54 replies to this topic

[pRy]

Mark Webber wrote in his BBC column that while cockpit protection is important, he feels preventing wheel to wheel contact between cars may be a bigger issue. Indeed on some occasions the narrow misses with cockpit intrusions have come about due to earlier wheel to wheel contact. A car gets launched by someones rear wheel and becomes a threat to cockpits.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...rmula1/19565351

I think we've had a number of very close calls recently where drivers have left it very late to pull out from behind another car. We saw it on Sunday with Perez. He left it so late that even David Coulthard said he had to "hide under the table" it was that close. Webber's point is it's perhaps only a matter of time before there is another flip incident and we may not be lucky the next time it happens. And DRS introduces even more of a risk as the car behind can very quickly close on the car in front.

So should F1 wheels, perhaps only the rear wheels, be covered? I can't see it harming how the cars look too much, not that looks matter over safety. I guess the main issue would be designing some sort of cover that could withstand the front tyre strike and trying where possible to prevent a rapid puncture of the front tyre as a result. There would be aerodynamic issues too but nothing that they couldn't work out.

Thoughts?

Edited by pRy, 12 September 2012 - 08:34.

[chdphd]

Look at a 2012 IndyCar.

[forixfan]

So should F1 wheels, perhaps only the rear wheels, be covered? I can't see it harming how the cars look too much, not that looks matter over safety. I guess the main issue would be designing some sort of cover that could withstand the front tyre strike and trying where possible to prevent a rapid puncture of the front tyre as a result. There would be aerodynamic issues too but nothing that they couldn't work out.
Thoughts?

Terrible idea of course for 2 main reasons.

No genuine need.
It changes the DNA of the sport.

Wheels have been open for almost a century, so why do they need to be closed now despite the cars being safer than ever. That is the question that must be answered properly.

Edited by forixfan, 12 September 2012 - 09:12.

[SenorSjon]

Why don't make it slotcar racing then? The big-ass front wings also gives more accidents.

I think the indycars are butt ugly, only thing you can do is make covers like the Donkervoort or Lotus super 7. They follow the tire.

[prty]

I think right now, except for bizarre incidents like Massa's, that's the only way a driver can get killed. And maybe brake failure / stuck throttle too, but I don't know if you can control those more.
So it's very important to avoid situations that could make and accident like that happen (unlike Vettel did in Monza for example), and wheel protection (doesn't have to be the whole wheel covered) should be a good step.

Webber at Valencia, with worse luck, could have ended like these (strong videos warning):



Hamilton at Spa could have ended like this (and think of the photographers standing there...)

Edited by prty, 12 September 2012 - 09:39.

[Tsarwash]

Aren't F1 circuits a lot safer than American ovals ?

[greenman]

I wrote in the other thread pretty much what Webber said. Canopies won't stop accidents like that from happening. And while canopies could save, for example, Krosnoff's and Campos' life, they wouldn't make the marshalls by the track safer (in Krosnoff's case, a marshall was killed as well). So if you ask me, instead of drastic changes (e.g. canopies) I'd much rather see an "evolutional" change in cars' look - like something in the direction of Indycar's DW12 rear wheel protection. No need for the wheels to be completely covered, just protected. Anything that stops or minimizes the risk of cars, interlocking wheels and/or getting airborne.

Here's another example of this:


Now imagine this ^ accident happening with higher speeds (e.g. Webber/Kova in Valencia 2010) - not sure if that fence would be sufficient in that case...

[forixfan]

Now imagine this ^ accident happening with higher speeds (e.g. Webber/Kova in Valencia 2010) - not sure if that fence would be sufficient in that case...

Well as you said it did happen at Valencia, and Webber got right out of his car and walked out. So what's the problem?

[greenman]

Well as you said it did happen at Valencia, and Webber got right out of his car and walked out. So what's the problem?

With that kind of mentality you're gonna see a lot more crashes like that in the future.. And when the luck runs out one of these days, what do we do then? Yeah, nothing happened to him in Valencia, I'm saying if he had his crash in Monaco after the tunnel... It could be a lot more nasty.

I'm not really sure what I said in my post that would contradict your beliefs. I'm not in favour of enclosed cockpits, and I'm not in favour of fully covering wheels. But I do think that when it comes to safety, we should never just stop thinking about it, and just say "well it's as good as it's gonna get". Especially when it's obvious that even small changes to the car could prevent plenty of dangerous accidents from happening. Wider sidepods maybe make a car uglier, but they don't make it "non-OW".

