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

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Razzzor

JW's accident was a freak accident and there was no way JW was going to slow down in time.

JW's accident was not such a freak, that is a total misapprehension!

The list:
Alan Stacey
Mike Spence
Helmut Koeinnig
Tom Pryce
Ayrton Senna
Henry Surtees
Massa's injury.

And now added

De Villota
Wheldon
Bianchi
Wilson
De Jong injured

How many other open wheel drivers have died of any cause other than serious head injury in this period?

The galling bit to me is everyone keeps calling it a freak and very rare!
It is neither a freak nor rare!

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by djinvicta

Motor racing is dangerous

Originally Posted by Razzzor

Ultimately, motorsports is and always will be dangerous.

We all get it. It is dangerous. But this cant be used as an excuse for not improving safety or allowing the status quo which is clearly showing a trend. As Razzzor also pointed out in a part of his post I didn't quote... Life is dangerous. It is a meaningless argument with respect to this problem.

Originally Posted by djinvicta

It will never stop, and by covering drivers entirely, is imprisoning them in a potential coffin if upside down.

I really do appreciate the very real concern about an upside down enclosed cockpit increasing difficulties of egress. I think the danger can be GREATLY reduced via appropriate technology, but some additional risk will always remain.

However I would say that there appears to be a much larger risk of injury due general cockpit intrusion than due to some type of scenario in which your egress is slowed. I could also create just as many hypothetical scenarios in which an existing open cockpit design is upside down and the driver can't get out. Car upside down up on a tire wall or some other barrier for example. Canopy or not you may have issues getting out. We should worry about the upside down scenario, but we should also not become obsessed with it to the point of inaction.

Originally Posted by djinvicta

Turning single seaters into enclosed cockpits and therefore basically making them WEC; well didn't a WEC driver die a year or two ago, one of the Aston Martin drivers.

I appreciate that you are pulling that info from memory, but that was a GT car and it was due to side impact of an immovable barrier. It had nothing to do with open or closed cockpit.

But to your point. Someone else can do the numbers, but given the endurance nature of prototype racing and the resulting number of miles, the closed cockpits in the prototypes have proven to be VERY safe. Additionally you can look to even more types of racing that have adopted this technology. Top Fuel dragster and various high speed boat series and it just works. By comparison open cockpit cars have a real safety issue with cockpit intrusion from a variety of items.

I hate to say this given how soon it is after Wilson's death. How many more must die?

Richard

[JeremySmith]

This is an excellent piece from Joe Saward on the subject ...

https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2015...y-engineering/

[Richard C]

I apologize for repeated posting on this. I will "try" give it a break for the rest of the day (time will tell if I can)

I read the Saward article, but am completely puzzled by his logic. I agree that knee-jerk is no the way to react but then he uses the following arguments...

1. Tire bounces off nose a car and hits someone in the crowd. Prior FIA testing shows that items bounce off canopies at unpredictable angles. Conclusion? Canopies are bad. Seriously? Using that argument and his example we should remove noses from cars? Frankly remove the cars entirely because objects will bounce off of them in unpredictable ways. Think of the children and puppies!

2. If canopies are made to come off the car to allow egress, then they might also fly off in an accident. It just makes things worse! Well... yes any number of parts can fly off in a collision. We tether wheels, why not include a canopy tether if that is a serious concern?

Lastly he uses the phrase "freak accident". I want to vomit every time someone uses that label. Someone please define "freak accident"? I think the implied definition is "unusual" our "out of the ordinary". That applies here?

Someone (not FIA) needs to do a study to look at actual accidents over some period (probably a few decades) and determine the rate of injury and death due to cockpit intrusion vs. all other causes of injury and death in open cockpit cars.

This is nothing more than sweeping it under the rug. My cynical prediction is that absolutely nothing will come of this. Or if it does it will be a band-aid solution that will not stop the trend. I really hope I am wrong.

Richard

[pirenzo]

I think Joe Saward was simply outlining everything that needs to be considered when deciding on how to solve this problem rather than offering his excuses for not wanting closed cockpits.

I find the argument that we'll blur the lines between WEC and F1 if we put a lid on them a bit spurious. An F1 car with a fighter jet canopy, or even a full on roof, will look nothing like a WEC car. If anything it'll look more unique; nobody confuses F3 cars with F1 cars on account of both having wings, or touring cars and GT cars on account of both having doors.

