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

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Purist

BJS, people still can't seem to remember which series runs what type of cars.

SBF, I'm not sure which is worse, having a confused identity, or none at all.

Do most F1 fans even particularly know what cars from other series look like?

(The problem with letting go of an existing definition for something is, you lose the meaning, impact, and value that went with it.)

In the case of the most casual motorsport's fan, that's probably true. However, in the case of most F1 fans not knowing what cars from other series look like, I think again they would either have to be very casual F1 fans or completely oblivious to other motorsports series outside of F1.

[Kempi]

If they cannot remember how cars in different series look like, does it matter if a car has a specific series look? Likely not.

Therefore we can leave those that do not know anyways put of the discussions. Those that have a slight resemblence will always be able to tell the difference between open wheel and prototype.

[Akrapovic]

So we're not going to stick canopies on cars because someone who isn't that interested in motorsport may get it mixed up with something that looks completely different?

What kind of ridiculous madness is this?

[ScotsBrutesFan]

This is the chance for F1 to re-identify itself as being the first open wheel series to have the full cockpit canopy.

Others will no doubt follow, being the first would put F1 at the pinnacle of open wheelers.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Purist

Except, they aren't death traps anymore, and I'm not asking for F1 to go back to the '60s. Purely on safety grounds, I'd rather be in one of today's cars on a 1960s circuit than in a 1960s car on one of today's circuits. (Admittedly, I preferred Spa, in some ways, in the '80s compared to what I see now. I wish I did NOT NEED to see the chase helicopter shot of Blanchimont to get the best possible sense of speed through that section.)

You are trying to have it both ways. On one hand you really do play the "don't drive the car if it's too risky" and on the other you reverse course. Which is it?

Originally Posted by Purist

My reference to football helmets was to point out that increasing the participants' sense of invulnerability has negative, unintended consequences. It can lead to them taking risks that they previously thought were unacceptable, and that are STILL stupid risks to be taking, regardless.

So take it a step further and explain how this relates to F1. I think you are clearly saying that improvements to safety may cause more risk taking. I wouldn't argue with that. But are you saying that by adding more safety features you are actually increasing the risk of injury? Is there currently too many safety devices in F1? If I am off base, then why even bring up your point?

Originally Posted by Purist

I simply don't see cockpit intrusions that cause injury or death as a frequent enough occurrence to justify this response.

I didn't include all of your quote after the above so you clearly follow the sport as you list a number of accidents (some older so not particularly relevant) but you are aware of more recent such as Bianchi. It appears you are more comfortable with the level of death and injuries than most. Sort of a "tax" that must be paid for fan entertainment? And that any additional safety improvements would be an unacceptable detrimental to the fan experience? Such as a change to your perception of the historic look of the car and what you feel are the characteristics of the car that defines F1?

Originally Posted by Purist

As annoying as the aesthetics are, I think I'm MORE bothered by the apparant "quick fix" attitude of this.

I don't want to completely hammer your opinions, but I can somewhat agree in that the process has an air of inevitability. We may get something we both don't like. You are not happy with any new cockpit intrusion protection while I feel like certain items (fully closed cockpit) were clearly privately off the table. The fact that nobody has researched or tested such a solution speaks volumes. It will be some version of the two that we have seen so far.

Originally Posted by Purist

BEFORE we mess with the cars, and maybe make something else a bigger problem than it is now, why aren't we actually tackling driving standards to eliminate the SOURCE of so many of the accidents that occur in the first place? If there is NO accident to begin with, there can't be an accident involving head trauma.

I can only say... "Wow". Sure the drivers have a hand in a percentage of these. But to really make it the responsibility of the drivers to fix this... I can't even imagine. You seem to be very concerned about the impact to the historic nature of the sport, what do you expect will happen to the quality of the racing if they try a driver first approach to this? It can really only be done by draconian enforcement of driving standards. They will change only if there are consequences and likely... they still will take risks that cause accidents. But if they do follow the rules, it will likely result in any "risk" to overtake, etc. will be stamped out or severely reduced. Talk about parade racing!

