F1: Button Pushing for Closed Cockpits

[Andy_J]

You are saying that making the sport riskier or keeping it that way somehow makes it better. So the natural conclusion from that is that deaths SHOULD happen because that is what makes it exciting and risky, yes?

Again you say childish pathetic remarks regarding what you think I want.
Why don't you answer my question about TT and road racing? Tell me how you would make those safer? Many racers die every year at races like the TT. What would you do to make them safer?
See what I mean, you can't suggest anything, neither can anyone else. Some sports are dangerous. Car racing is dangerous. There is a risk and all the drivers know it. Now stop making this personal and answer my question instead of having a go at me.

 

[Nox]

Okay I'll attempt to answer you Andy. I may be wrong but the core point you seem to be making is that drivers know the sport is dangerous, so there is no responsibility to try and reduce the danger, that we should just accept it, and so what if we can improve driver safety, we should leave it alone because the drivers know the odds. No one is saying that we should go too far and put drivers in pillows at 5mph, but rather there is a legitimate safety concern here that should be addressed to reduce pointless and avoidable deaths. This doesn't undermine your entertainment or the backbone of the sport in any way, but ensures it continues as society and morality have evolved to a point where life has a higher value than it used to in years gone by. Thankfully science and technology have also reached a point where it is possible to protect those lives better.

The reason no one has answered your TT safety question is probably because it is irrelevant to the thread, as I will explain shortly. But, to answer your TT question first: there are new safety measures that get implemented regularly in all motor sports, including the TT. For example, this year at the TT a debris fence was installed on Glencrutchery Road in front of the big scoreboards. The whole format of the TT you are familiar with comes only after years and years of improved safety measures, from better protection of spectators, to improved road surfaces. And probably for each safety measure that was introduced there was someone like you complaining about it and saying things like "the riders know it is dangerous, they don't need helmets/improved brakes/better suspension/race suits,etc, bunch of namby pamby's!" It sounds like you're just opposed to change or that you're stuck in the past. If you have an actual secular reason to oppose improved safety, that'd be a better contribution to the discussion.

If you, I, or anyone else here in this forum can't think of new safety measures for the TT it does not mean there are no new safety measures that experts could come up with for the TT, or F1, or that we should just go home and forget about it. Riders wear suits with built in air bags, for example, where the technology gets better every year, where years ago they didn't use one at all.

So why is your TT question irrelevant? Because the result of all this is that it actually doesn't matter even if you were 100% right at all that no one the world over could come up with a solution to a problem in another sport for another issue. The whole point of this thread is to discuss an actual idea for improved safety that has already been suggested, meaning clever people are already thinking about it, and have come up with a number of suggestions, such as closed cockpits, to increase safety.

Yes it is dangerous, but rather than that being an excuse to let the carnage play out gladiator style, it actually means that people should still be actively trying to reduce the danger. It isn't "namby pamby" but rather about valuing all life (of driver, and of the family of the driver), which shouldn't be thrown away, especially not for entertainment. It's not cool or macho when a driver dies, it is horrendous and tragic. If it is possible to reduce that horror and tragedy, it should be done. Let's watch racing for the racing, not for the crashes and danger.

 

[AndrewBo]

Thank you @Nox for your post. Nice one.

 

[Jonas Bögemann]

What about a windscreen/semi-open canopy thing, like the old Vanwall:

It's still open

 

[Andy_J]

The reason no one has answered your TT safety question is probably because it is irrelevant to the thread, as I will explain shortly. But, to answer your TT question first: there are new safety measures that get implemented regularly in all motor sports, including the TT. For example, this year at the TT a debris fence was installed on Glencrutchery Road in front of the big scoreboards.