I also agree with wnut that these accidents are not rare. It is certainly not rare for cars to collect un-tethered wheels or large sections of bodywork. We're simply talking about narrowing the strike area to the exposed region around the driver's head. It's also not rare for debris to be ejected into spectator areas even as it is.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

At its crudest BJ, you could use two telescoping tubes about a meter long by 75mm 39" x 3") in diameter. On activation the one tube would slide out of the other forming a total length just shy of 2 meters. If the ram was run at 45 bar at full extension it would move a 2000kg object. It should easily to make the ram self contained with the reservoir in the smaller cylinder, this would mean that the reservoir is extremely well protected.
The car would have to be modified to accept a 75mm cylinder 1000mm upright behind the driver's seat.
Plus canopy.

Oxy acetylene set's oxygen cylinder runs at about 140 bar.

Thanks wnut but is there enough room behind the driver's seat?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

JW's accident was not such a freak, that is a total misapprehension!

The list:
Alan Stacey
Mike Spence
Helmut Koeinnig
Tom Pryce
Ayrton Senna
Henry Surtees
Massa's injury.

And now added

De Villota
Wheldon
Bianchi
Wilson
De Jong injured

How many other open wheel drivers have died of any cause other than serious head injury in this period?

The galling bit to me is everyone keeps calling it a freak and very rare!
It is neither a freak nor rare!

I don't think it is a misapprehension. If all these accidents were caused by the same thing, then yes. However, they weren't, each one was caused by its own separate set of circumstances.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I apologize for repeated posting on this. I will "try" give it a break for the rest of the day (time will tell if I can)

I read the Saward article, but am completely puzzled by his logic. I agree that knee-jerk is no the way to react but then he uses the following arguments...

1. Tire bounces off nose a car and hits someone in the crowd. Prior FIA testing shows that items bounce off canopies at unpredictable angles. Conclusion? Canopies are bad. Seriously? Using that argument and his example we should remove noses from cars? Frankly remove the cars entirely because objects will bounce off of them in unpredictable ways. Think of the children and puppies!

2. If canopies are made to come off the car to allow egress, then they might also fly off in an accident. It just makes things worse! Well... yes any number of parts can fly off in a collision. We tether wheels, why not include a canopy tether if that is a serious concern?

Lastly he uses the phrase "freak accident". I want to vomit every time someone uses that label. Someone please define "freak accident"? I think the implied definition is "unusual" our "out of the ordinary". That applies here?

Someone (not FIA) needs to do a study to look at actual accidents over some period (probably a few decades) and determine the rate of injury and death due to cockpit intrusion vs. all other causes of injury and death in open cockpit cars.

This is nothing more than sweeping it under the rug. My cynical prediction is that absolutely nothing will come of this. Or if it does it will be a band-aid solution that will not stop the trend. I really hope I am wrong.

Richard

I thought Joe Saward was pretty much spot on. He didn't actually say canopies were bad, he said: ''Perhaps they can stop intrusive objects… but perhaps they would also create even worse problems and further tragedies.'', which is a fair point, as we just don't know at this juncture. Obviously more work needs to be done.

According to Chambers 21st Century Dictionary there are 5 definitions of freak as a noun but the second is the relevant one, as is the adjective's definition. ''freak noun 2 someone or something odd or unusual.adj abnormal'' and this accident was unusual.

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I thought Joe Saward was pretty much spot on. He didn't actually say canopies were bad, he said: ''Perhaps they can stop intrusive objects… but perhaps they would also create even worse problems and further tragedies.'', which is a fair point, as we just don't know at this juncture. Obviously more work needs to be done.

According to Chambers 21st Century Dictionary there are 5 definitions of freak as a noun but the second is the relevant one, as is the adjective's definition. ''freak noun 2 someone or something odd or unusual.adj abnormal'' and this accident was unusual.

I also thought JS was pretty much on the money..In the case of Justin Wilson's shocking accident I believe that the entire nose cone of Sage Karam's car hit Justin in the face...

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

... and this accident was unusual.

My self imposed ban didn't last long.

I would agree that the various ways that these accidents happen may be rare and unusual (loose wheel, truck lift gate, loose spring, trackside crane, car debris) There is no single thread as to the "trigger". However the one common element is the "result" being cockpit intrusion which is not rare IMHO. Each accident is unique and has both cause and effects that need to be examined, but at some point critical mass is reached with respect to commonality and I think we are at that point now.

