87 replies to this topic

[johnmhinds]

The correlation between canopies and fire hazard is the necessary time to get out of the car, specially if upside down, and (in an admittedly less probable incident) smoke inside the cockpit.

The stock car video I've posted is a example of both factors: to get out of the car and smoke inside the cockpit (the later making the former even more difficult).

When was the last time a car ended upside down and on fire?

When was the last time we had a fuel tank leak after a crash?

I really don't see how adding a barrier in the form of a canopy is meant to increase the chances of a driver being burnt or inhaling smoke. It's putting something in the way of those things.

And even if a driver does get trapped upside down in a burning car the marshals are going to be able to get to him and put the fire out very quickly.

There isn't any chance of a Rogar Williamson or Niki Lauda style incident these days, and the addition of a canopy doesn't increase the chances of fires hurting a driver.

[peroa]

Emmm, you guys do realize that having a canopy covering the cockpit will boil the driver to death ...

[johnmhinds]

Emmm, you guys do realize that having a canopy covering the cockpit will boil the driver to death ...

 

 

[Huffer]

I think yes there needs to be proof, because canopies have been used in other applications safely and for a reason, and as such it's not a valid argument to claim they would be dangerous... as there simply isn't any proof that they are causing injuries or death.  Or if there is, I would like to see it.  But where is it?

 

And ANF is right about the seat belts... same faulty argument.

Before Bianchi's death, there wasn't any proof that having heavy equipment in the track boundaries would cause serious injuries or eventual death, despite common sense saying otherwise.

So no, I don't think we need proof, at least not for the questions that you are asking. Canopies have the potential to introduce more problems that they solve, and they don't even solve the problems that are the root cause of Bianchi's incident, such as;

Driver failure to drive to the conditions and limits of the safety flags
Heavy equipment within the track boundaries

 

So rather than proof of canopies causing issues such as injury, death, other complications - I'd say that we need proof that they DON'T cause those issues. 

Edited by Huffer, 25 July 2015 - 07:16.

[PayasYouRace]

Before Bianchi's death, there wasn't any proof that having heavy equipment in the track boundaries would cause serious injuries or eventual death, despite common sense saying otherwise.

So no, I don't think we need proof, at least not for the questions that you are asking. Canopies have the potential to introduce more problems that they solve, and they don't even solve the problems that are the root cause of Bianchi's incident, such as;

Driver failure to drive to the conditions and limits of the safety flags
Heavy equipment within the track boundaries

 

So rather than proof of canopies causing issues such as injury, death, other complications - I'd say that we need proof that they DON'T cause those issues. 

 

This thread isn't specifically about Jules' crash, though there are relevant details. However, you're one suggesting that canopies will introduce problems but you haven't provided any evidence that this is the case. This is despite hundreds of races with closed cockpit cars taking place over the years providing examples of exactly how they perform in accidents.

 

At the moment we have a few recent cases where cockpit intrusion has been the cause of injury or death. You need to point to recent cases where having a closed cockpit has lead to the same (injury or death) when an open cockpit would have prevented it. And they must be recent because it must take into account advances in things like fuel cells.

[Tourgott]

When was the last time a car ended upside down and on fire?

 

When was the last time a F1 driver was hit and knocked out by a spring and how many times did it happen before?

[Huffer]

This thread isn't specifically about Jules' crash, though there are relevant details. However, you're one suggesting that canopies will introduce problems but you haven't provided any evidence that this is the case. This is despite hundreds of races with closed cockpit cars taking place over the years providing examples of exactly how they perform in accidents.

 

At the moment we have a few recent cases where cockpit intrusion has been the cause of injury or death. You need to point to recent cases where having a closed cockpit has lead to the same (injury or death) when an open cockpit would have prevented it. And they must be recent because it must take into account advances in things like fuel cells.

 

Closed cockpits in other racing series is not the same as a canopy fitted over a narrow body open wheeled race car. 

I don't *have* to provide proof that these complications will happen. That job is up to the relevant bodies within the FIA to run studies and to then make a decision based on the results. All I've said is that there possibilities of complications - there are a lot of unknowns because introducing canopies in F1 bring with it a lot of unknown or poorly understood issues. 

What is needed is risk assessment where we try to a) predict issues that need investigating and b) run a lot of tests to see if anything we didn't think of crops up. To ignore those concerns would be just criminal. As I said - there doesn't need to be proof that these issues have cropped up in the past, but that they will be very unlikely to occur in the future.

It's interesting that you point out the recent cases of death due to cockpit intrusion - more so that you're choosing to solve the secondary issues, rather than the actual cause of the incidents themselves.




 

Edited by Huffer, 25 July 2015 - 07:51.

