Should Formula 1 cars have closed cockpits?

[ML2166]

 

[cruyff]

Don't forget Twitter for Hamilton.

 

[Rupe Wilson]

Maria created her own problems.
It´s too bad what happened but she created her own problems.
we can´t fix stupid.

It´s not the first time she´s lost control of an F1 car..

Its still an ongoing investigation, Yes they have said the cars chassis was not to blame, (internal investigation) may i remind you of Senna's fatal accident) they didn't say it was her fault either.
the electronics could have failed, it happened after she finished her test as she was stopping, Anti stall device was mentioned..it was a 30mph accident ...if she was on a track as apposed to a test area she would of been OK...
health and safety are still assessing what could of gone wrong...
Why was the tailgate left down on the truck....
we just don't know the answers yet...

 

[Ho3n3r]

I vote yes. Safety, above all, is priority in F1, and rightly so.

Sometimes I feel that fans - including me - can forget that these are human beings with families. It's not a 'brave' sport, but rather a profession that needs to be made safe, like any other.

If implemented correctly, it could be the single most important safety implementation in F1 for at least a decade.

 

[Scott Webber]

so, if the cockpit was enclosed, and the car tipped overo n fire... how would the driver's react? "oh **** im stuck in a enclosed cockpit" slowing down the chance of escaping even quicker.

sure there is a way, but not right now, we're still not with the times, F1 still has to improve Safety, that is what F1 is all about, aswell as the close action, they are leading in Safety, however i still don't think we're see enclosed cockpits for a long time.

Just Sayin...

 

[Xosé Estrada]

Part of the charm of motorsports its that its epic, and its epic because its dangerous.

Make it slower then, let the billionaires race at 50 km/h in an electrical car

We all remember the old stars because we know they were crazy petrolheads risking their life in every GP... they were heroes... this is what this sport is about.

Why everybody respects Tourist Trophy riders? Why they race there? The dance with the death...

If Alonso doesn't want to take the risk of open cockpit racing no problem, I will for 1% salary.

 

[Diego Lopez]

so, if the cockpit was enclosed, and the car tipped overo n fire... how would the driver's react? "oh **** im stuck in a enclosed cockpit" slowing down the chance of escaping even quicker.

sure there is a way, but not right now, we're still not with the times, F1 still has to improve Safety, that is what F1 is all about, aswell as the close action, they are leading in Safety, however i still don't think we're see enclosed cockpits for a long time.

Just Sayin...

and ejection system, like a jet fighter. perhaps.

 

[Alberto Casado]

I´m open to the idea, my main concern is that they may make wet races more dangerous than what are right now.

As for the ¨never done before¨, I don´t consider that a valid argument. Wings were also not used until they were used. Many of the old time F1 cars had a visor in front of the driver to cut the wind.

And finally, I am not sure if a canopy would have made any difference in de Villota´s freak accident. The platform of the truck at even low speeds was like a knife, and fixed to an enormous mass (the truck) so virtually unmovable. I think it would have cut through a canopy as easily as it cut through the helmet. Nothing to do with deflecting a wheel (50 kg applying pressure over a relatively large patch), or a flying part like a spring (point impact, but small mass).

 

[Mark Gormley]

I don't think the 'upside down in a fire' argument holds much weight either. The last time I remember an F1 car stuck upside down was over 10 years ago, and I can't remember when I last saw one burst into flames as a result of an accident. In the last 5 years however we've seen Massa, Surtees and De Villota killed or seriously injured by foreign object ingress, and Wurz, Schumacher and Alonso have varying close calls. Touring cars and prototypes all race safely with enclosed cockpits, were it that unsafe the BTCC would be the BCCC (British Convertible Car Championship).

It shouldn't need to be said that were something like this to be brought in, it wouldn't be done with as little forethought as that. The rollhoop/airbox would still protrude far enough above the car that were it inverted, the canopy wouldn't be bearing any weight. The more obvious solution is to install a side door, but that introduces weaknesses of its own.

With regard to Maria's accident though, I think a canopy would have saved her injury. A polycarbonate canopy will deform and resist, taking energy out of the impact. A helmet can't be allowed to deform at all, since it's the last thing between a drivers head and any foreign object.

 

[William Levesque]

Part of the charm of motorsports its that its epic, and its epic because its dangerous.

Make it slower then, let the billionaires race at 50 km/h in an electrical car

We all remember the old stars because we know they were crazy petrolheads risking their life in every GP... they were heroes... this is what this sport is about.

Why everybody respects Tourist Trophy riders? Why they race there? The dance with the death...

If Alonso doesn't want to take the risk of open cockpit racing no problem, I will for 1% salary.

Thank you.

 

[Chronus]

Part of the charm of motorsports its that its epic, and its epic because its dangerous.

Epic (your 'definition'...) or not, the nature of open-wheeler racing has to change and, thankfully, will change. As Wurz and Dean Sicking (the engineer behind SAFER barrier) say, it's inevitable. That is really all that matters.

