Edited by RYARLE, 18 July 2015 - 09:20.
The necessity of head protection for drivers in open cockpit cars
#1
Posted 18 July 2015 - 09:03
Advertisement
#2
Posted 18 July 2015 - 09:09
#3
Posted 18 July 2015 - 09:11
I am really surprised, no action has been taken so far for this serious threat. Drivers head in open cockpit cars are exposed to any kind of life threatening injuries. We have to do something to end this serious but avoidable threat.Jules Bianchi is not among us anymore (Rest In Peace) but we had similar accidents before but unlike Jules Bianchi accident, we were fortunate that there were no head injuries. The most recent accidents were:- Romain Grosjean and Feranando Alonso accident - Belgium GP 2012 - Fortunately no injuries- Kimi Raikkonen and Fernando Alonso accident - Austrian GP 2015 - Fortunately no injuriesOne of the solutions that I can think of, is using special sponge coated rods (Something like roll cage with sponge coated rods) around drivers head for protection. it doesn't block drivers eyesight and won't be a problem for drivers to get out of the cockpit quickly, especially in the harsh conditions. Rods should be coated by special sponge because without the special sponge, rods alone can damage drivers head in accidents.Here are examples:I am not sure how we can send the importance and seriousness of this message to FIA to take action immediately. Is there any way to pursue? How about writing a letter to Charlie Whiting along with fans signature! Any thought?
Those examples look somewhat difficult to get out of if the driver needs to get out quickly because of a fire etc. or if the driver needs to be extracted with an injury like a broken leg or potential spinal injury. But I'm sure there must be a way to offer more head protection to drivers in F1.
Bare in mind though, that the object Bianchi struck was not designed for being hit by an F1 car and shouldn't have been there at that point in time imo.
#4
Posted 18 July 2015 - 09:19
Roll cage with sponge coated rods must be removable by driver.
#6
Posted 18 July 2015 - 09:30
Please do you have any other solution, share with us. We can't afford to lose drivers every now and then because of the lack of head protection. What happened to Jules Bianchi, could has happened In Spa 2012 and Austria 2015 for other drivers as well. I believe It is really serious.
Edited by RYARLE, 18 July 2015 - 09:33.
#7
Posted 18 July 2015 - 09:32
FIA does not develop motorsport safety by sitting around and waiting for the crayon drawings to come in. Contact FIA Institute for Motor Sport Safety if you have real ideas.
#8
Posted 18 July 2015 - 09:33
The FIA made several tests, not that long ago. IIRC your suggested design was seen as hindering the drivers view too much.
#9
Posted 18 July 2015 - 09:36
With this argument motorcycles have to be like a troley because we cant afford to lose riders due to the lack of falling protection. F1 is for me a monocoque, open wheel and open cockpit. Everything else can be changed for saftey reasons, but if they change one of this elements than they shouldn't call it F1 anymore.Please do you have any other solution, share with us. We can't afford to lose drivers every now and then because of the lack of head protection.
#10
Posted 18 July 2015 - 09:38
No, head protection isn't the answer. We've been racing in open cockpits for decades, why is this suddenly an issue now?
Even head protection couldn't have protected Bianchi sadly, he went with such a massive speed into that crane.
Edited by DutchQuicksilver, 18 July 2015 - 09:38.
#11
Posted 18 July 2015 - 09:39
Please do you have any other solution, share with us. We can't afford to lose drivers every now and then because of the lack of head protection. What happened to Jules Bianchi, could has happened In Spa 2012 and Austria 2015 for other drivers as well. I believe It is really serious.
IMO there also other angles that this must be looked at. I haven't seen any statistics, but it seems to me in the last view years I've seen more incidents involving cars sliding over another in accidents. What exactly changed in F1 design, tracks, that theses incidents seem to happen more often. At the same time, certain other types of accidents seem to occure less than before. I don't think the FIA is keen to introduce changes that are a step back from gains in other areas of safety.
#12
Posted 18 July 2015 - 09:41
Maybe it sounds a bit harsh: but this solution would be for me no more open cockpit and so no F1 anymore. Furthermore even that wouldn't have helped: in some cases it could be also the case that the driver would suffer more injuries than without it.
