FIA considering closed cockpit F1 in the future?

[Liquid]

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.

Or you could not have closed canopies and avoid the new problems they would bring.

---

Moving back generally on topic, F1 needs to treat causes, not symptoms. I've re-read this thread from it's origin two years ago and @prisonermonkeys was spot on back in 2012. A closed canopy doesn't prevent accidents, and might indeed cause more accidents or accidents of a specific nature. A closed canopy wouldn't have stopped de Villota crashing. A closed canopy wouldn't have stopped Bianchi crashing. A closed canopy wouldn't have stopped Senna, Berger or Piquet crashing.

As counter-intuitive as it sounds, in each of those specific events you have to look at why the car crashed or what it crashed into and not automatically try and fix the injuries. Senna shouldn't have been driving a car with a known fault. Bianchi should have slowed the hell down (credit @Famine on that point). Those trackside vehicles should have been better placed for de Villota.

Never mind that a closed canopy might have stopped Senna's wishbone, he shouldn't have been going straight on at Tamburello in the first place and he definitely shouldn't have been slamming into a concrete wall. Never mind that a closed canopy might have negated some of de Villota's impact, why the hell was she hitting a goddamned lorry in a private testing session?

Let's talk about another incident that happened at Dunlop curve at a wet Suzuka. This time, we're in 1994. Gianni Morbidelli's Footwork has aquaplaned into the barriers and is a complete wreck. The marshalls and a tractor are winching it off the circuit when all of a sudden, Martin Brundle aquaplanes off at the exact same spot. He somehow misses all of the equipment, the trackside vehicles and Morbidelli's stricken Footwork. Phew. Bet he wished he had a canopy in case he hit one of those, right? Well, he did hit a marshall holding no items, breaking the man's leg in the process. Canopy solves nothing there. You need to look at the factors causing the crash; if you watch the video of the incident, it's damn scary how dangerous procedure was in 1994 when they're moving Morbidelli's car. (Brundle incident at 3:45)

Do not misunderstand. Nobody here is denying the benefits a closed canopy could offer. But the practicality of implementing them, particularly for the junior formulae, means it simply is not viable even before you realise that it doesn't fix the problems open wheel racing has.

Instead of giving them canopies and having them still crash into tractors, trucks, concrete walls or even people, we have learnt a hell of a lot more about trackside vehicle management, course cautions, course caution speeds, wet weather race control, barrier construction, rollhoop design, helmet design, cockpit design, suspension design, wheel tethering and marshalling.

"But Liquid, you're just being a pedantic arse talking about crash causes vs crash injuries." Yes I am, and it's important to do so if we're talking about driver safety. We want to stop them having crashes in the first place.

 

[Blitz24]

Excellent post. For some reason we are looking at knee jerk reactions to improve the car's safety when we actually should be looking at the race officiating and policing as to what exactly is being done by RC to keep the drivers safe.

 

[TeamCZRRacing]

Or you could not have closed canopies and avoid the new problems they would bring.

---

Moving back generally on topic, F1 needs to treat causes, not symptoms. I've re-read this thread from it's origin two years ago and @prisonermonkeys was spot on back in 2012. A closed canopy doesn't prevent accidents, and might indeed cause more accidents or accidents of a specific nature. A closed canopy wouldn't have stopped de Villota crashing. A closed canopy wouldn't have stopped Bianchi crashing. A closed canopy wouldn't have stopped Senna, Berger or Piquet crashing.

As counter-intuitive as it sounds, in each of those specific events you have to look at why the car crashed or what it crashed into and not automatically try and fix the injuries. Senna shouldn't have been driving a car with a known fault. Bianchi should have slowed the hell down (credit @Famine on that point). Those trackside vehicles should have been better placed for de Villota.

Never mind that a closed canopy might have stopped Senna's wishbone, he shouldn't have been going straight on at Tamburello in the first place and he definitely shouldn't have been slamming into a concrete wall. Never mind that a closed canopy might have negated some of de Villota's impact, why the hell was she hitting a goddamned lorry in a private testing session?

