The open debate on closed cockpits

[Stanislav Minakov]

As far as I know, in our time there are technologies that can make the windshield doesn't get dirty. These glasses do not need wipers, perhaps they simply wipe it on a pit-stop. It is also possible to make the top of the windshield to make possible air circulation.

 

[Andy_J]

I voted no. If we listened to all the reasons not to do certain sports we would be a boring, sanitised world.
F1 is dangerous, accidents happen. Fortunetly a lot less than years gone by. But it's a dangerous sport and the participants know it.

What next, have fully enclosed Moto GP bikes? Motocross only raced on foam sponge tracks with bikes that can only go 10 mph? How about boxing with large foam inflatable gloves? Or mountain biking without the mountains to make it safer? Lets ban everything that's dangerous and only do it virtually on our computers.

The TT has many people calling to get it banned after many riders die there, but thank god the Manx Government and the ACU ignore the apologists and liberals.

I recently crashed at Cadwell Park on my track bike. I was very lucky, I got away with just a few bruises and a severely broken right Clavical and elbow. But I can't wait to get back on my rebuilt bike and hit the track again. Thank god nobody has cancelled trackdays because of the fatalities and injuries they have.

End of rant.

 

[Nelson Ullinskey]

It's not just F1, but open wheel racing in general. Mikhail Aleshin was almost suffocated under Juan Montoya's car in Toronto, and I'm tempted to think of his Fontana crash as well as Dario Fanchitti's last year, but I don't think an enclosed cockpit could have helped either.

But let's get down to business, this is going to be a long post...

Let's think about the cons: Obstruction of view, lack of air flow and the ability to get out quickly.

Watch the video above, with the model tested, there are no support beams that would obstruct the view, but there is still the issue of dirt and debris. The first thing that comes to mind is tear offs which are currently used on the driver's helmets quite obviously. All top three divisions of NASCAR have tear offs on the windshield that can be torn off during the pit stops, so do the same thing. So there are answers here.

Now onto the matter of airflow, and I am going to reference NASCAR again. Obviously, NASCAR series have engines in the front, so airflow is almost even more of issue for them. I know they have a special circulation device that circulates the air within the confines of the helmet and keeps it cool, so I am sure F1 could do the same. I am also think that F1 could figure out a way to circulate and draw air from outside the car so if a fire were to be started, the driver would still be safe from the smoke.

About getting out quickly. The same was said about multiple point harnesses, that they would trap the driver and keep them in the car. I think with enough time put into development, F1 will figure out a way to eject the cockpit quickly allowing them to get out.

Another issue I would like to discuss is that a cockpit possibly could not have prevented the Bianchi incident. As seen in the video, the cockpit would deflect the force of the impact. Where would it go here? I am no physicist, so I don't have the answer, but I know it must go somewhere.

Considering what I said above, I do not see why this event specifically brought this debate up. This all could have been prevented if speeds were enforced in the sector and more so if the safety car stayed out until all safety vehicles got behind the wall.

Last, but definitely not least, is if this does happen, it is not the end of open wheel racing. Let's go back in history before side pods and wings were introduced to open wheel racing. Wings are not that good of example, but point is things change with time. A better example is the side pods. I am way way too young to know what people were thinking back when they were introduced, but I have a pretty good idea. "The space between the wheels is no longer open- we can't call these open wheel cars any more!." In my honest opinion, open wheel cars are open wheeled because they do not have body parts covering the wheels such as fenders, so the spirit of open wheel still exists, it has only evolved.

We are on witnessing change, we are witnessing the evolution of open wheel racing.

 

[Jonas Bögemann]

Monoposto means Open-wheels, open single-seater. Everything else is like breaking a law in a constitution.

 

[Dan Allen]

It's comforting to see so many people on here think that enclosed cockpits are nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction to something which was a complete accident.

And as for the person who said non-open wheeled cars have lower fatality than open wheelers (apologies, forgot your name) has in fact kinda reinforced my point. The mere fact somebody can be killed in a closed cockpit car proves that a closed cockpit for open wheelers won't necessarily make any difference after an incredibly heavy impact like Bianchi's.

From a purely personal point of view, what they need to do is keep the yellow flags flying/keep the safety car out until the recovery vehicles and all stewards are safely back behind the barriers, THEN continue racing... This (to me) is a much more common sense approach, closed cockpits are a complete over-reaction which wouldn't really make much difference.

 

[Chronus]

It's comforting to see so many people on here think that enclosed cockpits are nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction to something which was a complete accident.

When Henry Surtees died, several posters here and elsewhere said the exact same thing.

Several posters here and elsewhere said the exact same thing ("knee jerk reaction to an accident") when Dan Wheldon died. Out there, though, several motorsports people argued for closed cockpits, in spite of the opposition.

Then Maria almost died in that horrible incident. [Which eventually happened, according to doctors as a result of the injuries sustained.] Some people said closed cockpits demands were a result of "knee jerk reactions".

Now Jules is fighting for his life. Again: knee jerk reaction, some say.