I'm with you on this one..
#13
Posted 18 July 2015 - 09:45
#14
Posted 18 July 2015 - 09:46
No, head protection isn't the answer. We've been racing in open cockpits for decades, why is this suddenly an issue now?
Even head protection couldn't have protected Bianchi sadly, he went with such a massive speed into that crane.
I agree with the first part, but for the second we simply don't know how this accident would have worked out. There is even the possibility that it could have been worse, because of the extra metal around the drivers head, e.g. what if the force of impact is so great that the helmet hits the cage?
In Bianchi' s case there were several unfortunate happenings stringed together. Had one of those factors been different, we'd see Bianchi still in an F1 car. Sometimes all it needs is that people stick to the safety measures put in place (including drivers here).
#15
Posted 18 July 2015 - 09:54
There is no need for knee jerk after this kind of incident.
How could anyone have prevented poor Henry Surtees accident, unless you are going to envelope the drivers head in metal, and by doing that in an impact you are still not necessarily helping if the structure gets crushed.
The incident was one in a milion that injured Jules, similar to Surtees.
And yes it is pain now, but think of it this way, he has suffered enough in the time since while his condition was assessed. Let him be and let's hope the lessons learned about trackside gear are actually enforced with stringent rules and procedures.
No need for knee jerk, emotion is never the best response to start touting new rules.
#16
Posted 18 July 2015 - 10:40
With this argument motorcycles have to be like a troley because we cant afford to lose riders due to the lack of falling protection. F1 is for me a monocoque, open wheel and open cockpit. Everything else can be changed for saftey reasons, but if they change one of this elements than they shouldn't call it F1 anymore.
Exactly.
There are always motorsport categories that are more safe than F1 (saloon racing, GT-racing) and then again categories that are less safe (motorcycling).
Within a category there are also differences in terms of danger (Formula Ford has lower top speed than GP2; Isle of Man is more dangerous than World Superbikes series).
But just because some class, for example WTCC, is seemingly safe, we can't make every kind of motor racing similar to WTCC. There's always room for sidecar racing, hill climbing, rally, karting, F3 or radical sportscars. The particular design of a vehicle is a fundamental element of any class, and the lack of safety when compared to other classes must be tolerated. Otherwise there can be no variety in motorsport.
Edited by Ruusperi, 18 July 2015 - 10:44.
#17
Posted 18 July 2015 - 10:49
Eh it's expected to be a bit dangerous, who wants to watch a bunch of sissies enveloped in special sponge
#18
Posted 18 July 2015 - 10:53
#19
Posted 18 July 2015 - 11:25
It's not like we have drivers dying from head injuries every other weekend. Motor racing is dangerous and if that bothers the OP then maybe it isn't the sport for him. Jules' death is sad but he knew the risks just like every other driver.
Advertisement
#20
Posted 18 July 2015 - 11:42
I believe the risk is more controllable than what we are facing right now. I believe drivers head are too much exposed to dangers. We can decrease head injuries risks by simple solutions without hurting the spectacle of Formula1 if that is what some people concern. Surely Formula1 as a whole package can find a solution.
Edited by RYARLE, 18 July 2015 - 11:45.
#21
Posted 18 July 2015 - 11:43
Exactly.
There are always motorsport categories that are more safe than F1 (saloon racing, GT-racing) and then again categories that are less safe (motorcycling).
Within a category there are also differences in terms of danger (Formula Ford has lower top speed than GP2; Isle of Man is more dangerous than World Superbikes series).
But just because some class, for example WTCC, is seemingly safe, we can't make every kind of motor racing similar to WTCC. There's always room for sidecar racing, hill climbing, rally, karting, F3 or radical sportscars. The particular design of a vehicle is a fundamental element of any class, and the lack of safety when compared to other classes must be tolerated. Otherwise there can be no variety in motorsport.
IoM TT riders are a special breed of nutters.
#22
Posted 18 July 2015 - 11:46
Maybe a better head protection wouldn't have saved Bianchi, but there have been too many head injuries and close calls in single-seater racing in recent years.