[forixfan]

With that kind of mentality you're gonna see a lot more crashes like that in the future.. And when the luck runs out one of these days, what do we do then? Yeah, nothing happened to him in Valencia, I'm saying if he had his crash in Monaco after the tunnel... It could be a lot more nasty.

With your mentality we will end up with radio controlled F1 cars. There is a possibility of something terrible happening in every moment of life, so kind of perspective is not rational. What is rational though is to understand that F1 drivers in their cars are many many times safer than you or me driving to work, and they get paid a lot more, so why do they need even more protection?

I'm not really sure what I said in my post that would contradict your beliefs. I'm not in favour of enclosed cockpits, and I'm not in favour of fully covering wheels. But I do think that when it comes to safety, we should never just stop thinking about it, and just say "well it's as good as it's gonna get". Especially when it's obvious that even small changes to the car could prevent plenty of dangerous accidents from happening. Wider sidepods maybe make a car uglier, but they don't make it "non-OW".

sounds like you want to cover the wheels in some way.

[Xpat]

There is a lot of "everything is ok until someone gets killed or maimed" attitude.

Obviously Weber, someone who knows better than board jockeys, disagrees that it was no big deal since he walked away.

[greenman]

With your mentality we will end up with radio controlled F1 cars. There is a possibility of something terrible happening in every moment of life, so kind of perspective is not rational. What is rational though is to understand that F1 drivers in their cars are many many times safer than you or me driving to work, and they get paid a lot more, so why do they need even more protection?

Actually, no. This is exactly the opposite of what kind of mentality I have. I'm opposed to any radical changes that would go opposed to what OW racing is about. I don't know how I'm not making this clear?! FFS this is what I wrote in the thread about front roll hoops:
"Much can be done for safety without radical changes to the car. Now.. even if we end up with canopies... I won't stop watching and it won't "ruin F1" for me. But this kind of mentality is worrying. Because if we do end up reacting to accidents in this way, open wheelers will eventually lose their identity and will end up resembling more the current Le Mans prototype cars than F1 today. Not to mention that this kind of mentality could also mean losing (even more) classic racing venues, standing starts in favour of rolling single file starts, etc.

In the end, I like openwheelers, I understand the "extra risks" they bring, and I feel the reward they bring is enough to justify them. I feel the same way about motorcycle racing, the descents at Tour de France, and, hell, even driving a car myself. And I'm sure the drivers the same way."

sounds like you want to cover the wheels in some way.

(not necessarily what I want, but something that would go into similar direction)

[smitten]

There is a lot of "everything is ok until someone gets killed or maimed" attitude.

F1 safety has not stood still in the last 10 years despite no deaths and few serious injuries so I can't agree with your statement. Unfortunately some safety features come at the expense of purist "racing" and it is a question of balance. Risk is a complicated subject and nobody is claiming that F1 is as "safe" as driving a road car (km for km) but which risk reduction measures are prudent and cost effective, and which don't actually reduce real risks?

There is a lot of "oh my [insert deity] we must have canopies/enclosed wheels: Alonso could have died" attitude.

Edited by smitten, 12 September 2012 - 10:35.

[Woody3says]

No.

Driving standards must be improved. So many up-and-comers drive as if on a XBox/Playstation. Stewards needs to Keep sitting people out for wreckless behavior. The drivers themselves sum it up when they say they feel pretty much invincible to danger, the car will save me (per Will Buxton) This is what you get from a generation raised by parents who listen to Oprah and Dr Phil. "Talk to your children about their feelings." Bullshit. When they do something outrageous, dangerous, and stupid they need a good spanking. Drivers must be treated the same.

[Brother Fox]

Well as you said it did happen at Valencia, and Webber got right out of his car and walked out. So what's the problem?

Oh dear, I'm stuck for words on how to point out the lunacy of that comment.

I think something to stop the cars launching (like the Indy solution) is inevitable, and I'd rather it come in years before its needed than just after someone dies.
Btw, 2000 or 2001 a Marshall was killed in Melbourne when Villeneuves car got airborne - but I guess that's 'safe enough'

[lonesomeday]

No.