How many knee jerk reactions until people finally understand these accidents/deaths can be prevented?

 

[DrDetroit]

I see no reason why they wouldn't have canopies on these cars. I mean you're going 180-200mph and your damn head is sticking out of the car. Does that seem safe to anybody?

First off; the military makes canopies that withstand much more than any F1 would have to face - in weather, aerodynamic forces, impacts (fod), etc. So the canopy material breaking/failing due to a tire, tire-rod or anything else going through the canopy is astronomically low...although it happens to Military AC once in a very great while...that's why they have "bird slicers" on the front of the fuselage.

This same material does not need wipers or 'defrosters' to keep the condensation off the interior of the canopy, it's fused with a ionized layer that keeps condensation off the canopy, and nothing sticks either...not rain, bird poop, dirt ; nothing.

If stuck in a jam (no pun intended) and can't get out of the burning car; hit the canopy release button/lever and the canopy is blown off the car, like they do in military AC. Although not nearly the force is required to blow-off the canopy in an F1...it can be done mechanically instead of det.-cord being used.

I imagine why the tradition is the way it is now, and always has been, is due to producton capabilities of that time. Manufacturers didn't have the technology and means to create such a canopy that is cost effective and light-weight. Now we do, and they should...for the drivers sake.

There are always caveats to these things (i.e; Jules accident, a canopy may not have made a difference), but more people would be alive today if they had canopies (i.e; Ayrton Senna would not have had the tire hit hi in the head, nor the a-arm puncture his helmet and his forhead, killing him almost instantly - above his right eye-brow - he'd be alive otherwise).

I say YES, do it and do it quickly.

DrDetroit

 

[Grega Zorc]

If they want closed cockpits, they can ban the F1 altogether and make an LMP1 sprint world championship.

 

[Dan Allen]

When Henry Surtees died, several posters here and elsewhere said the exact same thing.

Several posters here and elsewhere said the exact same thing ("knee jerk reaction to an accident") when Dan Wheldon died. Out there, though, several motorsports people argued for closed cockpits, in spite of the opposition.

Then Maria almost died in that horrible incident. [Which eventually happened, according to doctors as a result of the injuries sustained.] Some people said closed cockpits demands were a result of "knee jerk reactions".

Now Jules is fighting for his life. Again: knee jerk reaction, some say.

How many knee jerk reactions until people finally understand these accidents/deaths can be prevented?

That's not what I meant. You said that closed wheel cars aren't as dangerous as open wheelers, all I said was that it isn't strictly true (like Allan Simonsen, who died in a CLOSED WHEEL car).

The reason I used the term knee-jerk is because it is impossible to make motorsport safe, there's too many factors which are beyond anyone's control. Tyre wear, track grip, temperatures etc. It can never be truly safe.

I think F1 would be a whole lot more boring (even more so than it already is IMHO) if it became super safe.

 

[Chronus]

That's not what I said. You said that closed wheel cars aren't as dangerous as open wheelers, all I said was that it isn't strictly true (like Allan Simonsen, who died in a CLOSED WHEEL car).

Wow.

Lets see:

It's comforting to see so many people on here think that enclosed cockpits are nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction to something which was a complete accident.

To which I responded:

How many knee jerk reactions until people finally understand these accidents/deaths can be prevented?

Where did I misquote or distort what you said?

If they want closed cockpits, they can ban the F1 altogether and make an LMP1 sprint world championship.

There's no need to ban F1. Just adapt it to prevent these deaths/accidents.

Anyway, better to follow LMP1 championships than watching avoidable accidents such as the one Jules suffered. We know motorsports are inherently dangerous (at such speeds, if something fails only the protective cocoon may save the pilot - one look at NASCAR or even prototypes incidents is sufficient to understand there's good technology which can be applied to keep pilots alive "against all odds").

Anyway, as Alonso said to Marca.com, when Grosjean lost control of his Lotus at Spa (last year), if the wheel of the Lotus had been a mere centimetres lower, he wouldn't be alive today. Hence the need to rethink all this.

 

[Dan Allen]

Please read my updated post. I clarified it.

 

[Chronus]

Ok, got it.

Yes, Allan died in an Aston Martin Vantage. But as I said: compare the number of races and cars of both genres (open wheelers and non-open wheelers), and look at the stats regarding fatalities.

It doesn't look good at all for open-wheelers. Anyway, the point is moot, as having your head and shoulders sticking out of a cockpit will obviously expose you a lot more to debris or any objects you may come into contact with.

I respect how some of you (most, apparently) think, but it's clear to me that we if can avoid such tragic happenings, we should. Period.

 

[Nelson Ullinskey]

I see no reason why they wouldn't have canopies on these cars. I mean you're going 180-200mph and your damn head is sticking out of the car. Does that seem safe to anybody?

First off; the military makes canopies that withstand much more than any F1 would have to face - in weather, aerodynamic forces, impacts (fod), etc. So the canopy material breaking/failing due to a tire, tire-rod or anything else going through the canopy is astronomically low...although it happens to Military AC once in a very great while...that's why they have "bird slicers" on the front of the fuselage.

