F1: Drivers Pushing for Greater Head Protection for 2017 Onwards

[P*Funk]

I think these millionaire drivers KNEW what they got into BEFORE getting into it.

And that deprives them of the right to safety?

Drivers die and get injured in ALL SORTS of cars no matter how "safe" they become, period.

And fewer die today than every before because of people deciding that death was unacceptable and did their best to prevent it. Without those kinds of changes there would still be dozens of drivers dying a year.

If you want that to stop completely, push for robots, remotely driven cars or simracing. That should COMPLETELY solve the danger to life issue.

Nobody wants to completely eliminate the danger. Strawman much? There's a big difference between what you've just said and mitigating the dangers as best as possible. Putting a canopy on the cars doesn't change anything except survivability under a variety of circumstances for basically zero negative impact.

I think the people owning hence profiting most from this sport have a pretty good idea that pushing this way may get their income decreased.

People have had to face the concerns over lost profits at almost every turn when trying to improve safety in the work place. To hell with people's profits. I know its sacrilege in the neo-liberal world to say it but profits are not more valuable than human lives. Controversial these days I know.

Nobody whined this much about the danger of the sport in the 60s, when neither tracks nor cars had the safety found today, not even by a mile.

Yes they did because people died by the bushel full and they only stopped dying when they changed things.

Grip was all mechanical up until 1968, no seatbelts, no fences, and drivers weren't paid millions a season, sometimes prizes being symbolic. And enthusiasm was at its peak for all those involved in the sport and fans alike.

Would that be the same enthusiasm that lead Jackie Stewart to retire prematurely after seeing his teammate and protege die at Watkins Glen at his final GP? Death sure didn't seem to do much good for his enthusiasm. How enthusiastic was the sport when all the best young talent was dying on a regular basis?


This entire diatribe has been very crass and utterly uninterested in the basic dignity of life because the sport might lul suffer (which it won't). This when men were men nonsense holds no water.

 

[MoerasGrizzly]

This when men were men nonsense holds no water.

Nothing will ever truly match the manliness of the japanese pilots during WW2, who (against the wishes of their COs) refused to carry parachutes into battle claiming that they obstructed movement inside the cockpit: Wearing them makes it harder to look around, and being aware of your surroundings is half the dogfight. They also claimed that jumping out of the airplane was to admit defeat, and as such would be the act of a liberal pansie. This tactic worked to great effect: The Japanese empire was robbed of all it's experienced pilots by 1943, allowing the USAAF and USN to establish air superiority in the pacific. Never before had lives being thrown away needlessly caused such a big contribution to world peace.

Meanwhile, the US spend a lot of effort in ensuring a safety net of it's pilots, with several naval craft, including submarines, being tasked to recover pilots who ejected over sea. The USN knew that it's most precious resource was it's fighter pilots, which took months to train and took years to become experienced in combat. By investing such a great amount in rescuing it's pilots, not only would they preserve many experienced pilots who would have otherwise perished, but each pilot that shot down and survived could tell the tale of how he got shot down, which gave the US many insights into aerial combat which the japanese empire simply never acquired.

 

[MoerasGrizzly]

Which is a very long-about way of saying that: Safety makes motorsport better. Yeah sure, the Maldonator would have perished in his first weekend, but if he would have died we would have never seen him become the first Williams driver in years to beat Red Bull and win a race. Similarily, F1 is worse off without Jules Bianchi, who was a Marussia driver capable of scoring points for the team, which is an achievement that is perhaps more impressive then Lewis Hamilton's career. His death was preventable. If it had been prevented he could have learned from it and so become a better driver.

In the end it's not the cars we remember. It's not the Lotus or the VAANWALLL or whatever the hell the Ferrari V10 was called. We remember drivers like Jacky Ickx, Michael Schumacher, Ayrton Senna. If F1 had cockpits back in 1994, Ayrton Senna may just be alive today, and the question of whether Senna or Schumacher was the better F1 driver would have been answered on the track rather then during drunken arguments at pubs. The deaths of drivers due to head-related injuries over the last two decades have had a much bigger impact on the potential of the sport then this change ever will.

