Would a covered cockpit have helped Bianchi ?

[ME4ME]

It will have a knock on effect on everything rearwards. Even though better, it still results binning everything you know in that area and start over. I think you are oversimplifying the problem. We had rule changes before, but not of this magnitude.

I really dislike this attitude against changes, which is well spread in F1.
The pinnacle of motorsport, with the brightest engineers, and hundreds of millions in budget per team - they should easily be capable of handling such problems. F1 seems stuck in "thinking it thru until you've forgotten what you were to think about"-mode. Flexibility should be one of an F1 teams strengths.

So what if you bin everything you know about that area of the car. Teams will figure it out, some sooner than others. But why give them years to solve it when you can do it for next year, let teams do their own ongoing development and potentially avoid accidents.

The thing that should not be rushed is FIA safety definitions (such as get-out-of-the-car time) and crash tests. These are the definitions teams will have to go by, so these should be studied and written in a clear way. But as for the performance aspects and how teams deal with requirements: let them figure it out themselves.

[Andres125sx]

I agree about the unintended consequences. But closed cockpits are not a new solution not used before wich could bring in unintended consequences, that´s the reason I pointed to LMP, they´re using closed cockpits for many years so any unintended consequence should have show up in this series, as in any other using closed cockpits

That´s the reason I asked about incidents in LMP where some driver suffered a risky situation due to the closed cockpit, it was not a rethorical question, but a fair one. And please take into account many things that were a problem some decades back, today are not a problem


About the teethed nose cone yes, it would have prevented that particular accident, but what about the spring wich hitted Massa´s helmet? What about those crashes where a car go over another (Grosjean and Alonso in Spa, Kimi and Alonso in Austria...)?

All those accidents show a pattern, exposed helmets can cause a fatal accident in many different ways. It´s obvious that racing can´t be 100% safe, but when there´s a repeated pattern causing dangerous situations, then people in charge shold act and solve that pattern.

Visibility problem must not be such a big problem when the longest racing (24h) use closed cockpits. For a less than 2h race it shouldn´t be a big problem

[Just_a_fan]

As has been pointed out as nauseam, LMP cockpits are much bigger than F1 are. You could put a LMP-style cockpit on an F1 car but you would end up with another LMP car, not an F1 car. Shrink the LMP solution down so that it just covers the head of a driver and see how you deal with rain, egress, emergency driver removal etc.

I'm coming to the conclusion that F1 should reinvent itself as Ultra-LMP; make 1000bhp, high downforce, 650kg sprint versions of the cars that competed at Le Mans, in effect. Now they would be amazing machines. But they wouldn't be F1 cars.

[turbof1]

It will have a knock on effect on everything rearwards. Even though better, it still results binning everything you know in that area and start over. I think you are oversimplifying the problem. We had rule changes before, but not of this magnitude.

I really dislike this attitude against changes, which is well spread in F1.
The pinnacle of motorsport, with the brightest engineers, and hundreds of millions in budget per team - they should easily be capable of handling such problems. F1 seems stuck in "thinking it thru until you've forgotten what you were to think about"-mode. Flexibility should be one of an F1 teams strengths.

So what if you bin everything you know about that area of the car. Teams will figure it out, some sooner than others. But why give them years to solve it when you can do it for next year, let teams do their own ongoing development and potentially avoid accidents.

The thing that should not be rushed is FIA safety definitions (such as get-out-of-the-car time) and crash tests. These are the definitions teams will have to go by, so these should be studied and written in a clear way. But as for the performance aspects and how teams deal with requirements: let them figure it out themselves.

It's not an attitude against change - again I'm not a purist, and I would love, both aesthetically and for safety, to see fully enclosed cockpits. Only thing I'm saying is that it is not as easy as slapping on a cockpit and be done with it. It will require time, effort and resources. If the conditions are met for such a change, then there's absolutely no objection from my side.

The issue also is that teams have limited windtunnel and cfd time. Either you have to give them more time to work under the limited conditions, remove the limits or both. Fact is that you do need to give them a fair chance to adapt the change. After all they do need to justify their costs to their partners.

[FW17]

Canopy opening system should be solved with no problem. I would see a full canopy like in the drag racers but with a sliding system. The system if upside down would use a compressed air jack which would force open against the weight of the car so that driver can be extracted.

[ME4ME]

It's not an attitude against change - again I'm not a purist, and I would love, both aesthetically and for safety, to see fully enclosed cockpits. Only thing I'm saying is that it is not as easy as slapping on a cockpit and be done with it. It will require time, effort and resources. If the conditions are met for such a change, then there's absolutely no objection from my side.

The issue also is that teams have limited windtunnel and cfd time. Either you have to give them more time to work under the limited conditions, remove the limits or both. Fact is that you do need to give them a fair chance to adapt the change. After all they do need to justify their costs to their partners.

Ok fair enough. But as for your second point, again I'm more for letting teams handle it themselves. Using the word budget as in CFD and windtunnel time, teams should prioritize what to allocate resources on themselves. Allison described this in a good way earlier this year:

skip to 03:20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc8wSm6Dae4

I see no reason for the budget of CFD/WT to be increased. Doing that would increase cost, which nobody wants. Keep it stable and teams will decide themselves what aspect of the car to develop.

[Just_a_fan]

Canopy opening system should be solved with no problem. I would see a full canopy like in the drag racers but with a sliding system. The system if upside down would use a compressed air jack which would force open against the weight of the car so that driver can be extracted.