Henry Surtees got hit by a wheel and died.
Felipe Massa was hit by a spring and was out for the rest of the season. Would have been a lot worse if the spring had hit a few cm lower.
Michael Schumacher and Vitantonio Liuzzi collision Abu Dhabi 2010, Liuzzi's nose narrowly avoided Schumachers head.
Spa 2012 start crash - already mentioned
A GP2 crash at Abu Dhabi 2013? where a driver actually had to lift the other car off his head.
Max Chilton at Silverstone last year, almost hit by a tyre.
Alonso and Räikkönen at Austria this year.
Better head protection is necessary, or the next tragedy is just a matter of time. Loic Duval's accident at Le Mans 2014 would have ended gruesome without the roof.
Edited by Pontlieue, 18 July 2015 - 11:46.
#23
Posted 18 July 2015 - 11:58
IoM TT riders are a special breed of nutters.
Yeah, they're all certifiable. Jesus Christ!
#24
Posted 18 July 2015 - 12:02
When the technology is there for canopies to be usable, I have nothing against them and would like them in F1. Sure they change the looks of the car slightly, but so what, they're still fundamentally the same type of car, drive exactly the same. I think we can take a tiny hit to aesthetics and tradition when the upside is that lifes can potentially be saved.
#25
Posted 18 July 2015 - 12:10
I am really sad and amazed to read people in the forum claiming that they actually WANT F1 to be about the drivers risking their lives. Guys, seriously, think twice what you are saying because it is not normal
If something can be done to protect these guys it is morally unacceptable not to do it. It is beyond me that somebody can consider more important that F1 for some estrange reason HAS to have open cockpits than the fact that drivers are risking their lives for the sake of a stupid tradition with zero real relevance whatsoever
Regarding the solution, either a cage or a transparent cockpit could work. Maybe not for every accident (in particular Bianchi's given the very high energy of the impact) but many, among them a certain Senna, would be still among us. If you don't give a damn maybe their families do. FIA has already done investigations and has solutions but they don't dare to introduce the changes needed. It seems as if they were waiting for the next tragedy to do something, it's sad and outraging
#26
Posted 18 July 2015 - 12:29
Its not that we want that they risk their lifes. For God sakes no. If you can find solutions to improve the safety than they should use it but if you're destroying the DNA of F1 then than you have to life with the consequences. And in the end we will end up with forbidding motor racing because you cant rule out the possibility to die. As I said: the Moto GP did not builed a cage around the bike to prevent the riders from falling after what happened with Simoncelli.I am really sad and amazed to read people in the forum claiming that they actually WANT F1 to be about the drivers risking their lives. Guys, seriously, think twice what you are saying because it is not normal
If something can be done to protect these guys it is morally unacceptable not to do it. It is beyond me that somebody can consider more important that F1 for some estrange reason HAS to have open cockpits than the fact that drivers are risking their lives for the sake of a stupid tradition with zero real relevance whatsoever
Regarding the solution, either a cage or a transparent cockpit could work. Maybe not for every accident (in particular Bianchi's given the very high energy of the impact) but many, among them a certain Senna, would be still among us. If you don't give a damn maybe their families do. FIA has already done investigations and has solutions but they don't dare to introduce the changes needed. It seems as if they were waiting for the next tragedy to do something, it's sad and outraging
Edited by Marklar, 18 July 2015 - 12:30.
#27
Posted 18 July 2015 - 12:32
#28
Posted 18 July 2015 - 12:33
It's a tricky debate to have because if danger wasn't a factor then why doens't everyone just go and watch online sim racing. The standard, generally, is far higher than you would find in the 'real' world. The competition level is insanely high.
As most of us watch on TV anyway, then the only thing that demonstrably different between sim racing and F1 is the fact one has real danger, and the other doesn't.
I am not advocating danger for the sake of danger, but to deny it's attractiveness from a spectator (and driver) perspective is a tad naive.
