F1: Frontal Head Protection Deferred to 2018

[Terry Rock]

I don't care for the Ferrari version, simply because that center post is in direct frontal view of the driver.
A slightly modified version of the RBR one would be fine.
I'd like it to slope downward at the sides to meet the crash bolster...not go all the way to the air-box.
That downward transitioning support could also be part of the roll structure.
Since frontal impacts from flying objects are the greatest danger and what we're trying to avoid, there is no real need to completely close the entire cockpit.
Flying debris would be deflected over the air-box.
After 45 years of following this sport, I'm all for any good modification which reduces driver risks.

 

[Tim Ling]

Are you serious?

You going to jump on the "if it saves 1 life" its worth it band wagon?

Seriously?

By that same logic then all cars that travel on public roads that are capable of speeds over 15mph must be banned - it will surely save at least 1 life.

No more red meat, no more parachuting, no more swimming in open water - and for sure no more rugby, boxing, football, soccer, cricket or gymnastics - after all, if it can just save 1 life....... and the above events all kill more people per year that F1 racing.

Do you cycle? If you cycle, do you wear a helmet? Or is that one of those things that aren't really necessary?

A mate of mine was riding to work, got knocked off his bike, and then a car ran over his head. Fortunately he was wearing a cycle helmet, which saved his life. I met him a couple of years back, he's now in his 40's, happily married and has two kids. And he still regularly goes cycling.

It is impossible to eliminate the risk of dying at any time from an untold number of sources. Just ask the families of those who've died in France and Germany recently. Or those people who died of E-Coli because they didn't wash their salad greens properly.

What we can do, and we do it every day, is try to minimise the risks. It is impossible to remove those risks completely. And I do know people who won't eat red meat, who won't drink diet soda, won't drink coffee because of the very small risk of getting cancer.

But adding another safety feature to an F1 car will possibly save someones life. As already brought out, the only reason F1 doesn't lose large numbers of drivers is because of the safety features already brought in. Yes, it would not have saved Bianchi, but imagine if that spring had taken Massa's life in '09. Would you feel different about a windshield then?

So yes, if it saves 1 life.

 

[Ben Lee]

I think when this issue of safety comes up, people seem to forget that F1 still races at Monaco. If you want to see breathtaking double standards in terms of "safety", well there it is on a silver platter. No other track in the world would be able to get away with the track layout that Monaco presents. Why is the Monaco tunnel deemed to be "ok", but a similar corner on another track has to have 100 metres of tarmac run-off.

Monaco, the weekend where F1 safety takes a holiday.

 

[Andy_J]

This is getting ridiculous. @Tim Ling heads squashed by cars.........bs

Yesterday a man did a sky dive from with no parachute and landed safely. He took a risk for the love of it. For the pure adrenaline of it. Should he have been forced to wear a parachute in order to take out some of the risk?

 

[Riblo]

I think when this issue of safety comes up, people seem to forget that F1 still races at Monaco. If you want to see breathtaking double standards in terms of "safety", well there it is on a silver platter. No other track in the world would be able to get away with the track layout that Monaco presents. Why is the Monaco tunnel deemed to be "ok", but a similar corner on another track has to have 100 metres of tarmac run-off.

Monaco, the weekend where F1 safety takes a holiday.

The problem of Monaco is that it gives F1 a lot of money...
It will be hard to remove that track from the calendar...

 

[Riblo]

This is getting ridiculous. Yesterday a man did a sky dive from with no parachute and landed safely. He took a risk for the love of it. For the pure adrenaline of it. Should he have been forced to wear a parachute in order to take out some of the risk?

This is non sense and you know it... That guy was taking the risk voluntary... F1 pilots are asking for more protection fron frontal impacts like the spring that hitted Massa in the head or the suspension that killed Senna since years...

 

[Andy_J]

This is non sense and you know it... That guy was taking the risk voluntary... F1 pilots are asking for more protection fron frontal impacts like the spring that hitted Massa in the head or the suspension that killed Senna since years...

No it's not nonsense at all. And not all F1 drivers are asking for that protection either. I'm not going to argue with the health and safety brigade any more in this thread. Before long F1 will cease to exist in open cockpit and open wheel formats because of the ninnies that insist on protecting this and protecting that, sanitising this and sanitising that.
Thank god real road racing with motorcycles and Moto GP does not listen nor pamper to them or else we'd live in a world sanitised to hell. Jeez you'll be getting the drivers to wear dayglo vests soon.
Considering how few F1 drivers have died in the last 20 years, I'd say that this particular sport is extremely safe enough already..

Q:
What sport has the most deaths?
A:
QUICK ANSWER
Fishing causes more fatalities each year than any other major sport, according to Sporting Life 360. As fishing has been around longer than any modern sport, it has also killed the most people over time. Most deaths in the sport are a result of people drowning.

FULL ANSWER
Other sports that cause a lot of fatalities include boxing, horseback riding, base jumping and rock climbing. Boxing kills about nine people per year, about 128 out of every 100,000 participants die horseback riding, and base jumping kills approximately six people per year. The most dangerous year for rock climbers was 2000 when 24 climbers died.

Just leave F1 alone, it's relatively safe compared to fishing.

 

[Riblo]

No it's not nonsense at all. And not all F1 drivers are asking for that protection either. I'm not going to argue with the health and safety brigade any more in this thread. Before long F1 will cease to exist in open cockpit and open wheel formats because of the ninnies that insist on protecting this and protecting that, sanitising this and sanitising that.
Thank god real road racing with motorcycles and Moto GP does not listen nor pamper to them or else we'd live in a world sanitised to hell. Jeez you'll be getting the drivers to wear dayglo vests soon.
Considering how few F1 drivers have died in the last 20 years, I'd say that this particular sport is extremely safe enough already..

