Jules Bianchi passes away following accident at 2014 Formula 1 Japanese Grand Prix

  • Thread starter Thread starter Blitz24
  • 1,602 comments
  • 113,448 views
GOTMAXPOWER
I don't see how a cockpit would've helped Jules in this crash. If the tractor was solid enough to tear off the whole rollhoop and everything behind that point a canopy would also be removed fairly easily. Where the canopy would be useful is when wheels come lose and are left bouncing on the circuit like in Henry Surtees' crash.
Click to expand...
Fryto
I'm actually not so sure if a closed cockpit would prevent drivers from getting seriously injured in an accident like that. If you see how the roll hoop got destroyed by the impact, I suppose the same would happen to a canopy structure.

It's like these accidents where regular cars get stuck underneath a truck. It doesn't really matter in these cases for the unfortunate driver of the car whether he has a roof or not. It gets totalled anyway.

Canopies are more useful for preventing debris or car parts to directly hit the driver's head, but if it's up against a dozer like that, I'm not so sure...

Maybe crash cushions on tractors/lifts/dozers can help? (Would look silly, but who cares?)

Edit: Partly tree'd by Gotmaxpower & jimipitbull ;)
Click to expand...

The Unlimited Hydroplane series is a good example of how effective an enclosed canopy can be, with approximately 3,000hp and capable of 200mph on water they are subjected to huge stresses in the event of a crash. I know Bianchi's accident is different yet I can't help but think it would have helped a lot if F1 had them.

Driver safety is paramount in the design and operation of an Unlimited, so the boats have a number of systems designed to keep the driver safe in the case of an accident. The fully enclosed cockpit is the primary safety feature, incorporating a full interior roll cage that is bonded to the cockpit shell to maintain the integrity of the driver area. The windows are cut from the canopy of F-16 fighter jets, giving the driver ultimate protection, yet allowing him to see clearly. Five point quick-release harnesses are used to keep the driver strapped into the seat and an escape hatch is built into the floor of the cockpit to allow the driver to escape if the hydroplane flips and lands upside down. Every driver is required to wear a certified helmet and a HANS device for head and neck protection. He also wears a mask that incorporates an on-board air supply that allows him to breathe in case the cockpit fills with water, but also lets him communicate via the onboard radio. A “Rotor Burst protection System” (RBPS) is in place around the “hot end” of the engine to contain the fragments in case of a catastrophic failure of the turbine’s power rotor.
Click to expand...
http://www.h1unlimited.com/hydros-101/

In 34 years of open cockpits for the hydroplanes, 14 drivers were killed. In the 26 years since enclosed canopies were added, only one driver has lost his life in a hydroplane event (George Stratton in San Diego 11 years ago).
Click to expand...
http://espn.go.com/racing/indycar/s...-solutions-prevent-another-death-dan-wheldons

villwock_doha_2010.jpg
 
It may have helped in this case. It certainly wouldn't have helped in any of the cases of fires in and around the driver's seat. With open cockpits as they are now, you're left open to the incredibly rare head injury every now and then, but with closed cockpits if there's a fire (which are much more common), drivers are put at a much larger risk.
 
The only thing a closed cockpit will prevent is things like debris hitting the driver like that alonso incident a while back.
 
Tesla
It may have helped in this case. It certainly wouldn't have helped in any of the cases of fires in and around the driver's seat. With open cockpits as they are now, you're left open to the incredibly rare head injury every now and then, but with closed cockpits if there's a fire (which are much more common), drivers are put at a much larger risk.
Click to expand...
That has also been addressed.

Fire is another concern for IndyCar, but Cole doesn't see that as a problem.

"The canopies have a hatch that easily lets someone in or out," Cole said. "In case of a fire, you just hit a switch to douse a fire."
Click to expand...
From the Indy car article linked above.
 
What if the switch is broken or a part of the hatch is so it doesn't open properly in a fire? They need screens around the cockpit but with an open top.
 
And what if a driver is in a situation like Bianchi's - in dire need of medical attention, but trapped in the car because the canopy has jammed?

Every time an accident like this happens, there is a knee-jerk reaction calling for canopies as a one-size-fits-all solution to an accident filled with a multitude of variables. It won't work.
 
Peasantslayer
What if the switch is broken or a part of the hatch is so it doesn't open properly in a fire? They need screens around the cockpit but with an open top.
Click to expand...

prisonermonkeys
And what if a driver is in a situation like Bianchi's - in dire need of medical attention, but trapped in the car because the canopy has jammed?

Every time an accident like this happens, there is a knee-jerk reaction calling for canopies as a one-size-fits-all solution to an accident filled with a multitude of variables. It won't work.
Click to expand...

Both valid points, but something like this couldn't be rushed in and would need to fit the requirements of F1 racing. Lots of time would be needed for designing, engineering and testing.