I can understand the argument that doing so would change it from the F1 'as it used to be', but look at how those cars looked like during the 50s:

It's not like that argument has ever stopped anyone.

 

[mesa]

This is a joke. It is not a safer but a more dangerous chassis. The driver's visibility is limitated, can't see what happens ahead of the car, can't see any starting light because of this slippers strap

 

[Jonas Bögemann]

Leaving away the discussion about how it would change the sport, a big move like a canopy is plainly unnecessary.
Helmets are incredibly durable nowadays and for such a crucial part in terms of drivers safety, safety research won't stop there either. The only fatal accidents were a direct hit of something heavy in eyelevel of the driver.
The best solution would be to add a durable windshield infront of the cockpit (a bit late-80s style, maybe a few centimeters higher) that would deflect incoming particles, even tyres, and bring them into a path past the drivers helmet. It is forgotten that these kind of lethal accidents that could be prevented are about parts that hit the driver frontal, not from the top.
With this solution you keep the cars open (as I said, it would be more like late-80s style) and solve the problems of ventilation and exiting the car in any situation.

 

[Grand Tourist]

Well, the F1 engineers have a nice and proud challenge to overcome if the sport welcomes this new safety feature. I support it. I would suggest to design several solutions and then let the drivers and team test them and elect the best of the options. But most of all I would get rid of Bernie Ecclestone, get rid of Bernie Ecclestone and most important get rid of Bernie Ecclestone.

 

[Boby Kim]

Solution: transform the F1 cars into Abraham tanks...and even then you might just bump your head inside the canopy

 

[Luis Carreiro]

and people wonder why i stopped watching F1 in the 90´s...

 

[Matt Orr]

Leaving away the discussion about how it would change the sport, a big move like a canopy is plainly unnecessary.
Helmets are incredibly durable nowadays and for such a crucial part in terms of drivers safety, safety research won't stop there either. The only fatal accidents were a direct hit of something heavy in eyelevel of the driver.

James Hinchcliffe got hit with a wing element in the 2014 Indy GP and suffered a concussion from it. That was with a top of the line, post Massa helmet regulation update for the visor strip. I'd have to go check, but I feel pretty safe in stating that the helmets used in Indycar are the same as those used in F1. Helmets can only do so much.
________________________________________________

I'm mixed on the cockpit protection increases. Not because "hur dur, they are pussies", but because that is how it has been, the entirety of open wheel racing is open cockpit, race cars need to look badass if this sport is going to continue, and it needs to be done right.

How do you implement that halo? Just like every other portion of the car unless it is spec, the teams will maximize it. It becomes just another useful piece of aero on the car, and at what cost? Look at the fingertip noses - originally the noses were supposed to be longer for more safety, until that got compromised by a poorly written rule book and the competition. A cockpit surround halo thing would be no different there. If it is spec, you then have a pretty darn difficult piece to fit onto your car and design around - bet the teams will love that one.

Not to mention, it isn't a cure all. The spring that hit Massa for example could have gotten through the same view port the driver is looking out of. The wing that hit Hinch could still hit him with that device. This may have prevented Wilson's death (can't remember where he was hit and don't want to analyze it), but at the same time an inch or two the other way and it does nothing and the outcome is the same. This might have saved Henry Surtees, but that is 1/4 in preventing death / serious injury.

IMO, the only increase in head protection I really wholly support is the half canopy type thing like in Top Fuel drag racing or historic open wheelers. No matter what, no solution is going to be entirely safe from all angles in all scenarios, but at least it would help with the smaller pieces of debris while not hindering driver extraction or looking flat out stupid while doing next to nothing.