Well you might think you are being big and clever Nox, but you are not. And it doesn't matter if your fellow staff members agree or not. In my opinion you don't know what you are talking about. The safety measure you quoted was for the safety of the Boy scouts that do the score boards, not the racers. Many safety measures have been implemented for the safety of the marshalls and the spectators and that is a good thing. I asked what anyone could think of to make the riders safer. I think it is relevant, you don't. But it is because it could and will get out of hand. Many idiots over the years have tried to ban the TT or make silly and stupid idea's on how to improve safety.

But answer my question properly and keep in in context. The racer at the TT has experienced it all. Every time one of them dies the whole world and his dog writes to the media complaining about how stupid the TT is, how dangerous it is, when is it going to be banned etc etc etc. So this is relevant despite what you think. What if the TT organisers gave in to the incessant call to ban the TT just because the namby pamby's said so? Yes no TT, no real road racing, the end of an era.

How many F1 drivers have died in the recent years, say 2000 till now? How many? Compare that with how many people die choking on food or crossing the road or free climbing or water skiing. F1 is already a million times safer than it was 20 years ago and it is far safer than motorbike road racing. For gawd's sake knee jerk reactions need to stop.
The following sums it up for me and I think it applies to every racer.
Why?
That’s the question hanging over this race, which has always been the target for critics calling for it to be stopped. Just why would anyone want to take part in something where the chances of serious injury and death are so high, and the rewards – at least financially – are nothing like they would be in the slightly safer environment of something like MotoGP? And should they even be allowed to? A good place to find an answer is Rick Broadbent’s brilliant book on the TT, That Near-Death Thing. The title sums it up pretty well, a quote from competitor Guy Martin when dealing with this very question.
Martin, talking about a horrific crash he suffered at the TT from which he emerged battered but unbowed, went on: ‘The buzz from that was just unbeatable. That moment between crashing and almost dying. That’s raised the benchmark. I want to get back to that point. Money can’t buy it. Everything’s been so sanitised with bloody PC nonsense and health and safety that there’s nothing else is there? If it was dead safe I wouldn’t do it.’

Another viewpoint comes from Bridget Dobbs, whose husband Paul was killed at the TT in 2010. Dobbs, who returned to the TT a year later with her two children, told Broadbent the event had to continue.
‘People just have a way of getting on with life,’ she said. ‘Not everybody would choose to be a firefighter or an ambulance driver. Not everyone wants to see the nasty bits of life. We all buy our meat wrapped in plastic because we don’t like to think about the animal that died. Nobody likes the idea of killing a rabbit or a chicken, not even a butcher, but you just get on with it.
‘You don’t stop because you stop winning. You don’t stop because you have a scare and you don’t stop because you see someone else have a fatality. None of those things change the fact you love racing.’
http://metro.co.uk/2013/05/31/isle-of-man-tt-the-worlds-most-dangerous-sporting-event-3816587/

So in my defence, this is where I am coming from and it is relevant in any discussion regarding the major changes to a type of racing. F1 is dangerous, but not as dangerous as some motor sports and it should be left alone and not sanitised in my opinion. Racing is dangerous. So unless MotoGP, TT Road racing and speedway are getting enclosed motorcycles I don't see what the issue is. Nascar, rallycars, etc are enclosed and filled with all the best safety gear and yet people still die. That's racing.
Motorsport is dangerous. With closed cockpits, you could have accidents where the driver may suffer should the cockpit be jammed closed - if that happens, and a driver dies, then we will have another debate on whether or not we should get rid of closed cockpits.

 

[stbreaker]

Well you might think you are being big and clever Nox, but you are not. And it doesn't matter if your fellow staff members agree or not. In my opinion you don't know what you are talking about. The safety measure you quoted was for the safety of the Boy scouts that do the score boards, not the racers. Many safety measures have been implemented for the safety of the marshalls and the spectators and that is a good thing. I asked what anyone could think of to make the riders safer. I think it is relevant, you don't. But it is because it could and will get out of hand. Many idiots over the years have tried to ban the TT or make silly and stupid idea's on how to improve safety...

I suppose it's fair to say that we shouldn't as spectators be able to force these changes even if they do improve overall safety - although I personally disagree with that sentiment.