Richard

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

So take it a step further and explain how this relates to F1. I think you are clearly saying that improvements to safety may cause more risk taking. I wouldn't argue with that. But are you saying that by adding more safety features you are actually increasing the risk of injury? Is there currently too many safety devices in F1? If I am off base, then why even bring up your point?

just looking at he american football analogy...there actually is a growing (and possibly correct) movement within the football community thinking along the lines of removing the current helmets and reverting back to an older style head protection. essentially as Purist said that sometimes the pursuit of safety does lead to unintended consequences and as a larger point i think Purist's concern is valid.

but does that scenario play out with closed canopies though?

hard to say as the most obvious unintended consequence would be a decrease in visibility and for my part i feel those concerns have been answered. long term issues are of course harder to anticipate.

going back to the football/helmet analogy...what may be more relevant imo is that that the prevalence of 'safety' equipment has turned out a generation of players who lack proper tackling/hitting techniques and instead of wrapping up an opposing players legs (like they do in rugby) kids lead with their heads with the belief the equipment will keep them safe. these tendencies continue up into the professional rankings and ultimately we are seeing more head injuries.

rather, the safer gear has in football encouraged poorer technique and as the league scrambles to rectify the situation with an ever growing rule book...those same rules have, according to many, ruined the flow and nature of the game...which is of course an issue (too many rules) many of us already have with F1.

now the problem isnt so much about the equipment but its become about how do you change a culture that starts from the first time a kid puts on the pads?...which again imo is an issue that that can be applied to F1 and motorsports and driving standards... i feel as though Purist's logic flows quite correctly in this direction.

this then necessitates the question, if closed cockpits are truly about safety then why does F1 require a bespoke solution when they (being the highest earning category) should be looking for a system that works for all levels of the sport.

the solution, if it is truly about safety, should be practical, simple and cheap enough (HANS device for example) that it can be applied to the first open wheel car and kid gets into. closed jet fighter style canopies certainly is not that.

the problem with F1 technology filtering down is that it will be very expensive but if this technology is safer it should be mandatory right?

so if a full canopy becomes a mandated piece of equipment how many will even have the funds required to get involved in the first place let alone reach the level of F1?

speaking hypothetically, in addition to a possible degradation in driving standards (as per the football analogy) we might also see a decrease in participation moving forward.

no easy answers here but i do feel Purist's point does resonate with me on several levels.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

just looking at he american football analogy...there actually is a growing (and possibly correct) movement within the football community thinking along the lines of removing the current helmets and reverting back to an older style head protection. essentially as Purist said that sometimes the pursuit of safety does lead to unintended consequences and as a larger point i think Purist's concern is valid.

Its easy to argue that any change can lead to unintended consequences... because it is true. But that should not be a roadblock. And I really can't speak to what is going on with respect to American football helmet design. A quick Google search shows a new design that has a soft outer shell which might harken back to padded leather helmets from over a half century ago, but in no way are they moving back to an older design. It just looks like an improvement based upon what we have learned since the adoption of the hard shell helmet. They didn't "get it right" with the old leather helmets. As to Purist's concern, only he can say, but in context of everything he has said over a multitude of posts, I don't feel his concern is primarily unintended consequences from a safety perspective, but rather just a general unhappiness with respect to how it will impact the look and (his) perception of the what F1 is. The unintended consequences topic (and many others), IMHO, is just a method to sow FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt), vs using them as legitimate concerns to keep in mind while finding a solution.

Originally Posted by chillibowl

but does that scenario play out with closed canopies though?

hard to say as the most obvious unintended consequence would be a decrease in visibility and for my part i feel those concerns have been answered. long term issues are of course harder to anticipate.

There will clearly be tradeoffs. At the moment the tradeoff is driver death and injury. A change in visibility might be part of whatever they select, but that hasn't stopped designers from putting drivers as deep and as low in the monocoque as they can, plus things like the cushion insert around the perimeter of the cockpit. All of which hurt visibility. Generally the problem has been knowing who is beside you or how close they are, yet there has been no improvements to aid the driver in this area, so based upon everyone inaction, it must not be a priority. There is even the potential that the driver could actually get better visibility if they were to choose to have them sit slightly more upright (which has other benefits such as likely reduction of spinal injuries) in a closed cockpit.