And again - it's just as much of a problem in a Formula Ford as it is F1 or Indycar. Hitting a tire or sizable chunk of debris with your head is never a good outcome, and it can happen in every open cockpit series. Then again, your average fan only cares about the top series and maybe it's closest support series.

As for canopies - hope you guys knew about this one, another incident of "sometimes **** just happens". Big fat slow cars with a full cockpit on a medium speed oval.
http://blackflag.jalopnik.com/wayward-metal-ballast-gives-nascar-driver-the-biggest-c-1704951092

 

[Andy_J]

Nothing will ever truly match the manliness of the japanese pilots during WW2, who (against the wishes of their COs) refused to carry parachutes into battle claiming that they obstructed movement inside the cockpit: Wearing them makes it harder to look around, and being aware of your surroundings is half the dogfight. They also claimed that jumping out of the airplane was to admit defeat, and as such would be the act of a liberal pansie. This tactic worked to great effect: The Japanese empire was robbed of all it's experienced pilots by 1943, allowing the USAAF and USN to establish air superiority in the pacific. Never before had lives being thrown away needlessly caused such a big contribution to world peace.

Meanwhile, the US spend a lot of effort in ensuring a safety net of it's pilots, with several naval craft, including submarines, being tasked to recover pilots who ejected over sea. The USN knew that it's most precious resource was it's fighter pilots, which took months to train and took years to become experienced in combat. By investing such a great amount in rescuing it's pilots, not only would they preserve many experienced pilots who would have otherwise perished, but each pilot that shot down and survived could tell the tale of how he got shot down, which gave the US many insights into aerial combat which the japanese empire simply never acquired.

Comparing over paid, millionaire pampered race drivers with men who served their countries in times of war is a bit over the top and quite disrespectful. And the line in bold above is nothing but a troll remark and with absolutely no fact to it. Very childish. Most of the Japanese aircrew did carry parachutes and it was only in the last year of WW2 that you saw Kamikazi pilots elect not to use parachutes. In fact they still wore them "mainly" because the aircraft seats were designed to accomodate them.
A poor argument and an an attempt to belittle anyone (or me) who wishes for dangerous motorsport to remain dangerous.

It's not wise nor clever to compare the brave men and women of the Armed Forces with over paid sportsmen getting paid to do things they love doing. A veteran of the Pacific war can in no way be compared to a veteran of F1 for example. One is going it for his country/family/way of life, the other is doing it for passion but most of all, money and fame and himself.
I understand your meaning though (even if it was rude sarcasm) and that safety in the war was a good thing for pilots and aircrew but it is hardly relevant in this context. It's like inventing a safer bullet that merely disables instead of kills in war. But that would make the do-gooders and Health and safety brigade happier though.

ps, US pilots did not "eject" over the sea during WW2. Ejection seats were invented later on during the evolution and design of Jet propelled fighter aircraft. Safety measures needed in order to escape faster aircraft and in order that the pilot/aircrew could be saved to "fight" another day. That's fight another day, not enjoy another race, get paid millions, drink champagne in Monte Carlo and then moan about the possibility of getting hurt in a crash blah blah blah.
Regards
Andy.

 

[jonelsorel]

