F1: Drivers Pushing for Greater Head Protection for 2017 Onwards

[Ben Lee]

One of the most egregious aspects about the modern safety push for me has been the tarmac run offs. I hate them with a passion. I personally feel that the only place for a tarmac run off should be at the end of a long straight and it should be there in case of a brake failure type scenario.

I think a lot of the run offs are needless especially when a patch of grass or gravel would be better placed. At the moment the latest place to cut is at the top of Eau Rouge, however if there was simply a small patch of grass on the apex you can bet that the amount of drivers cutting would be cut to near zero overnight.

I also think that the tarmac run off in many ways encourages bad and dangerous driving. Quite a few times now I have seen drivers be forced wide off the track and onto the tarmac run off because the drivers know its there. Remove it and this would stop.

Then there is the outrageous double standards of the FIA and Monaco. For one weekend per year, track safety has a holiday and all of a sudden, track lined barriers are "ok" and gets the FIA green stamp of approval. However any other track has to spend thousands upgrading and altering the layout for what is really no need. The recent Spa changes are precisely a case in point. Virtually every corner now has a mass of tarmac run off when in reality maybe 1 or 2 actually needed it, La Source, Les Combes, Rivage, "turn 9", Pouhon, Les Fagnes, Stavelot and parts of the Bus Stop all now have masses of tarmac when either none or alternatives would have sufficed. Only really Eau Rouge and perhaps Blanchimont really needed it.

 

[Deleted member 130869]

Surtees death was a freak accident which would have still happened with Mercedes' concept. That kind of impact to the head just strains the neck downward too much. Bianchi's death is still a bit foggy as we have read hearsay about the car's overriding functions, etc, with certain combinations. It's the same team from the Villota accident, which for all we know could have also been some software issue instead of driver error.

Freak accidents are called such way because they are not supposed to happen, but do. Maybe a 1 in 100.000.000 chance. It takes time to properly develop measures against them, knee-jerk reactions are never the way to go in these days of current technology and knowledge.

 

[InsaneOzzie]

I'm all for more safety in motorsports, if it saves a life it was worth the money, time & effort.

Personally I'm not fussed on how the drivers head gets extra protection, as long as they get it. I'm not fussed with how it will look either, as long as it works. I'm also pretty positive the designers like Adrian Newey will produce something that is safe, functional, aerodynamic and looks cool on the cars.

Lets be honest here, all forms of motorsport have evolved their safety over the years, you just need to look at the recorded footage from yesteryear up to current day to see that, cars, bikes, airplanes even hydroplane racing boats have developed with safety at the for-front, and safety should always hold priority over and above all other aspects of motorsport without question.

Lets face facts, you can't stop evolution, whether it's natural or man made, we humans strive for perfection in all aspects of life and motorsport is no exception. The addition of head protection on F1 cars will cost teams thousands, but a life is worth far more than any amount of money.


Cheers

 

[kona076]

No single method will account for every possible accident and I understand any design will only serve to minimize the most common accidents. That merc design, however, seems deeply flawed and geared more towards certain types of accidents but doesn't consider projectiles, and correct me if I'm wrong, like the one that ultimately killed Senna.

I'm not a safety engineer but if it were up to me I'd partially wrap the windscreen further around the canopy opening and then reinforce it and slant the front to catch or redirect projectiles or other objects coming toward the visor area and it's surrounding area. The second measure would be to fortify the helmets themselves above the visor to withstand forces that the external mercedez-designed canopy appendage, or similar designs, are rated to. I'd also take extra measures to ensure the Hans device could protect the head from severe impacts from the sides and above the head if it's not already design in those additional regards.

Next I'd move on to track-specific issues if any. I believe many of these have already been addressed whether it be runoff areas, barriers, virtual safety cars when tractors or marshalls are on or near the track.

These cars are already designed pretty well as it is. Remember the Kvyat's shunt at Suzuka? Walked away without a scratch like many others in similar shunts. F1's a dangerous sport but hasn't that always been it's major draw for fans and drivers alike? I'm obviously for improving safety regulations but I do think it can be accomplished while preserving what is for many the spirit of what makes F1, F1.

 

[MrCrowley]

Yes in favour of head protection, no in favour of that concept.
What's wrong with a bubble canopy solution? No struts etc to impede your view, much like a F18 fighter bubble canopy, maybe bring that canopy technology to F1.

 

[P*Funk]

What's wrong with a bubble canopy solution?

Obviously requires a lot more engineering and consideration. I think its pretty clear this halo thing is likely a stop gap measure.

 

[formidable]

And, the driver extraction will be more difficult?

And the center pillar obstaculizes the vision.

 

[OzzyNeil]

So they put a roof on it, then we have the safety issue of tires touching and launching cars so lets put fenders on it and hey presto

 

[Jonas Bögemann]

Ok, let me further explain what I had in mind. (I attached a picture, sorry for the bad quality, made it a quick scatch)
Infront of the cockpit, a windshield out of the same material used in various other race cars (I guess even the visors of the helmets) is placed, if necessary it could get a frame out of zylon, or something similar, to increase it's strenght.
In first place this construction serves the purpose of deflecting particles incoming from the most common direction (frontal) and maybe even decreasing their speed.
As shown in Image 1, this windshield could reach up to the top of the drivers helmet and as shown in Image 2, covers the front party of the helmet.
Image 3 shows how the windshield could get integrated into the detachable cockpit sides.

However, various factors need to be considered for various scenarious, especially about leaving the car or rescuing the driver.
This system should be either integrated into the cockpit sides and detachable towards the front (swinging it open), or fully individually detachable, making it possible to leave the car, but with a smaller cockpit opening.
Best stability would be archieved if the windshield is fully integrated into the car, as there would be no way that it could detach itself (e.g. like Verstappens engine cover in Monza).