I also feel confident in my comments regarding Saward's blog post. He had three points that I can agree with. First is that knee jerk reactions is not appropriate (I mentioned that earlier), second is that tradition should not trump safety (see comment below) and lastly safety is a compromise.

But otherwise it was very much "stay the course" and anti-change. It replayed various worn out points of racing is dangerous, it will be hard to explain difference between F1 and prototypes (which is contrary to his prior comment about tradition), "freak accident", slippery slope (i.e. lets just ban racing), etc.

Massa has recovered. Senna is long dead. De Villota, Wheldon, Bianchi are yesterday's news and soon Wilson will sadly be as well. This thread will live on for a few pages, it may pop up again if FIA does some additional testing as there is something new on the technical side to discuss, but it will die back down and lastly it will always revive again as soon as someone else dies. Rinse and repeat. Sorry if my disgust shows.

(Crawling back under my rock now)

Richard

[chillibowl]

maybe this is more cynical but the teams will at some point have to respond themselves if for no other reason then to protect their shareholders' confidence, their investments (the drivers) and to mitigate the insurance premiums they have to carry and which no doubt go up after every incident.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

I've been looking over the web for what I see as possible and positive artwork and renderings which could show what an enclosed F1 car, or openwheel racing car would look like.

Whilst there are many things about the car in the link below that I'd change such as having the driver opening within the monocoq to be larger,and incorporate some of the side of the cockpit into the canopy, it is the nearest rendering that I've see to a genuinely raceable concept.

Link to 28 Pictures
Sourced from story in autoevolution

Now in comparison to a modern F1 car, there is no roll hoop, and the side pods are different but as a concept I think it's worth discussion .... Oh and in the all Black render at the end it's truly stunning.

[mikuni]

The approved solutions in Top Fuel look to have some merit. Obviously visibility needs to be considered because there is a big difference between TF and F1, but the visibility in F1 is not exactly great now. Mandating an enclosed cockpit along with some other visibility improvements like much larger wing mirrors for example, would surely go some way to improving the situation.

And that's just it, improving the situation. Let's look at all of the recent open wheel deaths. Frontal impact and rollover crashes are barely a danger now. It is mainly head impact, a car going over another or unusual heavy impact resulting in a violent spin (or similar). So, focusing on the highest risk which is head impact, let's at least roll something out and see how it goes. It's not like it will be mandated for ever. In F1 it wouldn't be out of the question to change the overall design annually for 3-5 years until they prove the concept. Indy and other open wheel would be slightly more difficult because a single body shape lasts for several years, but it is not completely out of the question.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I don't think it is a misapprehension. If all these accidents were caused by the same thing, then yes. However, they weren't, each one was caused by its own separate set of circumstances.

No you have a logic error here BJ, every one of these accidents caused by a different set of variables resulted in the same thing, fatal or serious head injury due to something entering the cockpit area!

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

My self imposed ban didn't last long.

I would agree that the various ways that these accidents happen may be rare and unusual (loose wheel, truck lift gate, loose spring, trackside crane, car debris) There is no single thread as to the "trigger". However the one common element is the "result" being cockpit intrusion which is not rare IMHO. Each accident is unique and has both cause and effects that need to be examined, but at some point critical mass is reached with respect to commonality and I think we are at that point now.

Oops, agreed as above!

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I also feel confident in my comments regarding Saward's blog post. He had three points that I can agree with. First is that knee jerk reactions is not appropriate (I mentioned that earlier), second is that tradition should not trump safety (see comment below) and lastly safety is a compromise.

Knee jerk? There has been banging on and investigation going on since 2011, 4 years ago but who is counting!

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

it will be hard to explain difference between F1 and prototypes (which is contrary to his prior comment about tradition),

Prototypes seem to have forgotten what they are too, I thought the basic definition of a sports prototype was that it was meant to suit 2 people!
When did this category become single seat?

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

"freak accident", slippery slope (i.e. lets just ban racing), etc.

Massa has recovered. Senna is long dead. De Villota, Wheldon, Bianchi are yesterday's news and soon Wilson will sadly be as well. This thread will live on for a few pages, it may pop up again if FIA does some additional testing as there is something new on the technical side to discuss, but it will die back down and lastly it will always revive again as soon as someone else dies. Rinse and repeat. Sorry if my disgust shows.