I thank the guy who took the time to dissect my previous post phrase by phrase and had the patience to respond to each one. But it looks like the ability to synthesize is missing in a discussion such as this. Motor racing involves risk, has always had, and always will as long as there are things moving at high speed. Period. Freak accidents have always happened even in the modern age and will still happen no matter what the sport does to curb them. There is a general tendency today to want the cake and eat it too. Or towards double standard and hypocrisy. But this isn't actually a question of the sport being too risky, as there are other disciplines that involve much more risk, as someone mentioned the perfect example of TT. It's rather a question of some drivers who have gained some leverage in this business and now want to change it so it suit their newly discovered fears. Fears they assumed when entered the sport and considered FAIR given the salary they negotiated and receive. As much as you want to package it differently, it all comes that to THIS. THEY are not happy with it and chicken out (Yes, they chicken out, unlike Manx TT riders who come back there every year and are DEFINITELY NOT paid according to the risks they DO assume going 330+ km/h on real country roads). Not the team owners, not the rights holders. Not the millions of viewers who rake in the billions for the owners of this sport business and who have no leverage in this, of course, as is often the case, but who actually MAKE those 20 million dollars a year salaries possible for these drivers (something that 99% of those fans don't see in a lifetime of work, truth be said). The people who buy the merchandise, who buy the tickets, who pay their cable. And who really follows F1 has a pretty good idea of the politics surrounding it and how hard it is to enter the business, even if you're a good, talented driver and with an excellent CV. Nobody publicizes the thousands of drivers in that exact situation who know exactly what the dangers are and would sell their soul if they could just for a lap behind the wheel. So folks, you can try to package this in anything you want, it doesn't change what it actually is. Snow won't go black any time soon because you say so. THEY are at the pinnacle of motorsport, with the highest salaries and NOT with the highest risks, and want less risk for the same money. They don't do this for the adrenaline since they want the risky part reduced; they do it for the money (hurray for the business of professional sports). If you consider yourself a fan of the sport but ok putting a bumper on F1 cars in front of drivers' heads, you're missing the point by a kilometer. The point of motorsport altogether.

 

[Allan Ramsbottom]

It's like inventing a safer bullet that merely disables instead of kills in war. But that would make the do-gooders and Health and safety brigade happier though.

.they did that mate from the 7.62 to the 5.56..

 

[P*Funk]

wishes for dangerous motorsport to remain dangerous

Why do you wish for it to remain dangerous, particularly in this way? Its dangerous as a byproduct of its nature, not as a deliberate design. Removing danger has always been there. The only reason owners resisted safety in the early days was because of costs. This ideal of danger is merely propped up because its more emotionally appealing.

Motorsport isn't exciting because we make it dangerous. Its danger comes when you push the limits that come for the sake of the driving and the racing and that is never done by preventing entirely unrelated safety features from being implemented.

It's not wise nor clever to compare the brave men and women of the Armed Forces with over paid sportsmen getting paid to do things they love doing.

I think the real point is comparing the attitudes of people who take a particular idealized view of things. Society has long viewed masculinity as being related to a kind of fatalism towards danger and that manifests itself in twisted philosophies such as admiring the danger in a sport for its own sake and not as the byproduct of something else that is actually what we should be admiring.

But yes I don't like rushing to the war comparisons, but only because tactically its a non starter when you're trying to convince people they're wrong. Meanwhile I could equally say your worship of danger against the interests of preventing death and serious wounding is far more callous in this discussion because sportsmen shouldn't have to suffer these consequences. Your entertainment is not a noble cause to sacrifice so much for.

This is no different than concussions in hockey or football. I'm sure plenty of people who adore their football hate seeing all this pussy nonsense about concussions denigrate the purity of that spirit on the gridiron. We know which way that wind is blowing and so it is with head protection in open cockpit motorsports. The sport will survive.

Your entire attitude in this is very interesting. You refer to them as overpaid, as if they aren't worth the respect that comes from demanding safety. Every safety push has been the same, with everyone saying the same things and its only when the talented and the young die that people cave.

Don't tell me that modern F1 is better having seen Senna die. Don't tell me that the excitement of danger outweighs the loss of the drivers who make the entire thing possible.

Is that what makes racing entertaining? More blood for the blood god?

 

[MoerasGrizzly]

Most of the Japanese aircrew did carry parachutes and it was only in the last year of WW2 that you saw Kamikazi pilots elect not to use parachutes. In fact they still wore them "mainly" because the aircraft seats were designed to accomodate them.

The accounts of Saburo Sakai dispute this, and I was going with those. As for the rest of those bits: I was making a joke! Come on!

It's like inventing a safer bullet that merely disables instead of kills in war. But that would make the do-gooders and Health and safety brigade happier though.

