F1 cars are a different shape and a different proposition... so while the views of any drivers would be interesting I'm not sure how LMP informs the specifics of an F1 solution.

That is true, I forgot how the implementation in F1 would be significantly different than LMP1.

I was just thinking Davidson's opinion whether he's for or against F1 canopies would be interesting since he's driven both and had a big crash in a closed cockpit car.
 
Last edited:
Back