Originally Posted by chillibowl

going back to the football/helmet analogy...what may be more relevant imo is that that the prevalence of 'safety' equipment has turned out a generation of players who lack proper tackling/hitting techniques and instead of wrapping up an opposing players legs (like they do in rugby) kids lead with their heads with the belief the equipment will keep them safe. these tendencies continue up into the professional rankings and ultimately we are seeing more head injuries.

rather, the safer gear has in football encouraged poorer technique and as the league scrambles to rectify the situation with an ever growing rule book...those same rules have, according to many, ruined the flow and nature of the game...which is of course an issue (too many rules) many of us already have with F1.

now the problem isnt so much about the equipment but its become about how do you change a culture that starts from the first time a kid puts on the pads?...which again imo is an issue that that can be applied to F1 and motorsports and driving standards... i feel as though Purist's logic flows quite correctly in this direction.

Well argued, but I generally don't agree. Its hard to compare the lack of proper instruction to football players to driving standards. The key is that in one scenario (football) the "standards" were wrong, and instructed to the new players by the "experts". While in the second (driving), we assume the standards are correct, but the drivers are just not following them. What about my comments as to the impact of putting more pressure on the drivers to not take risks? Generally speaking good racing is not about easily motoring past the other guy, but by doing the unexpected and getting past. By definition this creates the potential for accidents. They should be made to feel safe enough to "attempt" the incredible moves that we like to watch.

Originally Posted by chillibowl

this then necessitates the question, if closed cockpits are truly about safety then why does F1 require a bespoke solution when they (being the highest earning category) should be looking for a system that works for all levels of the sport.

the solution, if it is truly about safety, should be practical, simple and cheap enough (HANS device for example) that it can be applied to the first open wheel car and kid gets into. closed jet fighter style canopies certainly is not that.

the problem with F1 technology filtering down is that it will be very expensive but if this technology is safer it should be mandatory right?

so if a full canopy becomes a mandated piece of equipment how many will even have the funds required to get involved in the first place let alone reach the level of F1?

In a perfect world there would be one solution that would work for all. So while a closed cockpit would be great for everyone, at the moment, it would likely be cost prohibitive to be put in place for all forms of open cockpit racing. I see no reason why it has to be a completely unified solution that covers the lowliest of grass roots all the way to F1? Why implement a lowest common denominator solution just to satisfy uniformity? I can imagine something like the aero shield in lower series (easy and not expensive to implement) while F1 could pioneer the next level.

Richard

[Richard C]

Regarding the American Football helmets. Assuming I am finding the right thing, I found this article to be interesting...

http://www.wired.com/2016/01/the-zer...layers-brains/

I have to wonder if given the number of people who play football in the US and the number (and data) on impacts, that maybe these new helmets might be a step ahead of helmets used in racing? The goal is roughly the same, but I know there are differences in what they do. But I have to wonder how much the testing requirements for bike and car helmets have changed over the years. And that helmet design has likely focused more on things like weight reduction than a fresh look at the overall design.

Richard

[Mike Harte]

I am in no way against the idea od a fully enclosed canopy on F1 cars providing that it is of sufficient strength to stop foreign objects striking the drivers; this might have protected Massa when he nearly lost his eyes.

However, and I am not medically qualified in any way, but I would imagine that a large proportion of the deaths and serious injuries resulting from head trauma are caused by the effects of the brain moving within the skull, usually hitting the sidewalls of the skull multiple times.

No matter how well the driver is cocooned within the "crash structure" of the car, or how well the driver is protected by his helmet, these internal injuries will still continue to occur when the body is subjected to the very high g-forces experienced in crashes.

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

I am in no way against the idea od a fully enclosed canopy on F1 cars providing that it is of sufficient strength to stop foreign objects striking the drivers; this might have protected Massa when he nearly lost his eyes.

However, and I am not medically qualified in any way, but I would imagine that a large proportion of the deaths and serious injuries resulting from head trauma are caused by the effects of the brain moving within the skull, usually hitting the sidewalls of the skull multiple times.

No matter how well the driver is cocooned within the "crash structure" of the car, or how well the driver is protected by his helmet, these internal injuries will still continue to occur when the body is subjected to the very high g-forces experienced in crashes.