I've just stumbled on a BBC article from July 2011, about FIA testing a Fighter Jet canopy. So maybe they have similar concerns or different ones, but I'm glad to know they have and likely will keep looking into all safety improvements for the future of F1.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/14199629
 
It's not an improvement. For every one driver it saves, like Massa, Bianchi or Henry Surtees, it will needlessly jeopardise half a dozen others. Bianchi's accident was just that: an accident. It was the product of a dozen infinitely-complex variables - his speed, the angle at which he left the circuit, the position of the tractor - and if just one was changed by half a percentage point, the outcome would have been radically different. It is a testament to safety standards that no-one has died in twenty years, but no matter how hard you try, you cannot eliminate the safety risks. Chasing after the idea that a closed canopy is viable is slacktivism, like the Ice Bucket Challenge: a foolish token gesture that made proponents feel like they had achieved something when they did nothing at all.
 
Adrian Newey once told me (oooh, get you!) that closed cockpits aren't a problem for F1 - they're a problem for GP3. F1 teams can absorb the quarter-million cost of one of these canopies, but the tech has to filter down to lower tiers to provide the same safety standards - after all, closed cockpit F1 cars wouldn't have saved Henry Surtees - and the teams at that level just can't afford it.
 
tribolik
thumb.php
Click to expand...
I'm curious - where, exactly, does the engine go? I don't think anyone was able to answer that question the last time someone got carried away with "safety".
 
Agreed with @Famine there, Ideally such an invention would be some form of capsule the driver would be installed in, then have the capsule installed into the car, thus protecting the driver in the event of fire, and in the event of a horror crash, the ability to extract the entire capsule from the wreckage with the driver in it, allowing any medical team to work on him immediately safely,

Though as @Famine said quoting Adrian Newey, not only would the lower Formula' be able to afford it, I highly doubt the 3 teams in the lower end of the grid be able to afford the modifications,
 
prisonermonkeys
It's not an improvement. For every one driver it saves, like Massa, Bianchi or Henry Surtees, it will needlessly jeopardise half a dozen others. Bianchi's accident was just that: an accident. It was the product of a dozen infinitely-complex variables - his speed, the angle at which he left the circuit, the position of the tractor - and if just one was changed by half a percentage point, the outcome would have been radically different. It is a testament to safety standards that no-one has died in twenty years, but no matter how hard you try, you cannot eliminate the safety risks. Chasing after the idea that a closed canopy is viable is slacktivism, like the Ice Bucket Challenge: a foolish token gesture that made proponents feel like they had achieved something when they did nothing at all.
Click to expand...
So they should be content with the current safety standards, and not look into possible safety improvements? I don't think that's what you were trying to say, but that's kinda how I read it.
As for the Ice Challenge, those who refused and simply made the donation, are probably doing more than those who tip a bit water over themselves, but that's a different discussion entirely.

prisonermonkeys
I'm curious - where, exactly, does the engine go? I don't think anyone was able to answer that question the last time someone got carried away with "safety".
Click to expand...
In the back, same place it's been for years. The engine and transmission are surprisingly tiny, packaging in all the various systems wouldn't be anymore of a challenge than they already face.
 
Surely the issue here is the use of an inappropriate vehicle to recover a stranded racecar, not whether the cockpit is open or not.

Only a crane should've been used to lift Sutils' car on that part of the track

Dunlop being a gradient section that's susceptible to 'rivers' running down track and a fast, 'on the limit' part of the sector.

An enclosed cockpit wouldn't have much chance of staying intact with 50g of deceleration imo.

Ban JCB and Manitou from car recovery duties.
 
prisonermonkeys
I'm curious - where, exactly, does the engine go? I don't think anyone was able to answer that question the last time someone got carried away with "safety".
Click to expand...

Im betting the engine goes in the same place as before.

Grayfox
The profile on them tires, is horrid for F1 racing, they wont be able to take the G forces.
Click to expand...

1404894562.jpg


Pretty close to what Lotus tested earlier...
 
numbnuts70
Dunlop being a gradient section that's susceptible to 'rivers' running down track and a fast, 'on the limit' part of the sector.
Click to expand...
You do realise that a crane was used for precisely this reason, right? Between the gradient and the soft terrain, a tractor can go where a crane cannot.

The circuit was under double-waved yellows at the time. They're standard any time marshals and recovery equipment are deployed, and they mean "slow down and prepare to stop if need be".
 
An unfortunate set of chance circumstances doesn't require a knee-jerk reaction to fix something that's not broken.
 
I can't help but imagine scenarios where drivers would struggle to escape from a closed cockpit if the car is upside down especially if it's leaning against something, or medics trying to get to a seriously injured driver who has flipped over.
 
prisonermonkeys
The circuit was under double-waved yellows at the time. They're standard any time marshals and recovery equipment are deployed, and they mean "slow down and prepare to stop if need be".
Click to expand...