Obviously some will object, but there are always people against moving forward, for some reason.

We all remember the old stars because we know they were crazy petrolheads risking their life in every GP... they were heroes... this is what this sport is about.

Your opinion. Maybe even the opinion of some others. But definitely not mine (I'd bet many don't see it that way either).

Fangio, Stewart, Lauda, Senna, Villeneuve, Hakkinen - never heroes (you can meet those in any VA meeting, you'll hear about those who sacrificed their lives for others, or those (many) that sacrificed limbs to save a comrade or a child - those are heroes) but people in possession of something that separates them from you: an uncanny ability to control their emotions and an unbelievable talent for exploring the limits of their machines.

There is nothing epic in watching the body of a pilot thrown into the air and broken like a puppet (Villeneuve).

There is nothing wrong in applying a few more safety measures that will save the lives of pilots we all like to watch and discuss about.

If Alonso doesn't want to take the risk of open cockpit racing no problem, I will for 1% salary.

If talented pilots such as Alonso refuse to take risks, F1 and Indy will change. No professional F1 team will ever allow talentless pilots into the cockpit, even if they profess themselves to be both "brave" and "cheap".

 

[William Levesque]

What was epic was their thirst to live.

 

[Kennett Ylitalo]

^^ Well said. It's actually quite selfish to expect young men to sacrifice them selves when it can be avoided. "They get paid" is not enough good reason, i think we all know why they are racers in the first place... they have a thirst for danger, there would be drivers even if safety features were all taken off... When that spark of speed hits your brain the first time, the risks grow to ridiculous lengths.. Just take a look at hillclimbers, they drive absolute monsters just feets away from huge drops and they go faster every year. Competing clouds judgement big time.. There will always be huge risks and real danger. It really doesn't matter what kind of vehicle you drive 300km/h to the wall, you're really lucky if you escape it with minor injuries..

 

[Hampus Andersson]

The safer the sport gets the more ruthless the driver´s get.

Run offs? Well now everyone is Senna. Make a mistake? no problem, just get back on track.
Impossible to die? Well i´ll just punt this guy off, i know nothing will happen to him.

I think things are good the way they are.
People do Isle of Man, essentially organ donors all of them but it´s ok because it´s worth it, It´s part of the game.

While we are at it we might as well turn down the horsepower to 5 horses.
All in the name of safety.

It´s already probably the safest motorsport in the world.
Let´s keep some form of danger left in the sport and wait until other motorsports catch up in safety.

 

[Kennett Ylitalo]

That is true. People take more risks if consequences are reduced. I'm for closed cockpits and i would weep if they arrive. It would be end of an era. Super talents driving on a razors edge, what is better? But when someone dies, how awful would that feel? Knowing that by demanding more thrill.my actions might've contributed to that accident

But boxing has one warning story: before queensbury rules, they were bareknuckle boxing. After the boxing gloves become allowed and then mandatory, the amount of brain-injuries and deaths increased. Reason is pretty simple: human head is hard. It's really really hard. So hard in fact that before boxing gloves were introduced, most injuries were broken knuckles. Fighters could punch a lot harder and faster, creating huge G forces inside the skull.

F1 looks like a fighter jet anyway, canopy would fit to shape perfectly.

 

[Chronus]

The facts related to boxing offer a good point. But we also have to consider athletes have evolved immensely from the era of bare knuckles boxing. Today's pros are bigger, faster, much more powerful and better trained than before. The techniques itself have evolved into a set of actions designed for surgical strikes (where maximum power is also released/used). Damage, unfortunately, is inevitably deeper and more extensive.

With auto-racing ultimate speed has given way to strong aerodynamics, more mechanical grip, more torque. Lighter cars, more well equipped, more "stuck" to the ground have probably given the false impression that motorsports is now less dangerous than it was before - in my view, false impression given the fatalities in recent years in stock car racing, rallies and open-wheel racing.

Given this widespread concern with the environment and people safety, the less destructive (towards the environment and people) this sport is, the better chance it has to thrive.

 

[Mark Gormley]

The issue with drivers taking more risks needs to be solved with better stewarding and more consistent and severe punishments for those who break the rules, not making the sport dangerous as a deterrent.

Personally, I don't watch F1 to see people dice with death. There's footage of real combat in Iraq/Afghanistan on YouTube if that's what gives you your kicks. I watch it to see the best drivers in the world race each other. When one of them crashes out (or 5 of them, as happened on Sunday) the spectacle and excitement is reduced because there are less cars racing, not enhanced because someone came so close to being injured or killed.

The pursuit of safety isn't just for the drivers either (although yes, this particular issue is). The last two fatalities in F1 have been marshals, they shouldn't have to risk life and limb either, which is why we have wheel tethers, kill switches, yellow and red flags to protect them.

 

[Xosé Estrada]

People dies every day in crappy jobs they have to do to earn a basic salary. Nobody cares.

Much safety could be improved there as well, but is not done because it's not profitable.

