Would a covered cockpit have helped Bianchi ?

[Tim.Wright]

The question is where do you stop? Imagine where we would be now if we had introduced the Mercedes solution 10 years ago. That spring would have still hit Massa and subsequently made it more difficult to extract him which could have been critical time lost if he had bitten and swallowed his tongue as happened to Hakkinen.

Everyone would be up in arms about how crap this system is wouldnt they?

[f1316]

What about a version of this in conjunction with a windshield?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... -away.html

Probably wouldn't help the aero too much, but then, theoretically you'd imagine they could turn it off when not raining (bit of extra weight to lug around though, I guess).

[PlatinumZealot]

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.

"Pop-up" jacks can be installed in the car to flip it over in an overturned situation I guess.

[Andres125sx]

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.

No, as I said nobody knows how the accident would have been with a closed cockpit, but since the result was driver´s death, then we can certainly say it wouldn´t have been harmful. Maybe the result would have been the same, but it couldn´t be worse than death.

Anycase that was Jules accident, one case wich I´ve agreed is very debatable. But it´s not the only one, there have been some more only in last decade where driver´s helmet being hitted by something was/could have been very dangerous for the driver. Even if we accept Jules accident was unavoidable there´re still Villota, Wilson, Alonso, Kimi and Massa accidents/calls wich show a pattern, and dangerous patterns are exactly what safety measures should solve.

As safe as motorsports are today, at least 5 examples of dangerous situations due to exposed helmets in only last 6-8 year are something to consider I think

[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.

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

Failure of the safety device could cause accidents that would not have happened other wise. Which is the point I made (that you skipped) about not comparing LMP to F1, the challenge there is very different between the two. Even in maria's case the safety device could have failed with the same or worse results.

In your example about Justin, the safety structure could have broken and instantly killed him, because of the close proximity to the driver and the forces involved. And the safety structure needs to be larger than the pilots head, so this causes a trade off that means there is a larger target area for impact that could compromise the safety structure that is so close to the pilot. This could result in *more* risk on average than with no cockpit structure. Not saying it will but could if the structure isn't very well thought out.

Again I want to see safety, but you seem to state repeatedly that a cockpit *must* have helped, when in reality it could have been worse,and in other scenarios cause harm were there would have been none. By worse I would say senna's accident was worse than Jules, Marias, or Justins. There was a chance that each of them could have been saved, Senna's not so.

I admire the "glass half full" nature of your post but it is "glass half full" by saying must/would instead of may/could.
It implies something is better than nothing when that really isn't the case. Only a special something is better than nothing.

Anyways we are dancing around a fine point =)

[ChrisF1]

"Pop-up" jacks can be installed in the car to flip it over in an overturned situation I guess.

Highly doubt that could be implemented due to the risk of back and neck injury. I know, that seems daft when you think "bad back or death", but hey, that's how the FIA works.

[Andres125sx]

This could result in *more* risk on average than with no cockpit structure. Not saying it will but could if the structure isn't very well thought out.

As anything on a racing car, from seatbelts to helmets. That never prevented anyone from thinking they´re a good implementation.

Again I want to see safety, but you seem to state repeatedly that a cockpit *must* have helped, when in reality it could have been worse,and in other scenarios cause harm were there would have been none. By worse I would say senna's accident was worse than Jules, Marias, or Justins. There was a chance that each of them could have been saved, Senna's not so.

First of all, Senna died into an open cockpit, so the example is not applicable, the cockpit was irrelevant there.

Anycase taking what you´re trying to say (a broken part from the cockpit may be dangerous) that´s a supposition. While the accidents and close calls I listed above are real facts.

There are several series with closed cockpits like LMP1, DTM, GT, WTCC... If you want to to compare point me to some incident where the closed cockpit was dangerous for the driver and he´d have been safer on an open cockpit. We don´t need to do suppositions, there are several series with both open and closed cockpits so we can do realworld comparisons.

Doing so I´ve seen at least 5 incidents in last decade where an open cockpit supposed a risk for the driver. If you know similar scenarios where a closed cockpit supposed a risk for the driver, this is the moment to post it.

Otherwise I must assume nowadays closed cockpits are safer than open cockpits

[theblackangus]

Anycase taking what you´re trying to say (a broken part from the cockpit may be dangerous) that´s a supposition. While the accidents and close calls I listed above are real facts.

As much as your saying it will help is a supposition. So it comes down to making sure any changes from present doesn't cause more risk. Implying that a closed roof can *ONLY* help is false, if implemented poorly it can easily cause a greater risk, especially in the form factor of an F1 car.

There are several series with closed cockpits like LMP1, DTM, GT, WTCC... If you want to to compare point me to some incident where the closed cockpit was dangerous for the driver and he´d have been safer on an open cockpit. We don´t need to do suppositions, there are several series with both open and closed cockpits so we can do realworld comparisons.

Doing so I´ve seen at least 5 incidents in last decade where an open cockpit supposed a risk for the driver. If you know similar scenarios where a closed cockpit supposed a risk for the driver, this is the moment to post it.