[f1buzz]

I think yes there needs to be proof, because canopies have been used in other applications safely and for a reason, and as such it's not a valid argument to claim they would be dangerous... as there simply isn't any proof that they are causing injuries or death. Or if there is, I would like to see it. But where is it?

And ANF is right about the seat belts... same faulty argument.

Well It works also the otherway around isn't It. Because there isn't mutch prove doesn't mean the dangers aren't there. What you can't see, is still there isn't It?


To impliment a change for Safety reasons, you have to be damn sure It wil be saver. because Otherwise you impliment the change for a false sense of security and that really isn't a good reason is It?

[PayasYouRace]

Closed cockpits in other racing series is not the same as a canopy fitted over a narrow body open wheeled race car. 

I don't *have* to provide proof that these complications will happen. That job is up to the relevant bodies within the FIA to run studies and to then make a decision based on the results. All I've said is that there possibilities of complications - there are a lot of unknowns because introducing canopies in F1 bring with it a lot of unknown or poorly understood issues. 

What is needed is risk assessment where we try to a) predict issues that need investigating and b) run a lot of tests to see if anything we didn't think of crops up. To ignore those concerns would be just criminal. As I said - there doesn't need to be proof that these issues have cropped up in the past, but that they will be very unlikely to occur in the future.

It's interesting that you point out the recent cases of death due to cockpit intrusion - more so that you're choosing to solve the secondary issues, rather than the actual cause of the incidents themselves.
 

 

Firstly no form of canopy or closed cockpit has been decided on, so we can't go into any detail on that.

 

You do have to provide evidence (not "proof") that there are complications if you're taking that stance. Otherwise your arguments are empty and can be safely ignored. Of course the FIA are the actual people who must do the experiments and figure it out, but I'm not talking to them.

 

Lastly, I'm not ignoring the causes of some of these incidents, but as a grown-up I can approach a problem from more than one direction.

[wonk123]

It took a couple of very high profile drivers to die in Australian Power boat racing before a survival cell was mandated. It has been phased in, first unlimited boats, then all blown boats and now 6 litre. There is a school of thought that the drivers are more aggressive now that they feel safer, but there has also been plenty of accidents in the last few years, that had there not been a cell, then the drivers wouldn't have been going back to their families.

They have pon bottles hooked up to a mask in case of being upside down in the water.

 

There were a lot (if not most) people against mandatory cells before the introduction, now I doubt you would here more than a small handfull.

 

 

[Lee Nicolle]

You're wrong, closed canopies are the logical answer indeed. Of course they are! Senna would not have died, Ratzenberger would've stood a better chance so too Wendlinger. Massa wouldn't have nearly died. It looks like Bianchi's head movements may have still been violent inside a closed cockpit but there's always that chance that closed cockpits could lead onto surrounding airbags which probably would cushion those kind of head movements. Think of all the potential for wheels and objects entering the cockpit and a car flipping onto fences like Dan Wheldon who also may not have died. 
There is plenty of ways of allowing the canopy to have a slide off roof the same width as is now and the secondary option of the whole thing hinging open. Open cockpits are inherently more dangerous.

Senna would have made no difference. A HANS may have helped, maybe!

Ratzenberger too would have made no difference.

Canopies have very little going for them, a lot against. Massa's injury may well have not happened however. Though springs are not supposed to fall off of cars. They are supposed to tethered.

A closed 'open' car is a closed car!

All the so called safety items all have downfalls. 6 point belts 99% of the time are an improvement.

HANS device are often more of a hindrance than help, and the stupid thing is that to be used properly they require special seat belts which are 2" over the device and 3" elsewhere. Which alone is totally dumb as the belt has a weak point and will stretch far further. As well as being near useless in a semi reclining driving position. A very overhyped piece of equipment. And hinder egress from a burning car too.

The same can be said for a canopy, it will fall off in a rollover and the rest of the time hinder getting out.

Ugly as they are a rollcage is still far better.

[Lee Nicolle]

Before Bianchi's death, there wasn't any proof that having heavy equipment in the track boundaries would cause serious injuries or eventual death, despite common sense saying otherwise.

So no, I don't think we need proof, at least not for the questions that you are asking. Canopies have the potential to introduce more problems that they solve, and they don't even solve the problems that are the root cause of Bianchi's incident, such as;

Driver failure to drive to the conditions and limits of the safety flags
Heavy equipment within the track boundaries

 

So rather than proof of canopies causing issues such as injury, death, other complications - I'd say that we need proof that they DON'T cause those issues. 

I will say this just ONCE more. IF drivers adhered to yellow flag rules the Bianchi [and other] accident would not have happened. NO reason to crash under yellows.