Driving standards must be improved. So many up-and-comers drive as if on a XBox/Playstation. Stewards needs to Keep sitting people out for wreckless behavior. The drivers themselves sum it up when they say they feel pretty much invincible to danger, the car will save me (per Will Buxton) This is what you get from a generation raised by parents who listen to Oprah and Dr Phil. "Talk to your children about their feelings." Bullshit. When they do something outrageous, dangerous, and stupid they need a good spanking. Drivers must be treated the same.

Ah, so that's the reason for the first-lap crash at Spa -- Romain Grosjean wasn't spanked enough as a child.

The mind boggles.

[Red17]

To the people posting pictures of the DW12.... Marco Andretti has already proved that the bumper is a placebo. He hit one this year and his car was still sent flying.

That said, covering wheels may reduce some risk, but it will never remove the risk completly because the cars will still be traveling at high speeds.

Edited by Red17, 12 September 2012 - 11:19.

[Coops3]

Terrible idea of course for 2 main reasons.

No genuine need.

The OP has explained quite articulately why he thinks there might be a need. I don't think you can just dismiss that with a three word sentence.

It changes the DNA of the sport.

I agree with you on this, but sometimes you have to compromise.

Wheels have been open for almost a century, so why do they need to be closed now despite the cars being safer than ever. That is the question that must be answered properly.

The cars are safer than ever, so there's no need to think about trying to make them safer?

Edited by Coops3, 12 September 2012 - 11:27.

[Tsarwash]

Statistically speaking, is modern F1 the safest form of motorsport, in terms of actual physical injuries ?

[finignig]

Look at a 2012 IndyCar.

I dont know how I feel about it yet but am quite sure thats what we will end up with at some point.

[Jon83]

Covered wheels, enclosed cockpits, slower cars with too much focus on being 'green' - all possible.

Have to wonder what F1 is going to be like in a few years.

[jeze]

Would rather have IndyCar-style real wheels than closed cockpits, but that's just me.

[V8 Fireworks]

I dont know how I feel about it yet but am quite sure thats what we will end up with at some point.

Having watched Indycar racing, I found that F1 cars looked odd at first!

As far as I can recall LMP cars are just as dangerous with their nasty tendency to flip, despite having both closed wheels and canopies.

[DampMongoose]

In Alan Jones world, the answer would have to be "yes ideally with tyres to stop the wheels touching the ground"

Seriously, I wouldn't like to see covered wheels in F1, much prefer to have drivers with some respect and acceptance of the dangers involved, unfortunately things took a turn for the worse in the late 80's with a certain Brazilian driver and it quickly became normal for the drivers in lower formulae to mimic his antics! As we have seen recently, particularly with the lack of testing, the new young drivers seem to think they're bulletproof...

[Ali_G]

Would rather have IndyCar-style real wheels than closed cockpits, but that's just me.

Completely the opposite for me.

F1 is described as being open wheel racing. Nowhere does it say the cockpit has been enclosed.

Apart from anything, those Indycar's are absolutely butt ugly and an enclosed cockpit would protect the drivers from any flying wheels.

[jeze]

Statistically speaking, is modern F1 the safest form of motorsport, in terms of actual physical injuries ?

Yeah I think so...

Since 1997:

1997 Canada, Olivier Panis broke his leg in huge shunt late on.
1998 Belgium, some drivers complained about aches after huge pile-up, none missed next race though.
1999 Brazil, Zonta, broke his hand in practice crash
1999 UK, M Schumacher broke his leg in crash after red flag was waved that the top 4 drivers never saw.
2000 Malaysia, Herbert carried away on stretcher after crash. Nothing too serious.
2001 (?) Barcelona, Badoer escapes with no permanent injuries but with a badly hurt neck after test crash.
2003 Monza test, bad shunt for Ralf Schumacher kept him out of the race.
2004 USA, Ralf Schumacher taken to hospital with back injury that kept him out for three months.
2005 USA, Ralf Schumacher again taken to hospital following puncture and crash but could race next time.
2007 Canada, Robert Kubica being groggy after huge shunt, pulled out of US GP for precautionary reasons.
2007 Europe, Lewis Hamilton gets a knock on his foot and is carried away on a stretcher but raced next day.
2009 Hungary, Near-fatal accident for Felipe Massa being knocked out by a faulty Brawn GP spring that fell off a car.
2011 Monaco, Big shunt and concussion for Pérez who sat out the Canadian Grand Prix for safety reasons.
2012 Airfield in England, María de Villota loses her right eye and is badly deformed after colliding with truck on straightline test (not a real test on a real track though so can't really include it since it wasn't on a circuit and connected to conventional F1 driving).

