Would a covered cockpit have helped Bianchi ?

[Just_a_fan]

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.

Again, an LMP cockpit won't fit on an F1 car unless you totally change the F1 car or you make the cockpit smaller. A smaller cockpit won't be as safe ( it might be even more dangerous than now) and a changed F1 car is basically the same as a changed LMP car.

The fact that you apparently fail to grasp any of this makes me wonder if you're actually just playing us all along here.

[Just_a_fan]

I will restate the one certainty here; Bianchi was going too fast in the circumstances. His accident was avoidable in a number of ways and the most important was in his control - his speed in the conditions. Changing the cars as a knee jerk reaction is silly when the real issue has been dealt with already and that is the introduction of the virtual safety car.

The rest is all just "something must be done and we must be seen to care" hand wringing.

[bdr529]

Current rule regarding the size of the opening of the cockpit
To ease a driver’s escape, the dimensions of the cockpit opening have grown over the years. Currently it must be 850mm long, at least 350mm wide at the pedals and 450mm wide at the steering wheel, with the rear half wider still at 520mm. The rear 375mm of the cockpit’s side walls must rise upwards at an angle of at least 16 degrees (to reduce the risk of injury in the event of one car flying over the top of another) and the edge of the cockpit must be enclosed in an energy-absorbing material with a thickness of at least 100mm.
http://www.formula1.com/content/fom-web ... afety.html

I used 520mm as a starting point, assuming that most designs would be close to the 520mm minimum rule.
I don't know about the 450mm line, rule says at the wheel but that's where I measured 450mm plus/minus a mm or 2



I was surprised that a life size photo almost fit on my computer screen, by the way 520mm is 20.5 inches, very tiny indeed

[Moose]

I'm gonna deviate from the Bianchi specificness slightly. To me it's clear that Bianchi's accident would have been terrible no matter what protection he was offered, however, here's some food for thought.

Here's all the single seater motor racing accidents I could dredge up for the past 10 years that involved serious injury or death:
2015-8-23: Justin Wilson - Hit on head with debris, died.
2014-10-5: Jules Bianchi - Died of injuries sustained in extremely high speed impact with tractor.
2011-10-16: Dan Wheldon - Head hit metal bar, died.
2009-7-19: Henry Surtees - Hit on head with debris, died.
2009-7-25: Felipe Massa - Hit on head with debris, life threatening injuries, survived.
2006-3-26: Paul Dana - Died of Injuries sustained in extremely high speed impact.

While two of these were caused simply by very high speed impacts, It's clear that head injuries are close to the last remaining bastion of being very seriously injured in single seaters. It's clear too that debris hitting a driver on the head is a significant problem.

While Mercedes' concept certainly wouldn't have helped Bianchi, I expect that a design like it would likely have saved Wilson, Wheldon, Surtees and Massa from significant injury (though I admit that Wheldon's crash was so energetic it's hard to tell if it would have helped).

Now that we know that we could save some drivers lives with a device like that, can anyone point to any accidents in which they believe a driver would have died, or been seriously injured because of the presence of such a device? I can't think off the top of my head of a single accident involving a driver that needed to get out of their car fast, and would have been trapped by such a device.

[Just_a_fan]

Wheldon's death was as the result of the whole car flying through the air. The kinetic energy of the car smashed his head in to the fence post. The likelihood that the Mercedes bar would have saved him seems fairly small to me. Wilson's? Perhaps so long as the object didn't come down from above and hit his head behind the bar. Surtees' accident involved a heavy wheel and tyre travelling at reasonable speed. The bar might have been strong enough but again it rather depends on whether the wheel came down at the right angle to avoid the helmet whilst hitting the bar. Massa might have been saved from injury if, again, the angle of the object's flight intersected the bar.

The bar needs to be thing enough not to block vision whilst getting in the way of an object. Thick enough to have worthwhile resilience, thin enough not to mess up air flow to the rear of the car.