I am pretty much neutral in this debate, I can see both sides, however I think your second para about head injuries while accurate misses the point. In many cases the large acceleration that causes the brain to move within the skull is caused by an impact between the helmet and an external object. Prevent the impact with the object by interposing a canopy and you remove the very brief but extremely high acceleration
to the skull caused by contact with the helmet.

I could be wrong but as far as I remember even the most severe crashes have not resulted in significant brain injury unless the helmet has struck something.

As I say I'm talking principles not taking sides.

[Purist]

The problem with the "casual viewer" is that they see the cars with canopies, which doesn't match their image of what F1 is, they get confused, think it isn't F1, turn it off, and break their watching habit.

Richard, I did say "purely on safety grounds", and I was taking things in isolation, under a very narrow set of parameters, which don't reflect the full reality of the situation. (I also know that any for-profit entity is going to put certain commercial concerns before all else, even safety, regardless of what the press releases say.)

I've had a long-running issue with paved run-offs and such on the new and remodeled circuits. It misses the point of where, easily, the largest part of the safety equation lies. Funnily enough, eliminating the paved run-off/verges would get rid of these absurd track limits issues (MANY fewer stewards decisions), reduce the amount of dumb driving out there (again, fewer stewards decisions needed), and make the tracks look more appealing (and not just purely on aesthetics, but also, like my comment, regarding frames of reference to even be able to get a sense of speed of the cars).

On safety measures, it's a matter of degree. Beyond a point, maybe a certain level of refinement, there is a point of GREATLY diminishing returns. I even see a place, beyond which, yes, you actually have very little margin to reduce risk in one area, and your measures have to be so precise, and are so dependent upon perfect conditions, that you DO make it more dangerous in other areas, and more hazardous overall. (Once the car was damaged, the fin didn't stop Anthony Davidson's Toyota from spinning and lifting off; in fact, the fin is likely the reason the car initially landed on its side, rather than on its bottom.)

The "senseless" incidents I mentioned are ones I think SHOULD have been preventable before they even happened, but that was NOT going to require changing the nature of the cars or the sport. It might require a new, competently-designed car, but it would still be open-wheeled with an open cockpit. Thankfully, the DW12 (though not called that earlier on), was already under development, and due to replace the existing car for the 2012 IndyCar season.

Bianchi's crash is an issue of fixing a bad procedure, and does NOT inherently require any change in the machinery at all. Those debris fences, like the ones Kenny Brack, Dan Wheldon and Dario Franchitti hit, can can-opener the roof, or front end, off of NASCAR machinery, so I have practically no confidence that a canopy could have protected any of them from injury or death. (With Brack and Franchitti, direct head injuries weren't really the problem in their crashes anyway.)

Better grading of the infield at Fontana would have protected Greg Moore, and at the time, I think that gap in the infield fence was badly designed, both because of its width and how you had those pronounced, inside corners before the wall protruded further out. NASCAR saw an accident that exposed a similar problem at Pocono before the repave there, though I think they went overboard on the paved apron. (Jeez, guys mat it to stay off the outside wall, and accelerate on the paved surface all the way until they slam head-on into the inside wall.) Good grading and smart barrier placement just seem like a couple of those "duh" things to me. (Even today, I think Sears Point may have a few issues in this area; I know the old Osterreichring did.)

[Purist]

Draconian measures for driving standards are only necessary if there is a breakdown in training, a failure in basic enforcement, and the tracks facilitate, or even encourage, bad race craft. Some risk-taking if fine, and necessary, but it should be dealt with when it becomes stupid/dangerous. Weaving or blocking that contributes significantly to a crash should result in a penalty that takes you out of contention for that race. If your erratic driving causes an airborne crash, I think a suspension for the following championship round is warranted. As for track limits, if the driver gives back the time or place gained, assuming there was a meaningful gain, slowing down and giving it back is fine by me. It also does NOT totally ruin that driver's race, unlike a drive-through penalty.

"Treat the edge of the track as though there were a wall there." I think that sums up rather well a key part of the philosophy exercised by Wally Dallenbach Sr., who served as CART's Chief Steward for 20+ seasons, and yet, whose name was mentioned remarkably few times on the race broadcasts during his tenure.

And drivers pushed plenty hard in the past, even when what was at stake was quite easily their own lives. It's a different sort of person who isn't just in it for the sport, but for the pay cheque, or the celebrity. I would defy you to tell me that the culture of F1 is better now than in the 1950s and '60s, especially among the competitors.