I think it ought to be this that changes. As mentioned, closed canopies are difficult to implement and tractors / cranes are needed to remove the larger danger (a stranded car is still not pleasant to crash into).

The problem with double yellows is that the race is still very much in effect, much like the early stages of a safety car period where everyone is "rushing" to pit or beat those drivers when they are not stopping. They have a delta time and will be sure to race up to that imposed limit until they are in the chain. Under yellow flags, the drivers and teams only have to show evidence of lifting off and slowing down, but there is no real statement on by how much.

Someone already mentioned imposing a speed limit through yellow flag zones, something that could easily be monitored and controlled using a setting like the pit lane limiter. I'm sure it won't happen though, as drivers will argue that tyre temperatures would drop dangerously too low...
 
I'm putting this as a question for a reason, because I'm not really sure:

Wasn't it a case where both Sutil and Bianchi were on Inters and they got 'caught on the hop' when the rain came down extra hard?

Perhaps the Inters, could be made to be closer to the rain tyre and not sort of in the middle, so that they've got more grip when the track gets suddenly wetter.

Because the other situation: where the track starts to dry, that's more of a predictable & gradual process. Which is safer, not going to catch you out.

Just another idea.
 
prisonermonkeys
The circuit was under double-waved yellows at the time. They're standard any time marshals and recovery equipment are deployed, and they mean "slow down and prepare to stop if need be".
Click to expand...
Was the entire circuit under double-waved yellows, or only that turn?

I would imagine that if NASCAR was sanctioning the event and not FIA, that a full-course caution, with pace car, would be implemented.
 
Mic_Col
Wasn't it a case where both Sutil and Bianchi were on Inters and they got 'caught on the hop' when the rain came down extra hard?

Perhaps the Inters, could be made to be closer to the rain tyre and not sort of in the middle, so that they've got more grip when the track gets suddenly wetter.
Click to expand...

They were both on inters, but most of the drivers still were at that point. Only the McLaren and Caterham drivers, plus Pastor Maldonado were on full wet tyres when Bianchi went off. Bianchi's inters were 17 laps old though by that stage, which I would say is why he crashed once the rain picked up.

We rarely get to see the full wet tyre put to use for more than a handful of laps. I think the FIA and Pirelli need to better define the wet tyre compounds as it would appear that something ought to change, both for safety and for strategy in mixed conditions.
 
I heard during the telecast the Intermediate tyres can displace 25 litres of water per second, and the full wets displace 65 litres per second, which sounds like a considerable difference. Once the tyre is faced with more water than can be displaced then little to none of the tyre touches the road surface and aquaplaning occurs.
 
pezzarinho17
They were both on inters, but most of the drivers still were at that point. Only the McLaren and Caterham drivers, plus Pastor Maldonado were on full wet tyres when Bianchi went off. Bianchi's inters were 17 laps old though by that stage, which I would say is why he crashed once the rain picked up.

We rarely get to see the full wet tyre put to use for more than a handful of laps. I think the FIA and Pirelli need to better define the wet tyre compounds as it would appear that something ought to change, both for safety and for strategy in mixed conditions.
Click to expand...

They did say that you can pretty much do the whole race on wets.

So are the wets are hard compound?

How would a softer wet compount act?
 
Grayfox
They did say that you can pretty much do the whole race on wets.

So are the wets are hard compound?

How would a softer wet compount act?
Click to expand...

Potentially it'd tear itself apart. The rubber needs to be stiff enough for the "islands" of the tread to remain attached under load.

I don't know to what extent the tyre compound is determined by physical necessity and how much is simply them wanting a slower tyre though, it's possible that they have room to soften them up a bit.
 
The problem with the rain tyres as they stand is that they are too good at dispersing water. If the conditions are bad enough that the inters cant cope, there is either too much spray from the full wets or there are rivers on the track. Apparently Massa wanted the race stopped 5 laps before Sutil went off - when everyone was still on inters.

I think the idea of remotely limiting the engine in double waved yellows areas has merit. In this case, maybe from the exit of the right before Dunlop. Would obviously need careful thought as to implementation though. The fact remains that Bianchi went too fast into a caution area.
 
Grayfox
They did say that you can pretty much do the whole race on wets.

So are the wets are hard compound?

How would a softer wet compount act?
Click to expand...

We wouldn't see it realistically though, as they get very badly worn once the track dries out even partially. Same for the intermediates, they will last longer in the wet conditions but will deteriorate once track dries up. Bianchi's inters had lasted a good chunk of that dry period where the tread block would have been worn away, reducing their true wet weather performance.

Not sure what the compounds hardness are relative to one another, and the dry tyres. Soft tyres will offer more grip, but as @Imari states they need to maintain a certain amount of stiffness so as not to shed tread blocks. The tread pattern and depth will have more effect on the grip levels though regardless.
 
Back