Would a covered cockpit have helped Bianchi ?

[mrluke]

In 20 or 30 years it is almost certain the cars will have a closed cockpit. Let's just get on with it.

[dmjunqueira]

I still believe that an enlarged windscreen, like Lola's proposal is the best bet.

Probably...But they will have to add windscreen wipers (or something else) to deal with rain.
And these windscreen wipers, IMHO, is something that seems far from perfect on other closed cockpit racing prototypes...

[RicME85]

Pfft, Charlie doesn't like rain so no problem

[Just_a_fan]

The inquiry into Bianchi's accident showed that a canopy, or similar, wouldn't have helped him.

To me that was a way to say "this was unavoidable", because if they say a closed cockpit would have saved him, then there would be a lot of complains and noise, and even Jules´ family could be affected. But nobody can know how a closed cockpit would have changed the outcome. It may have reduced Gs as any other structure between the crane and the driver, or it may have pushed the crane instead of being directly the helmet... nobody can know for sure, but we can be sure it would have never been harmful

The inquiry says otherwise:

It is not feasible to mitigate the injuries Bianchi suffered by either enclosing the driver’s cockpit, or fitting skirts to the crane. Neither approach is practical due to the very large forces involved in the accident between a 700kg car striking a 6500kg crane at a speed of 126kph. There is simply insufficient impact structure on a F1 car to absorb the energy of such an impact without either destroying the driver’s survival cell, or generating non-survivable decelerations.

And for example, Maria de Villota would be alive with closed cockpits, as Justin Wilson, both lives would have been saved by a closed cockpit.

You have no way of knowing that with absolute certainty, although it is possible of course.

People with all of the data from the Bianchi incident say that a canopy wouldn't have saved him. What do you think you know that they don't?

A closed cockpit would certainly help in some cases, Wilson's is probably a case in point, but please don't think that a canopy is F1's panacea. What will people do the first time a canopied F1 car prevents the timely rescue of the driver? Or a driver is trapped in a burning car? Sure, we don't see burning cars these days, but they hadn't seen a death in F1 for years before 1994 - and then they had 2 in 2 days.

People jump to "something must be done" too quickly. It is very possible that F1 is as safe as it can be - there will always be an unforseen situation that defeats all of the safety features. To think otherwise is naïve.

[RicME85]

Very true, the same jumping to 'something must be done' reaction is happening here in the UK because of Saturdays airshow crash. There hadn't been a spectator death for 60 years but suddenly everything needs to change.

[theblackangus]

... But nobody can know how a closed cockpit would have changed the outcome. It may have reduced Gs as any other structure between the crane and the driver, or it may have pushed the crane instead of being directly the helmet... nobody can know for sure, but we can be sure it would have never been harmful

Saying we can be sure that it would never have been harmful isn't really true. Poorly implemented solutions could certainly cause more harm than good.

And for example, Maria de Villota would be alive with closed cockpits, as Justin Wilson, both lives would have been saved by a closed cockpit.

Depending on the solution implemented its possible but not a definite. If that nose cone did weigh 26 lbs then the impact for at 200+ mph is likely in the thousand + pound range, which has the possibility do deform/shatter many of the structures proposed.

I'm all for safety, but these things are not certain by any means. The jet fighter canopy test showed the canopy deform heavily under the tire, I would bet that it would not have saved Jules and very possibly not Maria or Justin if the nose piece weighed 26 lbs.

Except the changes (closed cockpit) are used all around in all sort of series, and they´ve proved to be safer.

Comparing LMP cockpits to F1 cockpits isn't fair as the volume of the cockpit in an LMP car is very large, meaning a much larger buffer space between the pilot and the protecting structure should it be damaged. The challenge with a cockpit in F1 is that the structure profile must protect the pilot with a much smaller buffer space, which means the structure must be that much stronger so that it does not deform and cause damage to the pilot. It also means increasing the area that must be protected greatly from the pilots head size to something larger than the cockpit opening. This results in a larger chance of having an object hit the protecting structure and causing damage to it, which may in-turn cause damage to the pilot where w/o it the object would have just hit the car and bounced off.

These are not simple clear cut cases. The sport of open wheel racing needs an elegant solution that minimizes all these risks. Its a list of checks and balances that needs much thought for a solid solution.

As much as we all want to make things safe, racing will be dangerous no matter what. We need to make it as safe as possible but not cause additional risk along the way, closing the cockpit of an open wheel car brings many possible risk scenarios that need to be understood before implementing a solution. Even then there will still be safety trade offs.

[n_anirudh]

Merc seems to have come up with a "convertible" type cockpit, as opposed to an enclosed one. The nose cone struck Wilson went vertically up 30-40 ft or more and could have hit another driver.