Let's talk about another incident that happened at Dunlop curve at a wet Suzuka. This time, we're in 1994. Gianni Morbidelli's Footwork has aquaplaned into the barriers and is a complete wreck. The marshalls and a tractor are winching it off the circuit when all of a sudden, Martin Brundle aquaplanes off at the exact same spot. He somehow misses all of the equipment, the trackside vehicles and Morbidelli's stricken Footwork. Phew. Bet he wished he had a canopy in case he hit one of those, right? Well, he did hit a marshall holding no items, breaking the man's leg in the process. Canopy solves nothing there. You need to look at the factors causing the crash; if you watch the video of the incident, it's damn scary how dangerous procedure was in 1994 when they're moving Morbidelli's car. (Brundle incident at 3:45)

Do not misunderstand. Nobody here is denying the benefits a closed canopy could offer. But the practicality of implementing them, particularly for the junior formulae, means it simply is not viable even before you realise that it doesn't fix the problems open wheel racing has.

Instead of giving them canopies and having them still crash into tractors, trucks, concrete walls or even people, we have learnt a hell of a lot more about trackside vehicle management, course cautions, course caution speeds, wet weather race control, barrier construction, rollhoop design, helmet design, cockpit design, suspension design, wheel tethering and marshalling.

"But Liquid, you're just being a pedantic arse talking about crash causes vs crash injuries." Yes I am, and it's important to do so if we're talking about driver safety. We want to stop them having crashes in the first place.

I agree. If you'll allow me to continue throwing my two cents in, the FIA does a lot of stupid things that common sense would dictate should not be done. Here are some of the faults I find with the circumstances surrounding the accident:

1) Don't continue to have the cars circulate at full speed after someone's already had an off due to the rain. Put the safety car out! I don't know why the organizers usually wait until a number of cars have gone off or someone's sustained a serious injury before bringing the safety car out or red-flagging the race. That's endangerment. Yeah, I can understand F1 cars racing in the rain - it adds to the excitement, drama and difficulty - but be reasonable. If it's known that the track is potentially dangerous, don't continue to race.

2) Don't have recovery equipment or safety workers on or near the racing surface while the track is still green. There's always a risk that a car might plow into it/them. Something I'm surprised they didn't learn after Tom Pryce's crash.
Instead, bring out the SC and wait until the racers are all bunched up again before bringing out the crane and the response team.

3) Work on the communication between officials and corner flagmen. I read somewhere that the marshal station before the accident was showing the green flag, so it's likely Jules thought he was all clear and could continue through at race pace.

I seriously question the intelligence of the average high-ranking FIA official sometimes.

 

[Wilbur]

I agree. If you'll allow me to continue throwing my two cents in, the FIA does a lot of stupid things that common sense would dictate should not be done. Here are some of the faults I find with the circumstances surrounding the accident:

1) Don't continue to have the cars circulate at full speed after someone's already had an off due to the rain. Put the safety car out! I don't know why the organizers usually wait until a number of cars have gone off or someone's sustained a serious injury before bringing the safety car out or red-flagging the race. That's endangerment. Yeah, I can understand F1 cars racing in the rain - it adds to the excitement, drama and difficulty - but be reasonable. If it's known that the track is potentially dangerous, don't continue to race.

2) Don't have recovery equipment or safety workers on or near the racing surface while the track is still green. There's always a risk that a car might plow into it/them. Something I'm surprised they didn't learn after Tom Pryce's crash.
Instead, bring out the SC and wait until the racers are all bunched up again before bringing out the crane and the response team.

3) Work on the communication between officials and corner flagmen. I read somewhere that the marshal station before the accident was showing the green flag, so it's likely Jules thought he was all clear and could continue through at race pace.

I seriously question the intelligence of the average high-ranking FIA official sometimes.

I haven't followed this thread much, but some very valid points.

3) This is what I got from a few things I have read, the corner marker at corner entry was green, apex/exit where the crashes happened was yellow and the next one on down was green. If it's me, I say yellow from before the corner all the way past the exit just to keep it safe.

Granted this was somewhat a freak accident but it raises questions. I never really understood why they were almost racing a full speed while track workers removed a car off the racing surface.

 

[GTPorsche]

Because Sutil's car was as far off the racing surface as it could have been without being on the opposite side of the barriers.

 

[TeamCZRRacing]

Because Sutil's car was as far off the racing surface as it could have been without being on the opposite side of the barriers.

Still, they had to bring out the recovery equipment and safety crew, right? It doesn't matter if the car is right next to the barriers, if cars are still circulating at full speed then there is still a risk of freak accidents occurring, and of course this risk is increased when the track is wet, especially if the track is so wet the FIA knows it to be unsafe and still refuses to deploy the safety car.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

There were double waved yellows at Dunlop. In addition to demanding that drivers slow down, they also serve as a warning that marshals are in the area and that drivers should be prepared to stop without warning.