Otherwise I must assume nowadays closed cockpits are safer than open cockpits

The assumption that closing an F1 cockpit gives you the same safety as another series where the car profile is drastically different isn't really a good one. The challenges an F1 car presents is vastly different.

[F1PuertoRico]

What if the canopy is attached to the cockpit absorbing material for easy access? Should be able to have a emergency release to allow marshalls easy extraction in case of driver get injured.

[Just_a_fan]

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.

Sorry, I don't agree with your "political" hypothesis

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

I know what you mean but I also know that you're not thinking through the issue. His brain was subjected to huge acceleration. This is because there wasn't enough crash structure available to reduce the acceleration during the impact. Putting a canopy on the car wouldn't have changed that because it would have absorbed minimal energy and what it did absorb would have been in a very short time. It wouldn't have reduced the acceleration by any worthwhile amount.

The only thing that would have saved him would have been a big crash structure such as they fit on the car's nose. Obviously that isn't possible on a F1 car. LMP cars can provide additional protection because they have room around the driver's head and lots of deformable/frangible bodywork around the driver's tub to dissipate energy.

I fail to see why this simple issue of physics is so difficult to understand. I can only assume that the emotive nature of the situation clouds the mind.

[Just_a_fan]

if he had bitten and swallowed his tongue as happened to Hakkinen.

Everyone would be up in arms about how crap this system is wouldnt they?

My "favourite" bit of the story of Mika's crash was that the first thing he asked when he woke up was "was it my fault?". That tells you all you need to know about racing drivers. =D>

[Andres125sx]

I fail to see why this simple issue of physics is so difficult to understand. I can only assume that the emotive nature of the situation clouds the mind.

Sorry but that´s not physics, only assumptions. There is no law saying the cockpit would have changed nothing. I know and agree the accident was severe enough to think that way, but nobody can know for sure, that´s all I said

I know nothing about medicine, but will venture to say if he survived some months in coma, the damage was severe but was a bit on the limit. Maybe anything reducing the impact, even if it was only a little bit...


Anycase I´m not defending this posibility, I´m only saying it exists

[Just_a_fan]

Look at a Formula 1 car. Place a canopy over the driver's head. Look how much room there is between helmet and canopy. Subject this arrangement to the Bianchi incident. If the canopy broke, the impact between helmet and crane would still happen. If the canopy didn't break, the impact would occur between helmet and canopy. The result in either case is the same; the brain is subjected to massive acceleration and the head is twisted on the neck. The end result is the same. A canopy would have made no difference at all.

This is all very predictable. That's because it physics, not assumptions.

I know nothing about medicine, but will venture to say if he survived some months in coma, the damage was severe but was a bit on the limit.

He didn't survive. He was dead from the moment of the impact. It just took a while for his body to realise. This isn't Hollywood where the hero wakes from a long coma and is chatting up the nurses within minutes. Look at Schumacher's ski accident. He hit a rock at relatively low speed and he only just survived. Bianchi was subjected to massively larger forces and that is why he never recovered. Likewise Justin Wilson, Henry Surtees and others. Massa barely survived being hit by a light spring at speed. Bianchi was effectively hit in the head by a car travelling at 120kph.

The only way to survive that is to give the delicate bits of the body, the brain etc., time to slow down. That's why crash tests set acceleration limits in order to pass. 10mm (or whatever) of polycarbonate canopy placed a few millimetres from the driver's helmet won't give that time. It just won't and no amount of wishful thinking on your part will change that.

[Manoah2u]

So this is the best they can come up with? if the car is flipped upside down, the driver can not escape in any single possibility.

imagine being trapped in a burning vehicle. do we really want to see a driver burn to a crisp on live television because of a stupid proposal? which, in all it's essense would not work at all. it is still fully open so debris won't be stopped from reaching the helmet.

during a crash this device surely will get twisted/bent and what results will that bring in 1. possible harm to the actual driver you're trying to protect. and 2. damaged mechanism which will prevent the device from opening.

All along, all these rediculous canopy and halo solutions are worthless. There is a solution as simple as it can be as it has been around in f1 back in the 70's and 80's.

Just think of the lotus 56B from 71, just slightly higher windscreen and you're done.a 1974 Lola T332 Formula 5000 car. Or the Shadow F1 car, or a 1986 March Cosworth Indy500 race car. All designs that would be easily feasable and would only need a slightly elevated windscreen, paired with modern high-grade (aerospace) class safety glass/polymeric material. I honestly wonder whether there is even a single mind in the FIA that has a IQ higher than the amount of human fingers and toes.

[Andres125sx]

This is all very predictable. That's because it physics, not assumptions.

Ask a doctor what´s the max a human body can take, or ask him about the law wich stablish those limits. That´s what I mean, there´s no law stablishing how much a human can take. It wouldn´t be first time someone survive an accident despite any doctor´s predictions

It just won't and no amount of wishful thinking on your part will change that.

Anycase I´m not defending this posibility, I´m only saying it exists