(Crawling back under my rock now)

Richard

Couldn't agree more, this stupid attitude to safety and change from people who should know better is just NAUSEATING!

c.f. Vettel and his problems with Pirelli!

[wnut]

Originally Posted by ScotsBrutesFan

I've been looking over the web for what I see as possible and positive artwork and renderings which could show what an enclosed F1 car, or openwheel racing car would look like.

Whilst there are many things about the car in the link below that I'd change such as having the driver opening within the monocoq to be larger,and incorporate some of the side of the cockpit into the canopy, it is the nearest rendering that I've see to a genuinely raceable concept.

Link to 28 Pictures
Sourced from story in autoevolution

Now in comparison to a modern F1 car, there is no roll hoop, and the side pods are different but as a concept I think it's worth discussion .... Oh and in the all Black render at the end it's truly stunning.

Much prettier and more logical looking than the current crop of uglies!

[canamman]

Originally Posted by ScotsBrutesFan

Link to 28 Pictures
Sourced from story in autoevolution

Now in comparison to a modern F1 car, there is no roll hoop, and the side pods are different but as a concept I think it's worth discussion .... Oh and in the all Black render at the end it's truly stunning.

I would be good with that.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

No you have a logic error here BJ, every one of these accidents caused by a different set of variables resulted in the same thing, fatal or serious head injury due to something entering the cockpit area!

No logic error here wnut. You're talking about the outcome, from a set of variables, I'm talking about the cause of those variables. The result was the same but the cause was different.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

No logic error here wnut. You're talking about the outcome, from a set of variables, I'm talking about the cause of those variables. The result was the same but the cause was different.

So if a number of circumstance lead to the same result, head injury, surely you must protect against the head injury?
Sprint car roll cages, there are a bunch of ways a sprint car can end up upside down, but the cage at least tries to protect the driver from that eventuality!

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

So if a number of circumstance lead to the same result, head injury, surely you must protect against the head injury?
Sprint car roll cages, there are a bunch of ways a sprint car can end up upside down, but the cage at least tries to protect the driver from that eventuality!

Not wanting to be glib but that's what's being looked into, whether it's canopies, roll cages or something like Mercedes have come up with.

I think though it's time for the FIA or whoever to stop talking and get on with some meaningful, practical testing. Put a canopy or a roll cage on an open wheel car, stick it in a wind tunnel with a crash test dummy in the cockpit and throw bits of carbon fibre at it. Let's see how easy it is for a driver to get out of a stationary car, with one of these devices on it.

[wolfhound]

Lets not forget there have been more non driver deaths in F1 than drivers in the last 20 years. I can think of at least 3 marshals who have died at F1 races in that time.

[Keycube]

I could see a combination of canopy and that weird Piola "halo" concept making sense; though the halo in this case would more or less be a reinforcing member affixed to the full horizontal length of the canopy in the same vertical plane as the conceptual halo, with perhaps a single or twin "A-pillar" spar extending down from it, reinforcing the frontal area of the canopy down to the body.

You could have the extra halo mass to deflect impacts from larger objects (tires), and still have full coverage (and less unsupported area due to the halo) for smaller, lighter objects (pieces of bodywork); this way you could likely get the weight of the canopy way down (I read where a F-16 canopy weighs about 125 pounds; while this would be inherently smaller, we still need to keep it as light as possible in an emergency evacuation situation, eh).

[Adam43]

Before anyone misunderstands this I make no point about whether something should, or should not, be done in this post.

However I talk about probability and the understanding of that.

It is a rare event. It is fair to say so. How many races, laps, miles are covered without this kind of issue.

That is not the point, but misunderstanding over what people are trying to say is clouding any discussion. Or even worse an easy point is made to try and discredit another's view. Might as well read the Daily Mail.

The issue is whether it is rare enough and whether it can be made even more unlikely. It is fair to say it is still too common and worth making rarer.

[F1Pete]

I didn't read back far enough to see if anyone has posted this already...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/formul...rcedes-6356411

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by F1Pete

I didn't read back far enough to see if anyone has posted this already...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/formul...rcedes-6356411

The Autosport coverage is a little less Tabloid''.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/34089253