This issue I'm having with your arguments are that the drivers themselves are asking for research into this potentially life-saving change. Who better to listen to on the topic than the people actually racing? Sure, they know as drivers that they face some inherent danger, but they should definitely have a large input towards defining their own "acceptable risk." The rider in your example stated that the risk gave him a "high" so to speak, but Button, as a current driver, is saying he would rather be safer than have the "thrill" of knowing he might be struck in the head by loose objects. If the drivers say they want it, who are we to say it should be denied? We have seen successful implementation in Top Fuel already, so we know that a solution is probably not that far away.

As an aside, I've always been into fighter jets. Driving an F1 car is not unlike flying one of those on the ground. In addition to the obvious safety improvements, I think it could potentially be pretty cool looking.

 

[Nox]

Well you might think you are being big and clever Nox, but you are not.

Well Andy, none of my post shows even a hint of feeling big and clever, it was a simple reply to you and an attempt to answer your question (I am also not staff). Making out any negative tone or intent is completely your own invention and is not a tactic people who are genuinely interested in debate use, so I see there is no point continuing the discussion. Thanks. I'm stepping out of the thread now.

 

[P*Funk]

In regard to why people watch and claiming that some watch for the danger factor, I'd say those type of people can f*ck off to be perfectly blunt.

Oh don't be silly. If the danger weren't a factor then we wouldn't do such insane things. If it weren't a factor then the cars being the fastest most insane vehicles that raced wouldn't matter and instead people would look to a much more balanced and parity prone type of motorsport. Honestly if you really really want great racing don't watch F1. Its not consistently going to deliver great racing based entirely on its nature and the ongoing discussion of that problem demonstrates that.

Its not to say that danger mitigation isn't reasonable but to say anyone who is quietly thrilled by the fear and danger of it all can go to hell is to me missing a rather large part of the thrill of motorsports. What makes speed thrilling is partly the danger. That's why human beings are exhilarated by it. We're also in the dual position of fearing death (part of what makes danger thrilling) so we want to mitigate it as well.

Its really an interesting duality I think, but if we really really didn't want it to be dangerous we'd just ban F1 and come up with a new form of racing because honestly it is dangerous, absolutely it is and it will continue to be so long as its intended to be the fastest racing because going around corners above 100MPH in an open wheel car inches from another at the same speed is bloody dangerous and thats why its magnificent. The skill to maneuver a highly tuned motor vehicle at those speeds through a technical course while dueling with another driver is a magnificent feat and the danger is part of its magnificence.

 

[AndrewBo]

My post is off-topic like a lot of other posts in this thread, but........
6 people died today because a rally-car smashed into them......
A sad day it is.

 

[MoerasGrizzly]

It's still open

True, but it does have a windscreen that deflects incoming debris away from the driver's face.
You don't have to go all-enclosed to majorly improve driver safety, and a half-open structure would still mean that the driver can get out of the car and would satisfy the "traditionalists"

Even though "Tradition" in F1 is a bit silly as, traditionally, F1 used to be about pushing boundaries. The cockpits only became open way back in the 1930s because that just happened to be the most aerodynamically suitable solution at the time. If canopy open wheelers results in faster F1s (bearing in mind that I know nothing about aero) then roll on the canopys.

However, I also think that a lot of people that say "they have to be open because they were always open!" feel more that enforcing closing the cockpits would mean that the FIA would bring *another* artificial direction into a sport that already has too many artificial limitations.

And apologies for making this post 5x as big as it was orginally, I originally just wanted to have an excuse for posting the Vanwall because the vanwall is super sexy.

 

[CarbonShards]

I think F1 is more about being open wheeler than open cockpit.