[Just_a_fan]

Another thought: everyone worrying about the very well paid drivers but what about the unpaid and unprotected marshals? It's worth remembering that in the last 20 years there have been more marshals killed at F1 events than drivers.

[Moose]

Wheldon's death was as the result of the whole car flying through the air. The kinetic energy of the car smashed his head in to the fence post. The likelihood that the Mercedes bar would have saved him seems fairly small to me. Wilson's? Perhaps so long as the object didn't come down from above and hit his head behind the bar. Surtees' accident involved a heavy wheel and tyre travelling at reasonable speed. The bar might have been strong enough but again it rather depends on whether the wheel came down at the right angle to avoid the helmet whilst hitting the bar. Massa might have been saved from injury if, again, the angle of the object's flight intersected the bar.

The bar needs to be thing enough not to block vision whilst getting in the way of an object. Thick enough to have worthwhile resilience, thin enough not to mess up air flow to the rear of the car.

These are fair points, but I honestly think ultimately misguided. The terminal velocity of a typical chunk of debris is much lower than the average forward speed of an F1 car. The average angle of impact therefore is much lower than "coming down on their head".

Another thought: everyone worrying about the very well paid drivers but what about the unpaid and unprotected marshals? It's worth remembering that in the last 20 years there have been more marshals killed at F1 events than drivers.

Completely fair. And actually, I'd tend to point out that the majority of deaths of marshals has been to do with... you guessed it... Heads and debris coming into violent contact.

It's a much tougher problem to solve there though.

[Just_a_fan]

These are fair points, but I honestly think ultimately misguided. The terminal velocity of a typical chunk of debris is much lower than the average forward speed of an F1 car. The average angle of impact therefore is much lower than "coming down on their head".

I was suggesting that these are the sorts of things that the designer of any bar-type system will need to consider to ensure adequate protection without adversely affecting vision/egress/performance.

Another thought: everyone worrying about the very well paid drivers but what about the unpaid and unprotected marshals? It's worth remembering that in the last 20 years there have been more marshals killed at F1 events than drivers.

It's a much tougher problem to solve there though.

Indeed and perhaps that's why no one has. Or maybe it's because they're just "ordinary Joes"...fame/status is a big issue here. Without Senna's death we wouldn't have had a huge raft of changes in 1995 and on. It was his fame that ensured action - otherwise it would have been a "terrible weekend" with one relatively-unknown death.

Having said all of that, motor sport is inherently dangerous and all of the people who participate know that and accept it.

What is interesting is that, in F1-related deaths at least, historic racers are much more at risk (there have been 3 or 4 deaths in the last few years) which shows that current F1 really is pretty safe and we are heavily in to the realm of diminishing returns where it comes to driver safety.

[Edax]

Indeed and perhaps that's why no one has. Or maybe it's because they're just "ordinary Joes"...fame/status is a big issue here. Without Senna's death we wouldn't have had a huge raft of changes in 1995 and on. It was his fame that ensured action - otherwise it would have been a "terrible weekend" with one relatively-unknown death.

Having said all of that, motor sport is inherently dangerous and all of the people who participate know that and accept it.

I don't know the reason either. For me I could live with closed cockpits.

But one thing which struck me as ironic, is that we're discussing the safety of F1. However in order to get to F1, the drivers have to progress through a number of race series (go-carts, Formula Fords etc) which are much more dangerous than F1 because of the vehicles and the circuits they race on.

Anyway I think the greatest risks to racing drivers are their activities outside their racing series. Apparently contracts are littered with clauses for them not to go dirt biking, motor racing, freestyle skying, rock climbing. jet skying, freediving etc.

Apparently drivers are a danger to themselves regardless. Perhaps if we remove the danger they get bored and choose a more dangerous motorized sport such as golf.

[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.

Again, an LMP cockpit won't fit on an F1 car unless you totally change the F1 car or you make the cockpit smaller. A smaller cockpit won't be as safe ( it might be even more dangerous than now) and a changed F1 car is basically the same as a changed LMP car.