F1 and other hero classes though think yellow is go faster to catch up. Hence this tragic and avoidable scenario. Neil Crompton, Aussie media commentator calls them go faster flags, as that is what happens. F1 Supercar, Sports Cars etc etc

[ThisIsMischaW]

I don't really understand mentioning Senna. If Senna had that crash now, under the current regulations, he would be fine. No need for a closed canopy.

[johnmhinds]

When was the last time a F1 driver was hit and knocked out by a spring and how many times did it happen before?

 

Why are you acting like Maasa is the only person to ever get hit by flying car components?

 

Massa wasn't even the only driver to get hit in the head that week.

 

https://en.wikipedia...i/Henry_Surtees

[superden]

The danger isn't the fire - the danger is a possible difficulty of getting out!

Not to mention smoke inhalation.

[ANF]

That would work in the case of a fire as well.

[johnmhinds]

Not to mention smoke inhalation.

 

Once again, explain how this is increased with a closed cockpit vs an open cockpit.

 

If the cockpit is surrounded by fire or leaking fuel and the driver is stuck in the cockpit because he is injured (a broken leg for example) an open cockpit with nothing between him and the fire is obviously going to be more dangerous.

 

A closed cockpit is an extra barrier against those dangers while the marshals deal with the fire.

[wonk123]

Once again, explain how this is increased with a closed cockpit vs an open cockpit.

 

If the cockpit is surrounded by fire or leaking fuel and the driver is stuck in the cockpit because he is injured (a broken leg for example) an open cockpit with nothing between him and the fire is obviously going to be more dangerous.

 

A closed cockpit is an extra barrier against those dangers while the marshals deal with the fire.

 

An air bottle like the boat guys have is an extra source of protection from smoke inhalation

[superden]

Once again, explain how this is increased with a closed cockpit vs an open cockpit.

If the cockpit is surrounded by fire or leaking fuel and the driver is stuck in the cockpit because he is injured (a broken leg for example) an open cockpit with nothing between him and the fire is obviously going to be more dangerous.

A closed cockpit is an extra barrier against those dangers while the marshals deal with the fire.

Calm down, not every response on here needs to be confrontational! I didn't state it was, or wasn't, an increased risk with a canopy. However, there is always talk of fire and burns but never any mention of smoke inhalation, which will do just as much, if not more, damage.

What I will say is that a cockpit isn't and will not be a hermetically sealed environment and in my experience, smoke gets everywhere. It's rather like water, if there's a gap, it's in.

Edited by superden, 25 July 2015 - 10:49.

[johnmhinds]

Even if there is a gap and some smoke gets in its still going to be less smoke than you'd get trapped in an open cockpit.

 

The whole fire/smoke risk argument is completely specious.

Edited by johnmhinds, 25 July 2015 - 10:39.

[Huffer]

Firstly no form of canopy or closed cockpit has been decided on, so we can't go into any detail on that.

 

You do have to provide evidence (not "proof") that there are complications if you're taking that stance. Otherwise your arguments are empty and can be safely ignored. Of course the FIA are the actual people who must do the experiments and figure it out, but I'm not talking to them.

 

Lastly, I'm not ignoring the causes of some of these incidents, but as a grown-up I can approach a problem from more than one direction.

 

Proof and evidence are the same thing. They are in fact synonyms. 

 

I don't need evidence or proof. I just need reasonable suspicion that there MAY be complications and that they need to be investigated. That's what risk assessment is all about. But despite your ad homie argument, I'll indulge you at little.

Driver extrication complications:-

If the car is upside down, the drive will not be able to extricate themselves without the assistance of track marshals. This increases the time required to exit the car for the driver, which increases the risk of injury due to other possible circumstances such as fire.

If the driver is unconscious and the car is upside down, the medical staff have no way to check the medical state of the driver without moving the car and exacerbating other possible injuries. 

There may be the possibility of the canopy mechanism jamming due to impact deformation leaving an unconscious/injured driver trapped without the aid of cutting gear. 

Now you could argue that all of that depends on the canopy design. And you'd be right. Which is why it all has to be tested. See? Which means trying to determine the likely issues BEFORE hand. All things that have to happen before a canopy of any design is a good idea and doesn't introduce more problems than it solves. That's how risk assessment works and its a critical part of any safety improvement - rather than just waiting for problems to present themselves. 

Just because you seem to think that you're looking at the problem from different direction, doesn't mean that they are a) the right directions or b) you're thinking about the right problem to solve. As for me, I have no definite answers - just questions that I feel should be answered before any sort of canopy is decided upon, if at all.

Anyhow....this focus on canopies is the trying to solve the wrong problem, which is my main issue with the whole discussion. It's just papering over the cracks without trying to understand/solve the underlying problems. 