#29
Posted 18 July 2015 - 12:37
I am really sad and amazed to read people in the forum claiming that they actually WANT F1 to be about the drivers risking their lives. Guys, seriously, think twice what you are saying because it is not normal
If something can be done to protect these guys it is morally unacceptable not to do it. It is beyond me that somebody can consider more important that F1 for some estrange reason HAS to have open cockpits than the fact that drivers are risking their lives for the sake of a stupid tradition with zero real relevance whatsoever
Regarding the solution, either a cage or a transparent cockpit could work. Maybe not for every accident (in particular Bianchi's given the very high energy of the impact) but many, among them a certain Senna, would be still among us. If you don't give a damn maybe their families do. FIA has already done investigations and has solutions but they don't dare to introduce the changes needed. It seems as if they were waiting for the next tragedy to do something, it's sad and outraging
FIA been there, done that. This is barking up the wrong tree.
Is the Autosport search facility too hard to use?
It's the teams that are the issue,
http://www.autosport...t.php/id/99155/
http://www.autosport....php/id/116206/
About Senna, HANS might have helped him more to save him. But in Senna's case if a canopy or a cage would have saved him, we can't tell, as he apparently received three different fatal wounds to his head. Would a cage have been able to prevent the wishbone from piercing him? Would a canopy have withstood those 3 different impacts? My point being, it's not helpful for your case to use an example from where it's unclear if the safety technology made a difference, to promote said technology.
Edited by HP, 18 July 2015 - 13:11.
#30
Posted 18 July 2015 - 12:39
I am really sad and amazed to read people in the forum claiming that they actually WANT F1 to be about the drivers risking their lives. Guys, seriously, think twice what you are saying because it is not normal
I've been surprised by some of the callous and self centered replies to the death of Bianchi and it doesn't surprise me in the slightest; a small portion of every community are sociopaths. That's the only explanation I can think of that explains why some people are averse to many logical safety changes.
It took the untimely death of one of the young bright stars to force the FIA into real action on yellow flags and vehicles on track and, like every safety advance, there will be a backlash by the self centered - I recall that many called Stewart a whiner for trying to stop the death of several drivers every season and a select few have never fully forgiven him.
#31
Posted 18 July 2015 - 12:52
I've been surprised by some of the callous and self centered replies to the death of Bianchi and it doesn't surprise me in the slightest; a small portion of every community are sociopaths. That's the only explanation I can think of that explains why some people are averse to many logical safety changes.
It took the untimely death of one of the young bright stars to force the FIA into real action on yellow flags and vehicles on track and, like every safety advance, there will be a backlash by the self centered - I recall that many called Stewart a whiner for trying to stop the death of several drivers every season and a select few have never fully forgiven him.
Never mind though that some drivers are probably even nuttier, when it's about their own safety. Can't see how one can protect a driver who tells this about himself.
"As a kid, I was one of the biggest risk takers," he said. "At school when we were skiing, if there was a cliff to jump I would make sure that I would be the first one to jump it and would jump the highest, that no one else could jump."
http://edition.cnn.c...eath/index.html
As for head protection, see my post above. When team bosses and Bernie shoot it down, then I think posters on this forum are a minor problem.
#32
Posted 18 July 2015 - 12:55
Insulting other users is not the way to determinate your opinion....I've been surprised by some of the callous and self centered replies to the death of Bianchi and it doesn't surprise me in the slightest; a small portion of every community are sociopaths. That's the only explanation I can think of that explains why some people are averse to many logical safety changes.
It took the untimely death of one of the young bright stars to force the FIA into real action on yellow flags and vehicles on track and, like every safety advance, there will be a backlash by the self centered - I recall that many called Stewart a whiner for trying to stop the death of several drivers every season and a select few have never fully forgiven him.
I knew an F1 journo who have the same opinion on this matter and even some current F1 drivers dont want closed cockpits because it wouldn't be F1 anymore. So what is wrong with having this opinion?
Edited by Marklar, 18 July 2015 - 13:02.
#33
Posted 18 July 2015 - 12:56
Its not that we want that they risk their lifes. For God sakes no. If you can find solutions to improve the safety than they should use it but if you're destroying the DNA of F1 then than you have to life with the consequences. And in the end we will end up with forbidding motor racing because you cant rule out the possibility to die. As I said: the Moto GP did not builed a cage around the bike to prevent the riders from falling after what happened with Simoncelli.