That being said I would not yet lock down the canopy as the best option. We need more research to find the best solution....Clearly canopy is a great solution but it also creates lots of other problems that need solving. Cockpit heat is one issue, visibility (not just in the rain, rubber debris sticking to the surface is a problem too) is another and fast extraction is third. One thing it does to really well is protecting the driver from all kinds of impacts to the head. All the way from big objects like tires to small objects like parts of wings and rocks....The way I see it we need to have more protection for the driver's head. It just needs to happen. How? I don't know. I know it is more than just having a feeling that something needs to be done. We know what needs to be done. It is the technical details that need solving.

I may be over simplifying, but, what about advanced helmet designs instead of the "enclosed cockpit"? The idea is to protect the drivers head; a great compromise that could carry over to ALL motorsport would be a helmet that is bullet proof and reduces sudden g-loads to the brain.

 

[Jonas Bögemann]

True, but it does have a windscreen that deflects incoming debris away from the driver's face.
You don't have to go all-enclosed to majorly improve driver safety, and a half-open structure would still mean that the driver can get out of the car and would satisfy the "traditionalists"

Even though "Tradition" in F1 is a bit silly as, traditionally, F1 used to be about pushing boundaries. The cockpits only became open way back in the 1930s because that just happened to be the most aerodynamically suitable solution at the time. If canopy open wheelers results in faster F1s (bearing in mind that I know nothing about aero) then roll on the canopys.

However, I also think that a lot of people that say "they have to be open because they were always open!" feel more that enforcing closing the cockpits would mean that the FIA would bring *another* artificial direction into a sport that already has too many artificial limitations.

And apologies for making this post 5x as big as it was orginally, I originally just wanted to have an excuse for posting the Vanwall because the vanwall is super sexy.

Ah, you meant it like that.
A bigger windscreen may be the best solution for both sides, the cars would still be open, while the front of the driver is a bit more protected.
Not only that this could be a way more aerodynamic solution to build F1 cars, there still would be a way to get out, even if the canopy won't open.

 

[Ghoults]

Again you say childish pathetic remarks regarding what you think I want.

We are done.

Why don't you answer my question about TT and road racing? .

Because it has nothing to do with the topic.

What about a windscreen/semi-open canopy thing, like the old Vanwall:

Making the top open reduces the rigidity and strength of the open canopy a lot. I don't think open canopy like that can be made strong enough

 

[Philip Heck]

Why not combine the vanwall idea with the mercedes one? That should make it rigid enough

 

[Turk]

What if the TT organisers gave in to the incessant call to ban the TT just because the namby pamby's said so? Yes no TT, no real road racing, the end of an era.

It's not just up to the organisers. Bike road racing takes place on public roads, so make no mistake, if people keep dying it will get banned and there's nothing the organisers could do to stop it.

 

[Ho3n3r]

Some people's comments in this thread are unbelievable - reading from post 1. We are so desensitised towards dangers and death these days. What if it's your kid that dies due to a head injury whilst racing?

Lives should not be put in danger just because racing is dangerous, if we can do something about it, we should. Obviously a solution that will put them in more danger(i.e. if a fire erupts in the closed cockpit) should not be entertained, but there are some smart people out there.

Accidents will always happen, but it shouldn't ever be at the expense of a driver's life.

 

[InsaneOzzie]

To compare motorcycle TT with this topic is nonsensical.
A motorcycle rider is naturally at a much much higher risk of sustaining injury regardless of whether he/she has a high speed crash, whether racing or driving down a public street, goes with out saying. To compare a fully enclosed, purpose built safety celled race chassis to a modified two wheeled factory motorcycle that offers no purpose built safety to the rider other than a faring for aero purposes, is like comparing "Apples & oranges" sure their both fruit and grow on trees, but that's as far as the similarities go.
The other point Id like to make is that most TT deaths can be contributed to rider error, or mechanical failure at 200+kph, not pieces of debris hitting a rider in the head and injuring or killing him. The human body is not designed to withstand being slammed into hay bails, walls or bitumen roads at 200+ kph, this is why TT has such a high death toll. Yes, the riders understand the risk's associated with the Isle of Man TT, and sadly, to many have payed the ultimate price in resent years. Maybe it's time for a rethink on TT safety, inflatable barriers similar to the ones in MotoGP or Speedway solo bike racing could help to lessen the impact & injuries the human body suffers from high speed TT accidents, even if only a little.