(You know, Richard, you revealed that your own arguments to be no less motivated by your personal vision for what the racing "should" look like.)

It's also acknowledged that for road crashes something like 90%, if not more, are attributed in significant part or whole to driver error. At least in the top ranks of racing, mechanical failures aren't terribly common, even with the recent troubles seen in F1 and LMP1, so it's pretty darn safe to say that a LARGE majority of racing incidents are attributable to the drivers, as well.

[Purist]

How do I put it? I don't want there to be injuries or deaths, but I accept that they are a part of this sport, or really, most any type of serious, physical competition. Watching older race broadcasts, and even fairly current events in football or basketball, top-flight auto racing comes out relatively unscathed, by comparison, already.

(I'm used to a higher level of uncertainty and a reduced sense of taking things for granted, due to certain medical complications that will be with me for the rest of my life. To an extent, I think it's healthier to have that perspective, and thus be both less complacent, but also, less demanding, in some respects.)

If there are more major safety issues still out there, fry those bigger fish first. Don't misdiagnose the problem in a specific incident, and go after the wrong target as a result. Also, we are notoriously BAD at mathematical models for scenarios that occur at the margins, the "extremistans" of the world. We're not even that great at modeling the complex "mediocristans" that are out there. (Trying to predict flight paths and resulting impact forces of likely pieces of debris is on the margins; so is trying to keep every car on the ground under all conditions, which is also, practically, impossible.)

F1, like any series, IS defined by the cars. I don't see the addition of canopies, such a core change, as being in keeping with the real scale of the problem to be dealt with, nor do I see it as being a cure-all for that problem, anyway. So, I'm not compelled to go along with this change. I have said, a higher cockpit-surround, akin to what CART had in 1982 or so, is something I could certainly consider. So, you have something of a middle-ground idea from me with that.

(At the end of the day, I'm just looking for a significant gain for a significant change. I don't see it as unreasonable to ask to be convinced commensurate with the magnitude of the proposal. It needs to be "enough safer", an actual "improvement". And maybe the required answers are unknowable (now), but I feel a bit like I'm being told to change the definition of something that is already well-anchored, and that I may never be able to re-anchor just as well again as it is now, only based on a "trust me".)

[Matt]

The elusive triple post, and it's not a forum glitch!

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

I am in no way against the idea od a fully enclosed canopy on F1 cars providing that it is of sufficient strength to stop foreign objects striking the drivers; this might have protected Massa when he nearly lost his eyes.

However, and I am not medically qualified in any way, but I would imagine that a large proportion of the deaths and serious injuries resulting from head trauma are caused by the effects of the brain moving within the skull, usually hitting the sidewalls of the skull multiple times.

No matter how well the driver is cocooned within the "crash structure" of the car, or how well the driver is protected by his helmet, these internal injuries will still continue to occur when the body is subjected to the very high g-forces experienced in crashes.

also not a doctor but i from what is coming out from the studies of NFL players is there also a longer term health concern not being addressed here?

can or does repeated acceleration and deceleration and the brain moving within the skull hundreds of times over the course of a race and/or tens of thousands of times over the course of one's career equal the trauma experienced by a single blunt force trauma to one head?

as you say though this doesnt seem like something that can be prevented regardless of how well designed the crash structure is.

im not saying preventing external objects from hitting a driver in the head should be ignored (i agree better protection is needed) but i do question whether some of these solutions are more about the 'illusion of safety' rather then a comprehensive approach to actually making things safer.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Purist

(You know, Richard, you revealed that your own arguments to be no less motivated by your personal vision for what the racing "should" look like.)

We all have our biases and agendas. I do try to be clear, open and consistent about mine. Some here are less that clear IMHO. For example some are clear that they just don't like the look of a closed cockpit car. I appreciate the honesty. Other I think feel the same, but realize it is hard to defend on purely aesthetics grounds given the deaths and injuries, so they use any number of other justifications which ultimately hold little water when examined.