Building a cage around a competition motorcycle isn't technically feasible. Building a protection over the top of the head of a open-wheel car isn't completely trivial but far, far easier. This isn't a good analogy.
#34
Posted 18 July 2015 - 13:19
But your cage no no no. I think it is bad, cumbersome and see it as more of a danger then safety. And it is ugly also.
#35
Posted 18 July 2015 - 13:28
Insulting other users is not the way to determinate your opinion....
I knew an F1 journo who have the same opinion on this matter and even some current F1 drivers dont want closed cockpits because it wouldn't be F1 anymore. So what is wrong with having this opinion?
There is nothing wrong with either opinion. It's just some people feel it important to minimize possible dangers, others don't. The former people usually like to control whatever they can control, for the later that isn't as important.
Having said that, roll cages, what I still have not gotten an answers is what happens should it happen that they get ripped from the car. I certainly don't want to stand in the trajectory of that.
Also, it's certainly possible for racers to get killed in a closed cockpit. Stats from top series seem to indicate there isn't much difference between open wheeled racing and the others. So while I support those that want to minimize safety dangers, I have my reservations about the effectiveness of those measures in this case.
#36
Posted 18 July 2015 - 13:31
Who knows, maybe the fans a hundred years from now will look back on us as bloodthirsty savages with no regard for human life. But that is a separate debate, as well as the simple fact that formula cars have single seats and the driver's head is exposed. And part of that debate is our willingness to participate in risky events such as base jumping, motorcycle racing, or any extreme sport. There is a very long list of sports that can lead to a fatality if things go wrong.
I admit it, I personally lean towards enclosing the cockpit. That being said, I know that that today's drivers are very well protected by the current regulations and equipment. It takes a freak event and a combination of factors to produce serious injury or death.
In my long and crazy life I've worked in professions that carry high risk. As an electrician I don't need to have insulated tools if I follow the simple procedure of making sure that the power is turned off. Yes, having the proper equipment is essential, but even more important are the procedures that are the first line of defense.
The tragic tale of Jules Bianchi (dear Lord, I'm really hurting inside just thinking of his family) is one that has already been dissected and analyzed long before this point in time. And it involves equipment and procedures, both worthy of examination. We all know about the mobile crane, we all know about the horrible weather and lighting conditions, and we all know about the standing water. And we all should be aware that those guys out there are racers, pushing it in every way possible. They cut corners, they run to the edge (and past) of the track limits, that's what they do. They are competing and seeking any advantage. And we all know that if Bianchi did back off we wouldn't be having this conversation. But he didn't back off, and more than anything it was the procedures or lack of them that was (IMO) the main contributing factor in this sad tale.
Please read this:
http://www.fia.com/news/accident-panel
#37
Posted 18 July 2015 - 13:39
I say no cage effects, it will protect for some accidents but will actually be a matter of time before a accident would happen where the cage is actually damaging. I would be fine with a cockpit like a jetfighterstyle. Not to save from accidents like bianchi because the solution for that is outside the car. But it would protect the driver when a car flies over or a accident like Massa had.
But your cage no no no. I think it is bad, cumbersome and see it as more of a danger then safety. And it is ugly also.
Actually the FIA found the cage the better solution than the canopy it seems, because tires were flattened, which they deemed a good thing, as it's one item less that bounces round. (see my links above), it was rejected however by Bernie and team bosses as looking to ugly.
IMO, the beauty factor shouldn't be the deciding issue. Frank Williams said something like "If it's fast, people will consider it beautiful". referring to the Walrus nose on the 2004 car.
So to get everyone's opinion aligned isn't there a designer who can make a cage or canopy look good on an F1 car?
#38
Posted 18 July 2015 - 13:40
How dare you! How dare you refer to people who don't necessarily agree with god's dictum as sociopaths. I'm sick of the constant flippant usage of words like sociopath, ******, nutter and their like by people who probably don't know what they mean.I've been surprised by some of the callous and self centered replies to the death of Bianchi and it doesn't surprise me in the slightest; a small portion of every community are sociopaths. That's the only explanation I can think of that explains why some people are averse to many logical safety changes.