It's not like people is dying every weekend in F1, I find this paranoia a bit hypocritical.

Motorsport is dangerous, it's part of the job, I'm 100% to improve security but without destroying the meaning of it, otherwise just stop it and do simracing races with Alonso, Hamilton, etc.

The facts related to boxing offer a good point. But we also have to consider athletes have evolved immensely from the era of bare knuckles boxing. Today's pros are bigger, faster, much more powerful and better trained than before. The techniques itself have evolved into a set of actions designed for surgical strikes (where maximum power is also released/used). Damage, unfortunately, is inevitably deeper and more extensive.

With auto-racing ultimate speed has given way to strong aerodynamics, more mechanical grip, more torque. Lighter cars, more well equipped, more "stuck" to the ground have probably given the false impression that motorsports is now less dangerous than it was before - in my view, false impression given the fatalities in recent years in stock car racing, rallies and open-wheel racing.

Given this widespread concern with the environment and people safety, the less destructive (towards the environment and people) this sport is, the better chance it has to thrive.

Drivers use to die in low categories where the safety measures are 90ish: small rally, national championships, etc.

Try to make a green F1 or green motorsports competition is stupid because they have no propose other than to be a show . The most environmental thing motorposts can do is disappear .

And even in that case, the impact on the whole world will be 0%.

P.S.- WWF, Greenpeace and local Ecoloxistes N'Accion donator for +15 years now.

The issue with drivers taking more risks needs to be solved with better stewarding and more consistent and severe punishments for those who break the rules, not making the sport dangerous as a deterrent.

Personally, I don't watch F1 to see people dice with death. There's footage of real combat in Iraq/Afghanistan on YouTube if that's what gives you your kicks. I watch it to see the best drivers in the world race each other. When one of them crashes out (or 5 of them, as happened on Sunday) the spectacle and excitement is reduced because there are less cars racing, not enhanced because someone came so close to being injured or killed.

The pursuit of safety isn't just for the drivers either (although yes, this particular issue is). The last two fatalities in F1 have been marshals, they shouldn't have to risk life and limb either, which is why we have wheel tethers, kill switches, yellow and red flags to protect them.

Nobody said that, but it's a fact that F1 has the aura it has just because all the epicness, drama, risk, happyness, etc. that was present in it's history.


ep·ic

   [ep-ik] Show IPA
adjective Also, ep·i·cal.

1.​

noting or pertaining to a long poetic composition, usuallycentered upon a hero, in which a series of greatachievements or events is narrated in elevated style:Homer's Iliad is an epic poem.

If you read the Iliad or Oddysei you will find all this components on it.

Another sport similar in this sense it's the high mountain climbing, for similar reasons. There is a huge discussion about climbing with oxygen now, because for most of fans that just doesn't count, because it's not dangerous so the merit of doing a +8000 is not the same, it's looses it's epicness, it looses what makes it an incredible achievement, even if way less people would die. And are the same climbers the ones that reject using the oxygen...

 

[Chronus]

There are people dying for lack of food - especially in Africa. If, in your own country, you find someone who knows faces hunger or is already experiencing it, will you cross your arms and do nothing for fear of looking hypocritical? Really?

Anyway, the discussion is based on whether there are reasons or not for closed cockpits to be implemented. Qualifying the concerns some have for the safety of pilots as "paranoia" and "hypocrisy" is of poor taste.

Fact is, some racing fans want to see drivers drive to the best of their abilities, they're not interested in seeing someone die "caught on camera" (cases of Villeneuve, Palleti, Senna and Wheldon...and others).

 

[Xosé Estrada]

Talking about demagogic statements...

What I say is F1 it's safe enough, considering nobody died in almost the last 20 years.

Yes, somebody can die in the future, like in every other situation in life, but there is not a safety issue in F1 like it was in the 80's when casualties were frequent.

Some will say let's sacrifice all the sport to prevent any possible death in the next 50 years, and I say no, as long as is not a trend, as long as that death can only be an isolated incident, preserve the sport.

Your insinuation that saying this is like "liking the crashes" it's disgusting and/or paranoid.

And your "there is always people against moving forward" so pretentious , because in human societies when you move, you never know if you are moving "forwards" or "backwards" until a lot of time passes, and still there won't be agreement.

EXAMPLE: electrical cars, now there is a lobby pressuring to see them as the future environmental cars. Well, their batteries will open the new war on resources and they are poison for nature. For the pro electrical cars, I don't want to move forward, for me, I don't want them to force us backwards.

"All change is good change"? No way

Fact is, some racing fans want to see drivers drive to the best of their abilities, they're not interested in seeing someone die "caught on camera" (cases of Villeneuve, Palleti, Senna and Wheldon...and others).

Fact is most of F1 fans like F1, and F1 was always insane powerful machines drove on the edge, with open wheels and open cockpits (except for one or two early models).

If you will be satisfied with 40cv electrical vehicles drove at 50 km/h in a cotton track fine by me, but I don't think that preserves the same concept F1 had for 60 years in any way.