I will say that I personally feel my view of F1 is that it has been more fluid over the decades than others will say or even admit. Many have very rigid views and selective memory. We have seen a lot of change in regulations, circuits and look, type and design of cars. We have (briefly) moved beyond four wheels and I think we have even seen some with covered wheels at one point! I view few remaining sacred cows for people to cling to. I guess open cockpits are the last straw for some and they will fight to keep the status quo regardless of the implications of doing so. Generally change in F1 is evolutionary anyhow. So I am not concerned about viewers/fans somehow tuning in and not knowing what they are watching. I can imagine the aero shield being implemented next and then at some point it moves to fully covered and it might even be a seamless transition as it may not really look that different from one to the next. Evolution vs. revolution. Slow boiling of the frog as they say.

Originally Posted by Purist

Bianchi's crash is an issue of...

You talk about a large swath of issues ranging from catch fence and barrier design, infield grading, driver error, etc. All of that might be true and there should be constant vigilance with respect each. And some of those (such as driver error) can NEVER be fully addressed as they are humans and will continue to make mistakes. Also examples such as Bianchi or Wheldon (just two) are not cut and dry as to the “what if” scenarios. I know many feel that a closed cockpit wouldn’t have helped either of them. I firmly believe that is highly debatable. Unfortunately we will never know and those will likely not be the last open cockpit tragedies in which the same questions will be asked after the fact. We conveniently use the excuse of “nothing more could have been done” to avoid the question (and shame) of “could more have been done?”

I am a fan of the concept of “defense in depth”. Which when applied here means that you do look at multiple things (including your lists). But ultimately, there is the inescapable conclusion that if you want to address cockpit intrusion, then protection of the cockpit is the straight forward and simple solution. Focusing on everything else is just avoidance of the elephant in the room.

Lastly, if you look at my older posts, you will see that I generally go into hibernation on this topic until there is some real news to discuss. Unfortunately once we have discussed any recent events (in this case the RBR aero shield), this thread reverts to what I feel is a religious discussion and we just rehash the same arguments that have gone on for months to no end. I enjoy a good discussion, but this type of discussion can easily begin to appear "personal" when attacking someone else’s strongly held position. It do get sucked in, but it’s not my style and I don’t enjoy it. I will continue to read this thread, but I am going back into post hibernation until the next round of news on this topic.

Richard

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

...We have seen a lot of change in regulations, circuits and look, type and design of cars. We have (briefly) moved beyond four wheels and I think we have even seen some with covered wheels at one point! I view few remaining sacred cows for people to cling to. I guess open cockpits are the last straw for some and they will fight to keep the status quo regardless of the implications of doing so. Generally change in F1 is evolutionary anyhow....

have there been any significant changes to the formula done for purely safety reasons?

thinking outloud, but for me there may even be an element here of F1/teams not doing enough with the closed cockpit design concept that gives me cause for pause.

for example if while maximizing safety through a reimagining of the logic of the safety cell (including full canopy) by integrating it into the aero design, integrating a smart windshield, changing how drivers access the datastream (remove comms and let the driver manage their own race), evolve how they see and interpret a race in real time then this could be something far more compelling for both the die hard and casual fans.

thats pie in the sky/sci-fi dream plus horribly expensive but for there to be a significant change (even in terms of aesthetic) i feel like i need a more compelling reason then just safety.

again that is not to say that i think preventing death is not a compelling reason in its own right but it can be so much more without sacrificing safety...if that makes sense.

[Greem]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

have there been any significant changes to the formula done for purely safety reasons?

Front wheel position - drivers feet must be behind centreline between wheels.
Front and rear wing mount strength.
Minimum strength of crash structures.
Maximum size of fuel tank; later mandatory puncture-proof cell; later mandatory dry-break connectors.
Standardised, mandatory external pushbutton operation of gearbox neutral (OK, the immediate 'safety' aspect here is questionable but this definitely aids quick removal of stranded cars).
Minimum ride height.

There are quite a lot more if you put your mind to it. A lot of them are very small but they influence the design/formula very much.

[Mike Harte]

Graham has left out some of the most important safety related changes that have been introduced for upper body protection, namely roll-over bars and the steadily increasing height of the sides. And I can remember the letters of protests from "fans" that they wouldn't be able to see their idols anymore.

We have also seen the introduction of impact absorbing material behind the drivers' helmets, and in the top side surrounds of the cockpits.