#39
Posted 18 July 2015 - 14:10
It should be remembered that Bianchi's tragic death is the first in F1 since Senna's death in 1994. That's 21 years people. I'd say a very good safety record. There have many more serious injuries and deaths in that time in many other forms of motorsport. The sport is dangerous, it is the nature of the beast. And there are those that think the sport is not dangerous enough, that it has become too sanitized. Implementing roll cages is not a solution. Imagine an accident where the driver is trapped in his car upside down and cannot extricate himself because he has become trapped due to the roll cage preventing him from getting out. I've witnessed far too many accidents, some fatal, and there will always be knee-jerk reactions in the immediate aftermath. Safety has come such a long way in the many years since I began following the sport. There was a time when drivers were being lost on a far too regular basis and I don't mean years passing between fatalities or serious injuries, but months, weeks, days even. Dan Gurney said it best, 'It is a cruel sport'.
Advertisement
#40
Posted 18 July 2015 - 15:23
Formula1 tradition and DNA have changed so many times although I don't care about it when safety is the topic. We know how fatal Formula1 was back in the old days but safety has improved since. We need another improvement in safety to protect drivers head. As some of the recent accidents were mentioned in previous posts, those accidents were dangerous enough to kill the driver but fortunately nothing serious happened except Jules Bianchi case. Virtual safety car introduction was the result of Jules Bianchi's accident and that was a beneficial change. Why not another change to reduce drivers head injury risks!? Surely there are solutions that can help and solutions are debatable by FIA and teams to introduce a proper and safe solutions to protect drivers head.
#41
Posted 18 July 2015 - 15:39
#42
Posted 18 July 2015 - 15:57
The problem is not whether or not we have the solutions to lower the risk of head injury, it's whether we can do it without creating other prodlems. A roll cage or canopy will definitely help, but a cage allowes small debris through and a canopy tends to deflect debris away at unabated speed, potentially into spectators. There is also the question of trapped drivers if the car is upside down. In such a case fire would be a risk but given how rare fire's are in crashes these days I consider that minimal, of more pressing concern is medical attention to an injured driver, how do trackside workers and medical staff reach a driver to stabalise him in the event of head, neck or spinal injuries if there's a cage or canopy in the way, and if I have this right a driver will need to be stabilised before the car is turned over and the driver extracted or run the risk of exacerbating injuries.
Since these are open topped formula cars that were never intended to have doors I don't think there is a simple solution that will not cause further problems. Certainly no ones suggested one yet.
#43
Posted 18 July 2015 - 16:26
#44
Posted 18 July 2015 - 16:28
All debates on head safety improvements or status quo aside, there was a solution I saw or read about (I guess in the other thread) that seemed to make a lot of sense. Maybe it was just a roll hoop, or a roll hoop/windscreen combination that was simple, allowed good ingress and egress, allowed good visibility, and still seemed to improve lateral and vertical crash protection for the driver's head. It also looked good on the car. The roll hoop portion covered the back half of the driver's head, but that could provide critical extra lateral stability in a crash.
Maybe someone else can remember?
Edited by AustinF1, 18 July 2015 - 16:31.
#45
Posted 18 July 2015 - 16:29
I am really sad and amazed to read people in the forum claiming that they actually WANT F1 to be about the drivers risking their lives. 1 Guys, seriously, think twice what you are saying because it is not normal
If something can be done to protect these guys it is morally unacceptable not to do it. 2 It is beyond me that somebody can consider more important that F1 for some estrange reason HAS to have open cockpits than the fact that drivers are risking their lives for the sake of a stupid tradition with zero real relevance whatsoever
Regarding the solution, either a cage or a transparent cockpit could work. Maybe not for every accident (in particular Bianchi's given the very high energy of the impact) but many, among them a certain Senna, would be still among us. If you don't give a damn maybe their families do. FIA has already done investigations and has solutions but they don't dare to introduce the changes needed. It seems as if they were waiting for the next tragedy to do something, it's sad and outraging
1. There is no way to travel at 200mph without risking your life. So anybody who wants to watch cars travel at that speed wants the drivers to risk their lives at least a tiny bit.