Perez was able to snuggle out of his car in Hungary, which might not be possible with Merc's solution. Plus the tiny windshield causes buffeting for Nico Rosberg, this larger shield will mess up rear wing aero. As Max Chilton said, closed cockpits are not far, perhaps 3-4 years from now.

The number of near misses etc has increased over the last year and FIA should have initiated this earlier so that they could have closed cockpits when the new rules are introduced.

Its a sport and supposed to be good fun, not drivers being killed.

[Jonnycraig]

Without reading back through the thread, no, a closed canopy would not have saved Bianchi. He suffered an axional injury from the immense deceleration forces of the car hitting an object it was never designed to hit. Without seeming insensitive, his brain was essentially torn apart by the body decelerating faster than the brain within the skull.

[Facts Only]

It's a difficult and complicated this one but after some thought I think that some sort of protected cockpit will and should happen.

Its pretty clear for anyone to see that the greatest danger to drivers now lies with impacts to the drivers head, most of the fatal accidents in the modern era (lets say since the last set of saftely measure after Imola '94) from perhaps Greg Moore onwards including Henry Surtees, Dan Weldon, Maria DeViolta, Jules Bianchi, and Justin Wilson as well as near misses and serious injury's like Felipe Massa have been as a result of a blow to the helmet/head. We dont know what would have saved them but protecting there heads would be a start.

The FIA is tasked with making motorsport safer, thats perhaps its biggest role so there is no way that they can or would simply say "well its safe enough so we'll leave it like it is' so there biggest task now will be to deal with this danger. I'm sure people will complain about the asthetics (as they probably did back when roll hoops ruined the clean lines) or the obscuring of the view of the drivers (as they probably did when full face helmets were mandated) but people will get used to it.

The lower series will follow suit as well where it will be a simpler task, nearly all of the feeder series (GP2, GP3, FR3.5, FR2.0, Indycar, Indy Lights, F3, FE etc etc etc) are one make series so the next generation of cars will be supplied spec' with whatever protection is mandated and always these will then filter down to club motorsport as well.

[Andres125sx]

Except the changes (closed cockpit) are used all around in all sort of series, and they´ve proved to be safer.

Wich series?

Actually all of them except F1, GP2, GP3, World Series, F3 and F4 if you want to count it too.

[Blackout]

Even with today's open cockpits, the driver can hardly exit the car alone if it's competely upside down on the track. He needs the help of the marshals. Yes the Lola concept is nice (unless the car is perfectly upside down). Its head protection is removable like the current side protections http://www.racecar-engineering.com/arti ... -concepts/

[Andres125sx]

The inquiry into Bianchi's accident showed that a canopy, or similar, wouldn't have helped him.

To me that was a way to say "this was unavoidable", because if they say a closed cockpit would have saved him, then there would be a lot of complains and noise, and even Jules´ family could be affected. But nobody can know how a closed cockpit would have changed the outcome. It may have reduced Gs as any other structure between the crane and the driver, or it may have pushed the crane instead of being directly the helmet... nobody can know for sure, but we can be sure it would have never been harmful

The inquiry says otherwise:

It is not feasible to mitigate the injuries Bianchi suffered by either enclosing the driver’s cockpit, or fitting skirts to the crane. Neither approach is practical due to the very large forces involved in the accident between a 700kg car striking a 6500kg crane at a speed of 126kph. There is simply insufficient impact structure on a F1 car to absorb the energy of such an impact without either destroying the driver’s survival cell, or generating non-survivable decelerations.

And for example, Maria de Villota would be alive with closed cockpits, as Justin Wilson, both lives would have been saved by a closed cockpit.

You have no way of knowing that with absolute certainty, although it is possible of course.

People with all of the data from the Bianchi incident say that a canopy wouldn't have saved him. What do you think you know that they don't?

A closed cockpit would certainly help in some cases, Wilson's is probably a case in point, but please don't think that a canopy is F1's panacea. What will people do the first time a canopied F1 car prevents the timely rescue of the driver? Or a driver is trapped in a burning car? Sure, we don't see burning cars these days, but they hadn't seen a death in F1 for years before 1994 - and then they had 2 in 2 days.

People jump to "something must be done" too quickly. It is very possible that F1 is as safe as it can be - there will always be an unforseen situation that defeats all of the safety features. To think otherwise is naïve.

I know what the inquiry says, but I´m sure you´ll agree in this cases reports are usually very political, and they must be. There´s a family who lost one of his members and some tact is needed. Nobody want to read his son could be alive if someone would have written some rule beforehand. Since nobody can know for sure how would have been the accident with a closed cockpit because then the accident would have been very different, there´s no reason for causing confusion.