We invented the 5.56 bullet specifically because disabled soldiers put a heavier strain on enemy logistics then dead soldiers do: One soldier being wounded would put atleast two soldiers (1 wounded and one soldier delivering first aid) out of the fight, whilst a dead soldier only removes that soldier from the fight. In addition, smaller bullets allow soldiers to carry more bullets into the battlefield, thus allowing them to fight longer in the field: The vast majority of bullets are fired to provide supressive fire, not actually to kill the enemy.

All the arguments I see you make (lets drive at 45MPH, let's use non lethal weaponry in wars) rely around you thinking that canopies are a radical change to F1. Are they really? It's not like they impact the performance of the cars in a negative way, and it's not like they haven't been used before.

 

[Andy_J]

.they did that mate from the 7.62 to the 5.56..

I know, I was waiting to see who would jump on that fact the quickest.
Cruel aren't we?

 

[Bram Hengeveld]

This is a joke. It is not a safer but a more dangerous chassis. The driver's visibility is limitated, can't see what happens ahead of the car, can't see any starting light because of this slippers strap

I remember in the 90s the drivers used to have a big ass tv antenna right in front of their noses vibrating like crazy and strangely I've never heard the drivers complain about that. Maybe if they look far enough in front those blocking objects fade away?

Anyways, I think the FormulaFlipFlop solution is better than the strange designs (pica below) we have seen before. Although I personally would like to see the canopy solution @mister dog posted as it looks amazing.

 

[Andy_J]

We invented the 5.56 bullet specifically because disabled soldiers put a heavier strain on enemy logistics then dead soldiers do: One soldier being wounded would put atleast two soldiers (1 wounded and one soldier delivering first aid) out of the fight, whilst a dead soldier only removes that soldier from the fight. In addition, smaller bullets allow soldiers to carry more bullets into the battlefield, thus allowing them to fight longer in the field: The vast majority of bullets are fired to provide supressive fire, not actually to kill the enemy.

<mod-edit: let's leave the warfare and religious views out of this discussion>
<user-edit again: If you are removing my comments referring to war then please also remove the earlier comments that mine were referring too from the poster above. Hardly fair just to remove mine @Bram and they were describing why the British use 7.62 calibre, so what's the problem?>

I understand the cry for safety standards but there has to be a limit before the sport completely changes and becomes too sanitised. I mean we have reached the limit of what's possible in real road racing and the fact remains the same, it's dangerous and you are more than likely to die if you make a mistake or someone else does. They know this and they still accept it and that is what open cockpit racing should accept in my opinion. Accept the risks, know the penalty and just get on with it. No one is forcing them to do it by gunpoint and they hardly look coerced at all whilst sipping their champagne in the casino.

 

[MoerasGrizzly]

I understand the cry for safety standards but there has to be a limit before the sport completely changes and becomes too sanitised.

Why draw the limit at canopies though? Again, it's not like they have not been used before. Look at that super sexy Vanwall!

 

[Alberto Casado]

I remember in the 90s the drivers used to have a big ass tv antenna right in front of their noses vibrating like crazy and strangely I've never heard the drivers complain about that. Maybe if they look far enough in front those blocking objects fade away?
View attachment 119558

When you focus "far" near objects are barely visible, and if they are thin each eye sees the part of the world that the other misses so you actually can see the full picture.
Hold you hand sideways 15 cm from your head and you can still read this post, just with a double "shadow hand" superposed. And everybody wearing glasses can tell you how easy is to forget the frame is there although you are seeing it all the time.

This is something that unfortunately does not work in sim racing. I was incredibly disturbed by those antenas in virtual F1 cars because in the screen everything is in focus,

 

[Jonas Bögemann]

A canopy is fully enclosing the cockpit, the Vanwall has a windshield.
Motorsport isn't exiting because it's dangerous? It's not the only reason, but it is without a doubt one of the things that make motorsport exciting.