The fact that you apparently fail to grasp any of this makes me wonder if you're actually just playing us all along here.

No, it´s simply that I don´t think those are unsolvable problems, just need some adaptation but the concept is safer so it´s worth the effort.

[Just_a_fan]

But one thing which struck me as ironic, is that we're discussing the safety of F1. However in order to get to F1, the drivers have to progress through a number of race series (go-carts, Formula Fords etc) which are much more dangerous than F1 because of the vehicles and the circuits they race on.


Apparently drivers are a danger to themselves regardless. Perhaps if we remove the danger they get bored and choose a more dangerous motorized sport such as golf.

The junior categories generally aren't televised so the driver's aren't big names. I'm convinced that most of the "something must be done" hysteria is solely because the audience has emotional investment in the drivers.

As for drivers attitudes to risk, it's no surprise that they like speed and danger in their spare time when you think about it.

[Just_a_fan]

No, it´s simply that I don´t think those are unsolvable problems, just need some adaptation but the concept is safer so it´s worth the effort.

This is stated but there is no evidence that it is safer. The fact that LMP haven't had a canopy related fatality doesn't mean it won't at some point. After all, no one thought that a driver would die under safety car conditions by hitting a tractor.

[Andres125sx]

No, it´s simply that I don´t think those are unsolvable problems, just need some adaptation but the concept is safer so it´s worth the effort.

This is stated but there is no evidence that it is safer. The fact that LMP haven't had a canopy related fatality doesn't mean it won't at some point.

Agree, but meanwhile there have been several deaths and serious accidents related to open cockpits.

That´s like saying seatbelts can cause some fatality, yes they can under certain circumstances, but they´ve proved to be safer. IMO closed cockpits are the same, they can be dangerous under certain circumstances but overal they´ve proved to be safer. We can discuss hypotesis, but as you said facts say there have been fatalities due to open cockpits and there haven´t due to closed cockpits. Those are facts not supositions.

We all agree safety in motorsports is very good today, so De Villota, Wilson, Massa, Alonso and Raikonnen IMO are too many close calls/fatalities on a sport wich suposedly is very safe. And that´s only in past 5 seasons! If one fatality/close call per season due to a particular solution is not enough to get rid of that solution, I´m not sure what´s needed.

Maybe if Grosjean car would have killed Alonso breaking his neck, or Alonso´s car with Kimi, people would consider this subject differently, I only hope we don´t need to see any other fatality due to exposed helmets before going to closed cockpits.

[Just_a_fan]

So we're going to ban open cockpit racing in all categories? Or is it only the ones we see on TV and therefore "invest in"?

Will we also ban bike racing too? They die from accidents as a result of them not being enclosed in a safety cell.

[theblackangus]

So we're going to ban open cockpit racing in all categories? Or is it only the ones we see on TV and therefore "invest in"?

Will we also ban bike racing too? They die from accidents as a result of them not being enclosed in a safety cell.

I don't think anyone is say "Ban Open cockpit", but simply trying say there needs to be a solution to make it safer.

We are really walfing around the "investment" point. The as I stated earlier its strange that everyone is up in arms about the very few top series motorsport deaths, but not the lower series deaths that happen more frequently. It seems that somehow "its ok to have lesser series have deaths, as long as "My" driver doesn't die." from this conversation. It's not like F1 is going to invent the speed racer bubble and make racing as a whole safer, anything done here (with relation to head protection)is really only transferable to other single seater series and even then possibly not due to cost constraints. Deaths by head blows by objects from outside the car are likely very far down the list of motorsports related deaths (as a whole, but maybe not). Does anyone have any solid stats around motorsport deaths at all levels of racing say for 10 years, that would be interesting to see?

At any rate we should have another thread around "Motorsports safety" that isn't Jules related. I'm afraid there was little that could be done which would have saved him from an engineering perspective that wouldn't drastically change the formula, and even if then.