If you see the accident, first part hitting the crane was the airbox/air inlet, then Jules helmet. Saying a structure between the helmet and crane wouldn´t have helped is anything but serious. Even the most experienced doctors are frequently surprised by the resistance/tolerance of human body surviving accidents they would have never though posible. He was alive many months after the accident, anything reducing some Gs or impact on helmet could have made the difference, nobody can know for sure, this is not maths. But I agree woulda shoulda is not a game to be played in this sort of situations for the oficial investigators, so IMO their report says what it must say, there´s no reason to think a closed cockpit would have saved him.

I hope you understand what I mean

[sectionate]

Joe Saward has quite a good opinion on it: https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2015/08 ... gineering/

[theblackangus]

If you see the accident, first part hitting the crane was the airbox/air inlet, then Jules helmet. Saying a structure between the helmet and crane wouldn´t have helped is anything but serious. Even the most experienced doctors are frequently surprised by the resistance/tolerance of human body surviving accidents they would have never though posible. He was alive many months after the accident, anything reducing some Gs or impact on helmet could have made the difference, nobody can know for sure, this is not maths. But I agree woulda shoulda is not a game to be played in this sort of situations for the oficial investigators, so IMO their report says what it must say, there´s no reason to think a closed cockpit would have saved him.

I hope you understand what I mean

You are making the jump that a structure between Jules and the crane wouldn't have created a senna like incident from failing to withstand the impact load. Jules could have been killed instantly, and by the equipment that was meant to protect him. That's the issue. The forces at play there are huge, and creating something that can withstand them isn't trivial. The impact ripped the roll hoop away which is meant to withstand huge forces. Putting something smaller in front of the driver could easily have worsened the scenario.

The "right" structure could have likely saved him, but the "right" structure may not be something we can do with todays materials to make it fit on an F1 car in the dimensions needed. I do hope Im wrong and it IS something we can do today, but it is certainly a tough challenge.

[Andres125sx]

... But nobody can know how a closed cockpit would have changed the outcome. It may have reduced Gs as any other structure between the crane and the driver, or it may have pushed the crane instead of being directly the helmet... nobody can know for sure, but we can be sure it would have never been harmful

Saying we can be sure that it would never have been harmful isn't really true. Poorly implemented solutions could certainly cause more harm than good.

More harm than death?

And for example, Maria de Villota would be alive with closed cockpits, as Justin Wilson, both lives would have been saved by a closed cockpit.

Depending on the solution implemented its possible but not a definite. If that nose cone did weigh 26 lbs then the impact for at 200+ mph is likely in the thousand + pound range, which has the possibility do deform/shatter many of the structures proposed.

I'm all for safety, but these things are not certain by any means. The jet fighter canopy test showed the canopy deform heavily under the tire, I would bet that it would not have saved Jules and very possibly not Maria or Justin if the nose piece weighed 26 lbs.

De Villota case, IMO it´s pretty obvious. It was a ramp hitting directly Maria´s helmet at very low speed. There was nothing reducing the impact but the helmet. It was the helmet what stopped the 700kg of the car, and obviously a helmet is not designed for that even if it was at only 30km/h. Actually a closed cockpit would have lifted the ramp because no closed cockpit is vertical, so the angled structure would moved the ramp up, but even if it wouldn´t, then the energy would have been reduced before hitting the helmet.

Regarding Wilson, yes the cone would have broken the cockpit, but then the cone would have been redirected preventing a direct impact to the helmet.

As much as we all want to make things safe, racing will be dangerous no matter what. We need to make it as safe as possible but not cause additional risk along the way, closing the cockpit of an open wheel car brings many possible risk scenarios that need to be understood before implementing a solution. Even then there will still be safety trade offs.

Fully agree on this, in modern history safety is very very good, thanks god fatal accidents are not common nowadays. But if you analyse severe accidents/close calls lately, there´s a pattern, exposed heads/helmets are a risk, and that´s exactly what safety procedures/measures are suposed to solve. You can´t make motorsports totally safe, but when a pattern is identified, it must be solved.

Jules Bianchi (even if it´s debatable), Maria De Villota, Justin Wilson, Alonso when Grosjean´s car almost hit his helmet, Kimi when Alonso´s car almost hit his helmet, Massa when a spring hitted his helmet... That´s a patterm must be solved, exposed helmets are a risk for drivers. I´d say biggest risk today apart from cranes in a exit or weird accidents you can´t prevent.

Obviously closed cockpits have their own drawbacks, but comparing with open cockpits their drawbacks are not as dangerous as open cockpits. It was debatable some time ago when fire was a common issue, or when survival cells didn´t exist and any deformation in the cockpit could block doors, but today those drawbacks have improved a lot while drawbacks of open cockpits remain the same