[Tech Issue] Closed cockpits- Closer to reality then we might think?

[Mike Harte]

Fire and fumes in enclosed cars is an absolute red herring. Enclosed cars have been racing since the dawn of time; well, since almost the start of motor racing, and I am not aware that fire has been more deadly in cars with roofs on than those that are open.

[djinvicta]

Well a lot more died years ago, open or closed cockpits than recently. And you've a better chance of getting out of an open cockpit on fire than a closed one in most circumstances. My point, and I'm annoyed at unthoughtful comments on here, whatever "safety" is put in place its still a very very dangerous sport, and in F1 they know that. You could cocoon them in a "black box", something would still kill someone at some point. It's sad, but true.

[Casper]

There were most probably these same arguments when they covered in cockpits of planes. Of course the danger still exists with or without a cover but it seems that some prominent drivers now think it is a good idea.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by djinvicta

And I dont agree it needs to be a superstar. I rated JB as a superstar, a life. a human, anyone that does this sport has my admiration. Changes have been made since JB's collision..
I'm sure his Family and Team and all in F1 rated him, a superstar.

To be clear, I didn't want to downplay Bianchi's death at all. In fact, my cynical point is that is shameful that his life was not enough and that more have to die or be injured for serious change to happen. I know some changes have happened due to his death, but frankly it has been minimal and mostly things that are easy to implement but ultimately not likely to make a large difference. Also... many will argue (maybe right, maybe wrong) that a closed cockpit would not have helped him. I am firmly of the opinion that it "might" have helped and would not have hurt. We will never know because his car wasn't equipped that way. And so will be the next death in F1 that involves cockpit intrusion.

To your (and many others who have posted similarly) point about the danger. It is absolutely dangerous. The problem can't be "solved", but it can continue to be minimized. There is a balance between effort spent and the reward. So enclosing everyone in large bubbles and slowing the cars a few KPH is too much. Where the sweetspot is will take effort to find, but I am confident we are on the wrong side of it right now.

Lastly my point about harness straps latch jamming. It was just to make the point that the list of potential problems or things that can go wrong to undermine safety features is endless and that you can pick any solution (open or closed cockpit) and create many "what if" scenarios to create FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt).

Overall, I suspect we mostly agree on this topic?

In general I am going to likely sign out on this thread again until some real development happens. Hopefully that development is real discussion by the teams and FIA to make changes and it NOT being triggered by another death or maiming.

Richard

[wnut]

I posted this in the Historic forum in their HANS debate; which has interesting parallels to F1 closed cockpits; but covers the types of injuries suffered in accidents. So, for those, like me, who don't read every forum:


http://blog.parathyroid.com/race-car...racing-deaths/

[bjohnsonsmith]

I thought Sainz crash would bring the debate on closed cockpits back to the fore but this is quite an interesting take, in the wake of Sainz crash and it's to with the car's nose.

http://plus.autosport.com/premium/fe...580.1443053678

[wnut]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I thought Sainz crash would bring the debate on closed cockpits back to the fore but this is quite an interesting take, in the wake of Sainz crash and it's to with the car's nose.

http://plus.autosport.com/premium/fe...580.1443053678

I can't access the article BJ, but if they think that the nose submarining under the barrier is their only worry, they are mistaken when you look at the damage on the bodywork in front of the cockpit, Sainz came perilously close to copping something extremely heavy in the face.

There were predictions that the low noses would be more dangerous because the cars would submarine under one another, apparently the barriers too.

Care to provide a summary of the pertinent points?

[Adam43]

Points
1. Submarining under a barrier is not their only worry.
2. Open cockpits need looking at, but don't ignore everything else
3. Low noses are a concern
4. These help with some accidents, but not others
5. Front and rear crash structures should be the same height

Who wanted these low noses anyway?

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Points
1. Submarining under a barrier is not their only worry.
2. Open cockpits need looking at, but don't ignore everything else
3. Low noses are a concern
4. These help with some accidents, but not others
5. Front and rear crash structures should be the same height

Who wanted these low noses anyway?

The FIA introduced them:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/108357

Supposedly because it was dangerous if cars T-boned one another.


Newey foreshadowed the problems of submarining:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/201...se-f1-red-bull

And who was right as usual?


Shows why the FIA should not be in control of the regulations I guess.

[dsg]

Lets not forget all the fans wanting to get rid of the ugly high noses and front wings and progressing the sport back to 1983.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by dsg

Lets not forget all the fans wanting to get rid of the ugly high noses and front wings and progressing the sport back to 1983.

In fairness the ugly noses only came in when the FIA got a B in there collective bonnets and forced the noses down on safety grounds and did not look at how the teams would interpret the rule, and we ended up with the really ugly bumps.

[Casper]

Put in a rule that the floor of the car from the front to under the drivers seat be flat, that'll sort them out and let's see how their wings work then. The cars look like a cartoonist worst caricature after a night on the booze.

[YorkshireLad]

Why don't they bolt the bottoms of the barriers down? The plastic barriers will still absorb energy, bend under pressure but remove a chance of the cars submarining.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

The impact point in crashes tends to be low on the techpro, even more so when there is a wheel off or suspension damage.

The techpro is designed to move as part of the absorption of energy. Bolting it down defeats the purpose.

[bjohnsonsmith]

The FIA are going to test three different cockpit safety ideas.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/121489

[wnut]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

The FIA are going to test three different cockpit safety ideas.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/121489

"Of course, if you just look at flying objects then a canopy would still be the best solution - I prefer that - but then you have other issues to deal with such as fast extraction, fire

This seems to be the preferred solution to my way of thinking, and WEC cars have had canopies for years.

But I really hope that this is not just an excuse to do nothing:

"We're not talking about anything that will be here next year."

"We have to be 100 per cent sure the solutions are safe and bring things forward."


Let the teams have a choice of which system the wish to run and make them submit it for testing.
Pretty sure the canopy will win pretty quickly on aero efficiency.

[wnut]

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/th...ed-next-month/

[Casper]

Originally Posted by wnut

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/th...ed-next-month/

That is saying the closed cockpit is off the agenda and only open bar type structures/deflectors are to be tested.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Casper

That is saying the closed cockpit is off the agenda and only open bar type structures/deflectors are to be tested.

I thought , and decided not to say anything for a change!


There has to be some irony about promoting yourself as the cutting edge of technology and finding bolting scaffolding onto the top of the monocoque acceptable for safety.

Still it is better than using your driver's head I suppose.

[Casper]

I guess they are trying to prolong the open cockpit concept, old ideas die hard when old people are involved. Bars and Scaffolding are going to add blind spots to a cockpit that is already incredibly hard to see out of now. We as spectators generally do not realize how little all round vision an open wheel driver has and would be astounded if we had to try it for ourselves.

[Adam43]

Am I going mad? The Autosport article and the Motorsport.com article are the same?

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Am I going mad? The Autosport article and the Motorsport.com article are the same?

Except for this from Alex Wurz:

"Of course, if you just look at flying objects then a canopy would still be the best solution - I prefer that ..."

However the Motorsport article confirms that the FIA is only testing the less preferred options!

[Adam43]

Oh, OK I thought it was an update. Looking again they have the same publication date!

[bjohnsonsmith]

Just when everyone thought it had all gone quiet.

Todt wants safety guarantees.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/122526

[BSchneiderFan]

I'm desperately conflicted on this one. Instinctively, I don't like the idea of cockpit canopies and think that formula cars should be open-topped. But then there's the safety argument, which, I suppose, has to trump everything else.