Just another point of failure though. Also, such a system could present an injury risk to rescuers.

The obvious solution is to provide a roof/windscreen that protects from roll over and also gives rigidity to the chassis. The sides of the chassis can then be cut down and "doors" provided. The "doors" would still give side impact protection but would allow the same access as LMP achieves. This would also allow access from either side and doesn't require a system to move the car before rescue/escape is effected.

[void]

Why not a windshield? Is not fully closed, but can be easily removable like the headrest.

[Moose]

Why not a windshield? Is not fully closed, but can be easily removable like the headrest.

Because its much harder to make one that won't smash and/or flex so much that it offers no protection. The FIA tested a windscreen design a couple of years back and found it couldn't be made to work.

[theblackangus]

It would be trivial to say - F1 use an LMP cockpit, but that does that really do? Makes everyone completely start from scratch for the aero and supporting systems.

Yes getting rid of the turbulence created by an open cockpit and reducing drag would be a problem for the aero department

About the added weight, I think the aero improvement would compensate it by far.

Now your just being silly. It would change the whole aero of the car from front to back like an LMP car, so yes lots for work and expense for everyone all around. And at that point I would guess that the solution they arrive at will most likely be very similar to an LMP car... so we need two series of LMP cars?

The added weight means a higher COG and hence significant changes in the car handling.

The solution should not be to turn F1 into LMP1. And if you make the cockpit closed much more narrow it will make it very hard to exit quickly. So whatever the solution is, it needs to keep a unique persona for F1 and also make it safer in all regards.

[Andres125sx]

As has been pointed out as nauseam, LMP cockpits are much bigger than F1 are. You could put a LMP-style cockpit on an F1 car but you would end up with another LMP car, not an F1 car.

That´s like saying the only difference between F1 and LMP is the open/closed cockpit, when it´s the sprint/endurance spirit

[Andres125sx]

It would be trivial to say - F1 use an LMP cockpit, but that does that really do? Makes everyone completely start from scratch for the aero and supporting systems.

Yes getting rid of the turbulence created by an open cockpit and reducing drag would be a problem for the aero department

About the added weight, I think the aero improvement would compensate it by far.

Now your just being silly. It would change the whole aero of the car from front to back like an LMP car, so yes lots for work and expense for everyone all around. And at that point I would guess that the solution they arrive at will most likely be very similar to an LMP car... so we need two series of LMP cars?

The added weight means a higher COG and hence significant changes in the car handling.

The solution should not be to turn F1 into LMP1. And if you make the cockpit closed much more narrow it will make it very hard to exit quickly. So whatever the solution is, it needs to keep a unique persona for F1 and also make it safer in all regards.

I was kidding, that´s the reason for the smilie, I know the aero would change and would require a lot of work, but it would be the same for all so I don´t see the problem. Same as last changes with narrower front wings, or when the nose was lowered.

About F1 turning into LMP1, read my previous reply

[theblackangus]

As has been pointed out as nauseam, LMP cockpits are much bigger than F1 are. You could put a LMP-style cockpit on an F1 car but you would end up with another LMP car, not an F1 car.

That´s like saying the only difference between F1 and LMP is the open/closed cockpit, when it´s the sprint/endurance spirit

Not really, different categories are firstly defined by what the cockpit configuration is.
F1 is a single seater series, using an LMP cockpit (outright) makes F1 a two seater series.

You seem to be strongly advocating something as a fix, but its more like saying "Well just make them like NASCARS or dune buggies because they are safe". (Huge exaggeration true, but just to make the point)

That's not the answer anyone really wants, and if you force that further you will only have one type of racing because its the only really safe way, and that will be remote control cars. (Now I'm being silly)

Also I have to add its strange how everyone is getting all up in arms about this but there is no mention of all the people injured or killed in much lesser series because they are far more lax about safety than any of the top series. EVERYONE who races or even does track days makes a choice and bluntly put that is - "If I go on to the track I may die today". I know I think that every time i go, but in the end I also think - "So be it, I love this". It all comes down to that in the end.

So now to be very cynical (Because I do support making the sport safer) Isn't it more important to make the series and track where 99% of the racing goes on more safe rather than the 1%? Why is it so critical that F1 changes when other people die and their families can't do w/o them and nothing is done? We didn't see the MotoGP crowd up in arms recently about changing the way motorcycles work.

The point being looking at LMP and saying "Make F1 like that" is a knee jerk reaction, and not a well thought out solution.
Could F1 take hints from LMP - Yes, should it be a copy of LMP - No.

[Andres125sx]

Agree, I didn´t say F1 should be a copy of LMP, only pointed LMP as an example of safe closed cockpits.

I agree it would need some adaptation to F1, my only point is to those saying closed cockpits are not safer than open ones, or it would cause more issues than solutions. IMO LMP is proving that to be wrong, at least while nobody reply my question about dangerous situations caused by closed cockpits in modern days, so if they managed to do it safely, F1 can do it too.

[Just_a_fan]

As has been pointed out as nauseam, LMP cockpits are much bigger than F1 are. You could put a LMP-style cockpit on an F1 car but you would end up with another LMP car, not an F1 car.

That´s like saying the only difference between F1 and LMP is the open/closed cockpit, when it´s the sprint/endurance spirit

The difference between LMP & F1 is race length, covered/open wheels and covered/open cockpits. Details of aero rules are irrelevant as they change year by year anyway. Put a covered cockpit on an F1 car and you have an open wheeled sprint LMP car.