So let's say nine incidents that have stopped drivers from racing in the past 15 years, no career-ending injuries but extremely serious in the case of Massa. We've also had two dead marshals R.I.P. to both of them...

[V8 Fireworks]

Pot luck it is.

All it takes is a few metres different crash.

No doubt F1 is safer than some other forms of motorsport, but it is pot luck that many of the freak accidents (e.g., Webber on Kovalainen's Lotus) resolved themselves safely and not horribly.

Best to retain vigilance and enforce strict driving standards.

[smitten]

Yeah I think so...

And how many incidents have stopped drivers racing in BTCC over the same period, or WRC, or ELMS, or V8 Supercars, or Legends, or (god-forbid) Autotesting?

My point is that F1 is very safe, but I don't think we have statistics to announce it the "safest"

[smitten]

but it is pot luck that many of the freak accidents (e.g., Webber on Kovalainen's Lotus) resolved themselves safely and not horribly.

It really isn't you know.

The reason most of these accidents resolve themselves safely is because the cars are so well designed. The fact that Webber's car can land upside down and Webber can get out and walk is not luck but the survival cell and roll hoop being designed to protect a driver is such an instance.

[greenman]

To the people posting pictures of the DW12.... Marco Andretti has already proved that the bumper is a placebo. He hit one this year and his car was still sent flying.

Did he even hit the bumper though? I think he basically hit the side Rahal's car... Which of course does mean that even if the risk of interlocking wheels is reduced, the cars still are able to get airborne...

F1 is described as being open wheel racing. Nowhere does it say the cockpit has been enclosed.

Apart from anything, those Indycar's are absolutely butt ugly and an enclosed cockpit would protect the drivers from any flying wheels.

But enclosed cockpits won't protect marshalls or spectators. Also, they won't help the driving standards, if anything you'll see more boneheaded moves, because the drivers will feel safer...
Also, it's not like the current F1 cars are beauties.. And it's not like they always were




(I would take DW12 over these two at any moment)

[jeze]

And how many incidents have stopped drivers racing in BTCC over the same period, or WRC, or ELMS, or V8 Supercars, or Legends, or (god-forbid) Autotesting?

My point is that F1 is very safe, but I don't think we have statistics to announce it the "safest"

Someone died in a V8 Supercar race in that period at Bathurst, I've forgotten who though.

But F1 is the fastest road-course series so it's natural that speeds are hazardous. If you consider the speeds involved to the rate of one life-threatening injury since the start of the 1996 season it's still a very good record.

[Watkins74]

Hideous. Might as well order 24 COT's from NASCAR.

[forixfan]

The OP has explained quite articulately why he thinks there might be a need. I don't think you can just dismiss that with a three word sentence.

Well the fact he is calling for safety measures in an area that has not even caused an injury in F1 for decades, is sort of a pretty vital point. It means the risk is extremely low, and covering wheels is not needed. He did not really offer any legitimate reasoning for doing it, other than the general 'it will be safer' argument which could also be accomplished by everyone just staying home.

I agree with you on this, but sometimes you have to compromise.

The cars are safer than ever, so there's no need to think about trying to make them safer?

I would say compromise is what we have now, and closing the wheels is not a compromise but a capitulation.

[forixfan]

Oh dear, I'm stuck for words on how to point out the lunacy of that comment.

Please explain. The drivers are locked in a safety cell, they have a lot of protection in the case of flying into the air already as proven by no injuries in decades.

[midgrid]

1999 Brazil, Zonta, broke his hand in practice crash

Zonta broke his ankle, not his hand (Luca Badoer broke his hand and missed the same race, but the injury was sustained in a non-racing accident).

You missed a few (only including injuries which forced the driver to miss at least one race):

1997 testing - Gianni Morbidelli breaks his arm on two separate occasions, missing several races.
2001 Belgium - Luciano Burti suffers a concussion and facial bruising which keep him out for the remainder of the season.
2002 France - Giancarlo Fisichella suffers a concussion in practice and sits out the remainder of the weekend.
2005 testing - Nick Heidfeld suffers a concussion which keeps him out for the rest of the season (exacerbated by a cycling accident when recovering).
2009 Japan - Timo Glock sustains a gash to his lower leg which causes him to miss two races.

[BlackCat]

why the hell should F1 be more tame/safe than MotoGP??? safety is overestimated anyway.