I'm not trying to blame the victim here, but having seen footage of the crash (despite my not wanting to ...), it's quite clear that whatever happened, Bianchi was going extremely quickly. There have been questions raised about the safety car procedure, race scheduling, weather conditions and available light, the recovery vehicle used and so on and so forth, but any investigation needs to ask whether Bianchi was simply going too quickly. As Keith Collantine from F1 Fanatic pointed out, Bianchi was on worn intermediates and the conditions were deteriorating at the time of the crash. As tragic and as horrifying as the accident was, the possibility of driver error needs to be considered.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Pardon the double post, but I've just seen this on James Allen's blog, explaining what a Diffuse Axonal Injury is - it's what happened to Richard Hammond when he crashed that drag racer a few years ago:

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2014/10/bianchi-family-issues-a-statement-on-jules-condition/

To my mind, that is evidence that a canopy would have done nothing to save Bianchi. DAI is caused by rapid acceleration or deceleration. Take away the tractor, and he could have suffered the same injury just by going straight into the wall - and how would a canopy have saved him then? It wasn't the impact with the tractor that injured him; he was surrounded by the safety cell, wearing a crash helmet, and was restrained by a safety harness and HANS device. If he had struck the tractor in such a way that it hit his person, he would likely be dead. If anything, hitting the tractor might have saved him, because it would have shaved a few kilometers off his speed.

 

[mustafur]

What amazes me is the actual cause of the injury to Bianchi was hitting a Tractor which could of easily not been there in the first place by removing Double yellows and replacing it with the Safety car.

but instead everyone Forgets this and wants to talk about things that still would bring the same result if it happened again.

I raised this issue at Germany as well, Double yellows are the exact same to a driver thats racing as a Yellow because at the end of the day they are not going to back off if there not forced to.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

What amazes me is the actual cause of the injury to Bianchi was hitting a Tractor

It was not caused by hitting the tractor. It was caused by rapid deceleration. Bianchi could have gone off behind the safety car with the same result.

 

[mustafur]

It was not caused by hitting the tractor. It was caused by rapid deceleration. Bianchi could have gone off behind the safety car with the same result.

if he hit a wall with Tyre Barriers like he would of done if wasn't there it definetely would of absorbed the speed in a safer manner.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

if he hit a wall with Tyre Barriers like he would of done if wasn't there it definetely would of absorbed the speed in a safer manner.

His injuries are common in road accidents. If you hit a tree at 60km/h, you can get a Diffuse Anoxal Injury. Tyre barriers would have absorbed the impact, but it wouldn't have done anything to protect him, because he still would have decelerated.

 

[mustafur]

Yes it would of, webber hit a Tyre Barrier at Valencia in 2010 going over 300km/h and he walked away from it unharmed.

A tractor is signficantly heavier then an F1 car and is not made to absorb hits a Tyre barrier is desgined to absorb impact is a massive difference.

Brundle has been calling for awhile to sort the outside crane situation which most F1 Tracks use to cellect cars these days anyway.

but either way the yellow situation still needs to be solved because stewards where put in way too much risk in Germany and here and where meters from instant death.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Yes it would of, webber hit a Tyre Barrier at Valencia in 2010 going over 300km/h and he walked away from it unharmed.

This kind of injury is not guaranteed in an impact. It is, however, caused by rapid deceleration. It doesn't matter what causes that deceleration. Even if the SAFER barrier catches and disperses the energy of the impact, it doesn't change the fact that the car was traveling at speed and then stopped in a short distance, and *that* is what causes DAI.

 

[Earth]

I dont know the math, but Im quite sure tire barriers and safer barriers reduce the deceleration Gs more then you'd expect. In NASCAR Ive seen drivers crush vertebra when striking an unprotected concrete wall, but others walk away from faster more brutal crashes into the safer barrier.

If you slow down a drop of water as it hits a pool of water you will notice the drop actually bounces before settling in the pool. A tire barrier likely wouldnt have stopped him as fast as a crane. Schumacker broke just a leg in a headon collision at Silverstone in older less safe pre hans device cars because he hit tires. If Bianchi wasnt going 140mph or some crazy fast speed tire barriers would have helped

Here is Jimmie Johnson crashing headon at at least 90mph before the hans devive, but he walks away thanks to the foam wall.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Reduce. Not eliminate.

 

[mustafur]

Reduce. Not eliminate.