Back on topic
A 6mm thick poly-carbonate windshield molded into the headrest that the drivers remove to exit the cockpits would be more than capable of deflecting most small to average pieces of debris, it's large objects like wheels, wings & suspension components that would require a solid deflective structure.

V8 SuperCars looked into a change to windscreens after Craig Lowndes collected a wheel at Bathurst in 2006. A one in a million chance, had never happened previously, and hasn't happened since. Teams added a cross bar to the rollcage which passed across the front off the windscreen to fend off any more UFO's. (Unavoidable Flying Objects)
The poly screens which have been introduced with the Aussie V8 car of the future have the same clarity, but are far stronger and have been designed to a racing safety standard, offering far better deflective protection than glass ever could, as it's manufactured to withstand high impacts and not shatter.

I don't believe F1 need to go to a fully enclosed cockpit, but I do believe there needs to be some implementation of safety features that reduce the risks of UFO's impacting inside the cockpit area or drivers helmet, as I stated above, Indy cars have tethers to stop wheels flying off, this has saved lives on and off the track by eliminating a large airborne object potentially traveling at high speed. All because they knew a solution could be found if they worked at it.
If the F1 manufacturers can spend tens of millions in aero R&D, then they can afford a few million to design a better safety cell for their drivers. And lets not forget, without F1 drivers you don't have F1 races.

Cheers

 

[Brent Mills]

NO NO NO NO NO and again NOO

Justin Wilson Accident was a one out of million chance

which actually makes it pretty damn dangerous. if you were to assume risk of death by flying debris is 1 in a million for any given lap. If you have 35 drivers doing saying 150 laps in any race, that's ~5000 laps, so the risk of death in that race is 5000/1000 000 =0.5 %. So every 200 races there will be a death, which over all the high speed open-wheel races in a given year means it will happen every year at least.

Yeh I know you're probably sighing at this point, but just illustrating that what sounds like a small risk, adds up over time if the activity is repeated. A bit like people telling me to never worry about sharks whilst surfing because you have more chance of being run over in the surf parking lot, except I surfed so often that over the years I had 2 close shaves with great whites and then witnessed a fatal attack and had to pull the poor guy out the water (bought a shark shield after that). Anything that reduces the risk is a good thing imo.

 

[Andy_J]

It's not just up to the organisers. Bike road racing takes place on public roads, so make no mistake, if people keep dying it will get banned.

No it won't.
I see this debate and comparisons with bike racing as relative, others don't and I'm fine with that. My argument is that there has only been one death in F1 in the last 20 odd years. Hardly needs making safer does it? Speed and humans will always mean risk. We accept that risk for some sports, so why not others?
Anyway I'm not arguing my point any more, I have made my opinion on the matter known.
Bye.

 

[Turk]

No it won't.

Why wouldn't it? The races are at the mercy of public opinion, if enough locals and politicians start making noise road races will find it hard to justify their existence when so many people get killed, it's a niche sport within a niche sport. I know they've been on the verge of bans here in Ireland a few times.

My argument is that there has only been one death in F1 in the last 20 odd years. Hardly needs making safer does it?

It can always be made safer, would you accept that attitude in your own work place? Being told "well, it won't kill you, may leave you in a vegetative state but at least you'll be alive." As a company F1 has to protect itself from being sued as well. Most safety measures you see at the workplace and in public places aren't so much about safety but to cover the company from being sued because someone couldn't use simple common sense.

If the people in charge at F1 and in charge of the tracks don't show their at least attempting to increase safety when an issue is known and then someone dies from that issue, the family can sue the people in charge saying they didn't make enough of an effort to protect the drivers.