This same material does not need wipers or 'defrosters' to keep the condensation off the interior of the canopy, it's fused with a ionized layer that keeps condensation off the canopy, and nothing sticks either...not rain, bird poop, dirt ; nothing.

If stuck in a jam (no pun intended) and can't get out of the burning car; hit the canopy release button/lever and the canopy is blown off the car, like they do in military AC. Although not nearly the force is required to blow-off the canopy in an F1...it can be done mechanically instead of det.-cord being used.

I imagine why the tradition is the way it is now, and always has been, is due to producton capabilities of that time. Manufacturers didn't have the technology and means to create such a canopy that is cost effective and light-weight. Now we do, and they should...for the drivers sake.

There are always caveats to these things (i.e; Jules accident, a canopy may not have made a difference), but more people would be alive today if they had canopies (i.e; Ayrton Senna would not have had the tire hit hi in the head, nor the a-arm puncture his helmet and his forhead, killing him almost instantly - above his right eye-brow - he'd be alive otherwise).

I say YES, do it and do it quickly.

DrDetroit

Excellent post, I had no idea about the ionization of the canopy, thank you for this information.

And to the rest of you, if we were turning these cars into prototypes, we would also need fenders and to cover up the suspension.... neither of which have been considered. If we want truly "open wheel" cars, then the side pods gotta go, because there is no opening between the wheels

 

[Bob Miley]

After seeing the video of Bianchi accident a closed cockpit would not have made any difference. In fact it would have probably killed him.

 

[Dux]

No and opinion is not needed. Apart from troubles in other circumstances like heating, exiting the cockpit in emergency or falling rain which will greatly reduce the view of the drivers, this is F1 and it's not a car.

F1 is meant to be opened. I read one disagreed with this opinion and didn't clarify it like a good enough to support the reason why we don't need it. But yes it is i believe.

If they introduce closed cockpit to F1 - goodbye to the spirit of F1. They can be F1closedcockpits but not F1

PS. It's not the closed cockpit which will safe drivers from crashes like in one Jules was involved and it wouldnt matter even in his case, nor Senna. It would however in case of Massa. Apart of the crash in Jules case, Massa's head hit was done in 1 out of 1.000.000 chances and i till this day wonder how that happened. And if the probability of another crash like that of Massa's type is very hard to ever happen why closed cockpits? We can as well put the drivers in the paddock and give them gamepads so they can drive and be perfectly safe.

F1 always is going to be dangerous, its enough that more people die from other sports or motorsports with closed cockpits and if closed cockpits are introduced, sometime in some circumstances another will get hurt from another crash or chain of events.

 

[ouvert]

the military makes canopies that withstand much more than any F1 would have to face - in weather, aerodynamic forces, impacts (fod), etc.

well as mentioned before FIA tested military canopy (i belive it was from F16) for F1 .. and nor FIA nor teams principals liked that idea .. for safety reason (ricochetting debrie in to the audience, traping pilot in car turned over, staying in a way when exiting car) ..
And based on statistics "modern" era of F1 is pretty safe .. technically, considering safty precautions, advanced construction of cars and skill of drivers, it is much safer than you driving your car to work ... and it is certainely not the most dangerous sport out there (wouldn`t make it in to top 10) ... yes it is dangerous and it is shame when something serious happend but where do you stop in making it more safe ? canopy? not adding more power after adding canopy that weights more? more downforce? less powerfull engines? speed limiters? remote controls?

 

[Andy_J]

I respect how some of you (most, apparently) think, but it's clear to me that we if can avoid such tragic happenings, we should. Period.

Hi Chronos.

I'll have to disagree with you on this subject. Sorry mate.
But we can make all dangerous sports safer by just banning them. That way no one will die.

How about banning base jumping? These people are really risking their lives. If they jump from an aircraft it's safer, so lets ban cliffs?

We must make sports safer, but only to a degree otherwise they will not attract the very people that are willing to risk it all. Better safety car rules, better yellow flag rules, automatic rev and speed limiters under certain flag conditions? Just a few idea's that would in my opinion make it safer.

This, like the others, was a tragic accident. More people get killed riding motorcycles on the road than ever have done in F1. Shall we ban motorcycles? I hope not coz I am a biker.

 

[ouvert]

Hi Chronos.

How about banning base jumping? These people are really risking their lives. If they jump from an aircraft it's safer, so lets ban cliffs?

basejuping, bullriding, motocrossing, hockey, horse riding, moutainclimbing, boxing, American Football, gliding .. and many many others ..

 

[Chronus]

basejuping, bullriding, motocrossing, hockey, horse riding, moutainclimbing, boxing, American Football, gliding .. and many many others ..

You should get extra points for the exaggeration (no surprise there).

Good of you.

 

[Chronus]

We must make sports safer, but only to a degree otherwise they will not attract the very people that are willing to risk it all.

In open-wheelers, as with other forms of motorsports, there is plenty of room for serious injury and even death. We can't prevent everything; we should prevent what we can.