2. Your morals, not everybody's. By that logic, the fact that drivers get injured in F1 or motorsport in general at all means that everybody is morally questionable. We all know how to reduce motorsport injuries to zero. Frankly this applies to most other sports as well.
I'm not saying that safety is unimportant, far from it, but questioning your emotive rhetoric in this post.
#46
Posted 18 July 2015 - 16:45
The fighter jet canopy looked quite good to me. Maybe more for flying objects than a heavy crane, but it still might have made some difference:All debates on head safety improvements or status quo aside, there was a solution I saw or read about (I guess in the other thread) that seemed to make a lot of sense. Maybe it was just a roll hoop, or a roll hoop/windscreen combination that was simple, allowed good ingress and egress, allowed good visibility, and still seemed to improve lateral and vertical crash protection for the driver's head. It also looked good on the car. The roll hoop portion covered the back half of the driver's head, but that could provide critical extra lateral stability in a crash.
Maybe someone else can remember?
Edited by PlatenGlass, 18 July 2015 - 16:45.
#47
Posted 18 July 2015 - 16:45
Formula1 tradition and DNA have changed so many times although I don't care about it when safety is the topic. We know how fatal Formula1 was back in the old days but safety has improved since. We need another improvement in safety to protect drivers head. As some of the recent accidents were mentioned in previous posts, those accidents were dangerous enough to kill the driver but fortunately nothing serious happened except Jules Bianchi case. Virtual safety car introduction was the result of Jules Bianchi's accident and that was a beneficial change. Why not another change to reduce drivers head injury risks!? Surely there are solutions that can help and solutions are debatable by FIA and teams to introduce a proper and safe solutions to protect drivers head.
Based on that. Lets say the introduce something to protect the head. Fine.
I've read some months ago an article where some basic solutions regarding an head protection on a monocoque were analyzed. The result was that you can resolve one problem (the heaviness of the impact regarding g-forces and the risk to get hitten by a tyre) but at the same time you can create even more problems (driver can't leave the cockpit, driver have a bad visibility, cage can even squash a driver which makes the accident worse).
Only solution would be to make a DTM or WTCC like car (the author jokingly even said that they would need an tank). Thats what I try to explain all the time: if that happen than it is not F1, not even close.
Furthermore it is not just the open cockpit which is an issue, it is also the open wheel. If they cover both than we have LMP1 cars which are also not entirely safe.
Edited by Marklar, 18 July 2015 - 16:48.
#48
Posted 18 July 2015 - 17:16
And to add to this topic: Not the head protection was the reason for Bianchis injury. The reason was that they had an wheel loader on the track and gave the driver the responsibility to manage the speed in that situation, Stil they didn't resolved that entirely: they're stil using wheel loaders and the drivers just have to driver delta times during the whole lap (130 % of the average normal lap), so it can stil happen that a driver can crash into the wheel loader. The better solution would have been to introduce automatic slow zones (race director is pushing a button and all cars are automaticly slowing down), problem here would be what happens if the system is failing? With normal slow zones you have not these problems but you have the risk of a colission before the slow zone is starting. So there is also not a 100 % safe solution. Best solution would be to bann a driver for one race if he's not slowing down enough, than they would be more carefully.
Back to the head protection: No head protection in this world would have save Bianchi. Its more likely that his injuries would have been worse.
Edited by Marklar, 18 July 2015 - 17:17.
#49
Posted 18 July 2015 - 17:16
There is no particular reason why F1 should be the first to try out canopy, as the same risks apply to all formula racing. FIA is bringing F2 back, so that would be a easy way to test closed cockpit designs. Other series that comes to my mind is Formula E, which already has emphasis on innovations. After proper testing and seeing canopies behave in real accidents give us enough knowledge to see their pros and cons.
#50
Posted 18 July 2015 - 17:33
The 1995 head injury to Mika Hakkinen at Adelaide shows that a driver's head would probably contact any type of "roll cage" adjacent to his head and he would be injured (worse) but that. Mika had a severe brain injury without his head or helmet contacting anything......just his brain contacting the inside of his skull (concusion).