Q:
What sport has the most deaths?
A:
QUICK ANSWER
Fishing causes more fatalities each year than any other major sport, according to Sporting Life 360. As fishing has been around longer than any modern sport, it has also killed the most people over time. Most deaths in the sport are a result of people drowning.

FULL ANSWER
Other sports that cause a lot of fatalities include boxing, horseback riding, base jumping and rock climbing. Boxing kills about nine people per year, about 128 out of every 100,000 participants die horseback riding, and base jumping kills approximately six people per year. The most dangerous year for rock climbers was 2000 when 24 climbers died.

Just leave F1 alone, it's relatively safe compared to fishing.

So if it's safe enough lat take away this side head protections that reduce pilot head mobility too... and those ugly wings must go away... Let's hope for 50-60s style F1 where drivers had real balls of steel driving not this computer driven cars... It will be better for the show...

 

[Andy_J]

This is non sense and you know it... That guy was taking the risk voluntary... F1 pilots are asking for more protection fron frontal impacts like the spring that hitted Massa in the head or the suspension that killed Senna since years...

What a thing to say. Just so hypocritical.
Are F1 drivers being forced by gunpoint then? I rest my case.

 

[Azfalt Raser]

Looks like we're on our way to open wheel Prototype cars.

 

[Riblo]

Looks like we're on our way to open wheel Prototype cars.

F1 ARE prototype cars... They are not mass production cars...

 

[RC45]

Do you cycle? If you cycle, do you wear a helmet? Or is that one of those things that aren't really necessary?

A mate of mine was riding to work, got knocked off his bike, and then a car ran over his head. Fortunately he was wearing a cycle helmet, which saved his life. I met him a couple of years back, he's now in his 40's, happily married and has two kids. And he still regularly goes cycling.

It is impossible to eliminate the risk of dying at any time from an untold number of sources. Just ask the families of those who've died in France and Germany recently. Or those people who died of E-Coli because they didn't wash their salad greens properly.

What we can do, and we do it every day, is try to minimise the risks. It is impossible to remove those risks completely. And I do know people who won't eat red meat, who won't drink diet soda, won't drink coffee because of the very small risk of getting cancer.

But adding another safety feature to an F1 car will possibly save someones life. As already brought out, the only reason F1 doesn't lose large numbers of drivers is because of the safety features already brought in. Yes, it would not have saved Bianchi, but imagine if that spring had taken Massa's life in '09. Would you feel different about a windshield then?

So yes, if it saves 1 life.

No.

 

[RC45]

Oh that's simple: You draw the line with the reduction of the car's performance. It's quite obvious no? For all these talks about more and more safety have not prevented the modern F1 car to accelerate from 0 to 100kmh in 1.5 seconds..

Well - that 1.5s time only because of technology taking over from the driver. When was the last time an F1 driver had to modulate a clutch or feather the throttle?

Even Lewis Hamilton thinks F1 drivers from the 1980's had to work harder and present more immediate skill to the table to deliver the performance they did with the cars as provided.

At least that was his candid response after driving an old-school turbo F1 car.

In short that 1.5s time is ONLY there because the overall package has been sanitized performance delivery to the point the driver is just along for the ride.

There is no doubt that is it already easier for the modern F1 driver to drive the cars fast that it was for drivers of the past to drive the cars fast (not my opinion, but the opinion if current champions).

Now you want to eliminate all risk as well?

So why not just eliminate all risk and race virtually - that will check all the desired health and safety boxes in one go.

Problem solved

 

[MoerasGrizzly]

Well - that 1.5s time only because of technology taking over from the driver. When was the last time an F1 driver had to modulate a clutch or feather the throttle?

Last F1 race! The modern cars don't have traction control (technology taking over from the driver was banned in 1994 and TC was again banned in 2008) and they still need the clutch for starts. The big change has been paddle shifting, and F1 has seen a myriad of power plant changes over the years. So yes, off course the driver characteristics of F1 have changed, but this has very little to do with the safety argument. Although you could aruge that the more advanced technology changing the drive of the cars is sanitizing the sport, it seems a weird argument to level at a sport that is all about technological process.

Oh and hey, Hamilton did drive that old F1 car back in 2012 before they re-introduced turbos and made a myriad of changes to the aero package to make the car slide more in 2014 . Current era F1 cars have a lot less downforce and a lot more torque then V8 era cars. Sure, they don't have the insane turbo lag of the 80ties era, but I honestly doubt that even if turbos had continued the lag would have stayed. That technology has improved a lot.

Now you want to eliminate all risk as well?

Not wanting drivers' skulls be penetrated by random objects is something completely different as "Eliminating all risk". This is simply a question on the same level of maturity as "Do you want drivers to die?". So instead of this bloody pointless rhetoric, I am going to ask you an entirely different question:

Would you rather have the current F1 cars without head protection or the 1980s turbo era cars with canopies?

edit: Just to be clear (And to post it since it's interesting), you're talking about this bit right?

 

[SnappyDEe]

This would be cool. Read the whole article.
http://www.maxim.com/rides/closed-cockpit-formula-1-race-car-2016-4

 

[Ian Fleming]

so stoopid... Lets add more assistance and cover the car up.

 

[Ian Fleming]

Bury them down and into the car and/or raise the sides AND keep in mind... **** happens.

May as well go electric and get it over with...