[Brother Fox]

Well the fact he is calling for safety measures in an area that has not even caused an injury in F1 for decades.

Please explain. The drivers are locked in a safety cell, they have a lot of protection in the case of flying into the air already as proven by no injuries in decades.

Marshall's don't count for you then?

[Red17]

Did he even hit the bumper though? I think he basically hit the side Rahal's car...

Which of course does mean that even if the risk of interlocking wheels is reduced,

Wheel interlocking happens a lot at the front as well, which also happens to be a very narrow area in the DW12 where the wheels are pretty much sticking out in relation to the rest of the big rear of the car.

the cars still are able to get airborne...

Cars will still go airborne, even without wheel interlocking, here is a wheel covered car and a open wheeler

Speed is the basis of all danger and is something that will not go away.

I am in complete favor of removing unnecessary risks, but knee jerking usually leads to worse situations.

Edited by Red17, 12 September 2012 - 12:51.

[pingu666]

there's been a few spinal injuries from cars flying, there's really no give or crumple zone, if you thinking verticly, only tyre n suspension if you still have them when you land

[Boing Ball]

Cars will still go airborne, even without wheel interlocking, here is a wheel covered car and a open wheeler

Speed is the basis of all danger and is something that will not go away.

I am in complete favor of removing unnecessary risks, but knee jerking usually leads to worse situations.

The Mercedes in the first example had a design issue, which caused it to go airborne. You should have given an example of a contact between two Le Mans racers resulting in one of them going airborne.

[keiichi]

The Mercedes in the first example had a design issue, which caused it to go airborne. You should have given an example of a contact between two Le Mans racers resulting in one of them going airborne.

It's pretty recent:

[lettuce]

blimey i'd forgotten how bad that thing really was ...

[Skinnyguy]

With your mentality we will end up with radio controlled F1 cars.

Actually, it´s more likely your "and yet nothing happened" way leads to that. Luck runs out, couple of drivers die in bizarre incidents, and there we go.

Improving safety is aimed to keep drivers inside the cars. Why bother otherwise?

[Skinnyguy]

It's pretty recent:

Contact didn´t cause elevation, drifting sideways in a light car with square giant floor did. That´s a specific Le Mans cars problem, and if they solve it with new floor regulations too, it´ll be great.

[keiichi]

Contact didn´t cause elevation, drifting sideways in a light car with square giant floor did. That´s a specific Le Mans cars problem, and if they solve it with new floor regulations too, it´ll be great.

Well but that's the problem of contact, it might make you end up drifting sideways...

[Skinnyguy]

Well but that's the problem of contact, it might make you end up drifting sideways...

Of course it does. We were talking about wheel covers. Le Mans wheel protection avoids take offs resulting from contact, it´s good on that aspect.

Le Mans cars are however dangerous because they take off in certain conditions such as high speed drifting sideways, sometimes going over crests... that is a floor problem, not an upper bodywork problem. You can´t drag that incident and say "look, an F1 would still take off with wheel protection"... because it wouldn´t in a situation like the one on the previous video.

Edited by Skinnyguy, 12 September 2012 - 17:13.

[uffen]

Those Indycars look like they are ripe for sharp carbonfibre to be pushed straight into those back tires by another car. Can't be safe. And as already posted they can still be shot up vertically. Also, the tires are not "covered" they are open top and side.

[Xpat]

F1 safety has not stood still in the last 10 years despite no deaths and few serious injuries so I can't agree with your statement. Unfortunately some safety features come at the expense of purist "racing" and it is a question of balance. Risk is a complicated subject and nobody is claiming that F1 is as "safe" as driving a road car (km for km) but which risk reduction measures are prudent and cost effective, and which don't actually reduce real risks?

There is a lot of "oh my [insert deity] we must have canopies/enclosed wheels: Alonso could have died" attitude.

I meant on the boards. I know F1 are concerned.

[Myrvold]

Zonta broke his ankle, not his hand (Luca Badoer broke his hand and missed the same race, but the injury was sustained in a non-racing accident).;)

You missed a few (only including injuries which forced the driver to miss at least one race):

And one more.

2003 Hungary. Ralph Firman crashes during Free Practice on Friday. Knocked unconscious. Replaced by Zsolt Baumgartner for Hungary and Italy.

[SUPRAF1]

I'd rather they have fully enclosed fighter jet canopies and covered wheels and whatever else is necessary for maximum safety as long as they are much faster than today's cars