[bella]

the side impact structures brought the sidepods both forwards and higher iirc - a change that filtered down into the junior formulae to gp2 and 3.5 level at least.

noses were lowered, then raised, then lowered again iirc, all for launching/t-boning another car and breaking the tub?

[Purist]

Richard, just one thing. I don't expressly dislike closed cars. I watch FIA WEC, FIA GT, and a number of GT and TC series from time to time. What I don't see the point of is turning F1 decidedly more into these others, most closely, LMP1, and still having an F1 championship.

You yourself said there are "few remaining sacred cows", so if IndyCar goes the same route in terms of closed cockpits, I guess, end that series, too, and make the Indy 500 a NASCAR race, or maybe the teams fold into IMSA, and they make modifications to run the Prototypes on the oval.

For the former F1, now absorbed into the WEC, Monaco can be a special sprint event for the LMPs, like the Norisring was in 1986 and '87 with the old WSC.

You want to make a clean break on the grounds of safety? Say that F1's fundamental nature is incompatible with today's safety demands, and end the series' existence outright. It's a more dignified conclusion than having it continue to limp along in a *******ized form to try to straddle some other biased, subjective, abstract line of what is "acceptable". (Someday, everything is going to be electric-powered, silhouette touring cars anyway, because everything else was too loud, too fast, too dangerous, too hard for the public to identify with, etc., right? Of course, by that point, I'll be hopelessly demoralized by auto racing, will have given up on it, and just won't have a sport I follow (closely) in my life at all.)

[Purist]

Greem, if people don't actually notice the changes, to the general consciousness, they just don't exist. And most of the stuff you mentioned is pretty darn unnoticeable.

The most visually apparent would likely be the move of the driver further back in the car. It's why more recent cars don't, and really can't, look as vicious and aggressive in a certain way as did cars like the Renault RE30B, Lotus 91, or Alfa Romeo 183T.

As long as the car's form has a decent flow, continuity and proportionality, the height of the sidepods is of little concern. And anyway, I could never tell in any detail what the driver was doing in the car from the outside. I've always needed the onboard view to see that. Not to mention, going back several posts, I can't recognize most drivers, even my favorites, from catching sight of the person; it's the car with which I identify them that is the necessary, relevant marker for me.

As a general note, I dispense with any talk of "natural evolution" in F1 in the past, because now, NOTHING happens in a widespread fashion in F1 that isn't MANDATED by the rulesmakers. Any "natural" development is quickly mandated as necessary (VERY rare), banned as unnecessary (unfair advantage) or dangerous, or already has been banned.

So, they'll graft whatever they decide to do onto the cars, no matter how ungainly as it might be, and I'm sure someone, somewhere will TELL ME that, "It doesn't look right with that thing on there, unless they slap fenders on it, too." They might even say, "Why are they even racing those things anymore?"

[Greem]

Originally Posted by Purist

Greem, if people don't actually notice the changes, to the general consciousness, they just don't exist. And most of the stuff you mentioned is pretty darn unnoticeable.

The question wasn't "what changes did an arbitrary casual viewer notice" though, was it?

[Purist]

Yeah, but if people don't perceive it, it still won't be "real" to them, no matter how many times you try to reiterate it to them. Saying a fact in a vacuum is one thing; getting it into the consciousness and understanding of others, is quite another (and if you actually want to get anywhere, you NEED to accomplish the latter).

It's a matter of degree, and since those less-apparent changes in the technical specs happen all the time, people don't notice, or care; they're desensitized to them. To a point, it's worst for those of us who are most informed about the sport, because we hear about more of those changes than the casual viewers do. In the end, they care when it's big enough that they do notice it. (It's just normal, human behavior.)

[Kempi]

Sorry, but saying closed cockpit IndyCar racers could be replaced with NASCAR immediately shows the spirit behind you opposition: for the principle and underlining it with nonsense exagerations. I like exagerations to make a point, but this is ridiculous. You are still forgetting that the openwheelers remain openwheelers no matter how much you cover the cockpit.

They still remain bathtubs on wheels and that is the main characteristic difference for casual viewers between openwheelers and prototypes. Covered wheels in F1 are a thing of 60+ years in the past, so we should simply forget about it.