Compare that to a Tractor that is about 10 Tonnes of solid metal and it is just like hitting a concreate wall.

Sure it doesn't eliminate but it takes more then 50% of the load off just from intial impact, hitting something soft always beats something hard.

This kind of injury is not guaranteed in an impact. It is, however, caused by rapid deceleration. It doesn't matter what causes that deceleration. Even if the SAFER barrier catches and disperses the energy of the impact, it doesn't change the fact that the car was traveling at speed and then stopped in a short distance, and *that* is what causes DAI.

If you watch the Webber incident you will see Webber bouncing back off that Tyre wall, that right there is crucial to allow the energy to escape and allow the momentum to continue to make sure there is no Sudden stop, in jules case he and his car took basically all of the energy of the crash, as the tractor absorbed very little to any of the incidents energy(being a heavy solid object with no flexability in its design to allow energy to be absorbed).

It's the Very Reason an Airbag is safer then no Airbag.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

How are you not understanding this? It's not about the energy being absorbed or dispersed - it's about the sudden, sharp deceleration. Webber got lucky. Bianchi didn't.

 

[mustafur]

How are you not understanding this? It's not about the energy being absorbed or dispersed - it's about the sudden, sharp deceleration. Webber got lucky. Bianchi didn't.

No he didn't, do you understand basic Physics?

the Tyre Barriers absorbed the impact then pushed him.back allowing the momentum to continue and removing the sudden stop.

even the soft impact without being pushed back allows significantly improved levela of Energy to be disapated, look at Kovalainens Spanish GP crash in 2008 for an example.

The amount of similar incidents in Nascar with Safer Barriers proving this point goes well beyond 20.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

the Tyre Barriers absorbed the impact then pushed him.back allowing the momentum to continue and removing the sudden stop.

Once again, it's not about absorbing the impact. The SAFER barrier simply redistributes the energy of the impact. It didn't change the fact that Webber was still subject to a short, sudden deceleration.

 

[mustafur]

Once again, it's not about absorbing the impact. The SAFER barrier simply redistributes the energy of the impact. It didn't change the fact that Webber was still subject to a short, sudden deceleration.

yes but it was signifcantly different then hitting a solid object with no flex.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

yes but it was signifcantly different then hitting a solid object with no flex.

And I'm not disputing that. What I am disputing is your original assertion that Bianchi's injuries were caused by hitting the tractor, and that a SAFER barrier would have guaranteed that he walked away. Webber and the NASCAR drivers hit the walls at an angle. Bianchi hit the armco head-on.

 

[mustafur]

And I'm not disputing that. What I am disputing is your original assertion that Bianchi's injuries were caused by hitting the tractor, and that a SAFER barrier would have guaranteed that he walked away. Webber and the NASCAR drivers hit the walls at an angle. Bianchi hit the armco head-on.

Kovalinen Hit a Tyre Barrier Head on at Similar speed and he didn't even bounce back and he only got a very minor injury, and raced the Next race.

every incident is different and there is chances of bad things happening in any type of incident, I never said he 100% would of been ok if he didn't hit the tractor, but its very much the reason he is injured now.



Edit: he actually hit the Tyre Barrier head on at 150mph(241km/h) which is quite a bit faster then Bianchi.

 

[Earth]

Im sure deceleration gforces work something like this: slow from 10mph to 0mph in 1 second = 1G. Slow from 100mph to 0mph in 1 sec = 10G or something similar. Slow from 100mph to 0mph in 2 secs = 5 Gs? Totally made up math but you get the point.

So if tires increased the amount of time it took him to reach 0 mph the G forces on his head would have been less.

So if he hit at 100mph and tire barriers increased the time it took for him to decelerate by a few tenths your looking at possibly removing considerable amounts of deceleration force

 

[prisonermonkeys]

But not necessarily enough to prevent DAI.

 

[mustafur]

But not necessarily enough to prevent DAI.

technically a fender bender could have a DAI result, but you couldn't possibly say that the vast majority of the risk of it happening wouldn't of gone from it.

 

[Earth]

But not necessarily enough to prevent DAI.

Im interested in how fast he hit. Could have been as slow as 60mph or as fast as 140mph who knows from the video.

 

[mustafur]

Im interested in how fast he hit. Could have been as slow as 60mph or as fast as 140mph who knows from the video.

213km/h(132mph)

 

[DQuaN]

213km/h(132mph)

Do you have a source for that?

 

[Jaywalker]

Do you have a source for that?

Here