Edited by Huffer, 25 July 2015 - 10:52.

[superden]

Even if there is a gap and some smoke gets in its still going to be less smoke than you'd get trapped in an open cockpit.

The whole fire/smoke risk argument is completely specious.

I never said it wasn't less than an open cockpit. I am merely pointing out a factor that is always overlooked when discussing fire.

Do you assume such a conversationally defensive stance in daily life? It must be staggeringly tiring.

[johnmhinds]

I never said it wasn't less than an open cockpit. I am merely pointing out a factor that is always overlooked when discussing fire.

Do you assume such a conversationally defensive stance in daily life? It must be staggeringly tiring.

 

It wasn't being overlooked. My post at the top of this page was a reply to someone else making the argument that smoke would be an issue for closed cockpits. 

[Tourgott]

Why are you acting like Maasa is the only person to ever get hit by flying car components?

 

Massa wasn't even the only driver to get hit in the head that week.

 

https://en.wikipedia...i/Henry_Surtees

 

Why are you acting like there was no burning upside down car in the past and like there won't be any in the future?

I never ever want to see or read about a driver burnt alive in the car because he couldn't get extracted fast enough. I don't think there's a more painful death than this.

Edited by Tourgott, 25 July 2015 - 11:09.

[smitten]

Even if there is a gap and some smoke gets in its still going to be less smoke than you'd get trapped in an open cockpit.

 

The whole fire/smoke risk argument is completely specious.

 

The cockpit cannot be hermetically sealed for a huge number of reasons.  Kimi had gasses leaking into the cockpit from the ERS batteries a while back: there is a fear that once in the cockpit, gasses could overcome a driver in a covered cockpit when an open one vents naturally.

 

The whole fire/smoke argument is not specious - it is one of many risks which need to be weighed up objectively.

[wonk123]

Proof and evidence are the same thing. They are in fact synonyms. 

 

 

I hope you are never asked to give evidence against me. 

[johnmhinds]

Why are you acting like there was no burning upside down car in the past and like there won't be any in the future?

I never ever want to see or read about a driver burnt alive in the car because he couldn't get extracted fast enough. I don't think there's a more painful death than this.

 

There have been massive leaps forwards in fire safety with changes to driver/car safety and marshalling, there isn't a huge risk of drivers burning to death in their cars anymore.

 

 

 

People using the small risk of fire/smoke (something a closed cockpit would actually help with and an open cockpit provides no protection against) as a reason to fight against similar leaps forward in cockpit intrusion safety is just weird.

Edited by johnmhinds, 25 July 2015 - 11:47.

[Tourgott]

there isn't a huge risk of drivers burning to death in their cars anymore.

 

There isn't also a huge risk to hit a crane deployed in a sand trap to remove a car from an earlier accident suffering a head injury.

It still happened.

Edited by Tourgott, 25 July 2015 - 11:51.

[sopa]

I don't really understand mentioning Senna. If Senna had that crash now, under the current regulations, he would be fine. No need for a closed canopy.

 

Didn't Senna get hit by flying suspension parts? In this case canopy would have very much saved him.

[superden]

It wasn't being overlooked. My post at the top of this page was a reply to someone else making the argument that smoke would be an issue for closed cockpits.

I didn't see that, fair enough.

Still no reason to be so defensive

Edited by superden, 25 July 2015 - 12:09.

[ThisIsMischaW]

Didn't Senna get hit by flying suspension parts? In this case canopy would have very much saved him.

 

His helmet was penetrated by the right front suspension. Better wheel tethering and higher cockpit sides would have saved him. No need for a canopy.

[johnmhinds]

There isn't also a huge risk to hit a crane deployed in a sand trap to remove a car from an earlier accident suffering a head injury.

It still happened.

Of course fires can still happen.

 

But would you rather a driver was trapped in his burning car in a safety cell that has a canopy protecting him as well giving marshals even more time to put out the fire, or have him left out in the open cockpit where the fire has nothing stopping it from getting to the trapped driver.

 

As i've already said the fire risk thing is a poor argument against canopies.

 

The people saying the canopy would slow down the medics ability to treat an injured driver have a better reason for not liking the idea.

Edited by johnmhinds, 25 July 2015 - 13:00.

[Tourgott]

A trapped driver with an open cockpit but a canopy protecting the driver from fire?

It's getting ridiculous, isn't it?

[JHSingo]

A canopy protects a driver against a fire, and an open cockpit is more dangerous in those circumstances?

 

Umm...what. Can't say I understand that logic, at all.

 

Drivers need to get out of their cars ASAP when a car is on fire. Fact. I doubt any of them would be like "oh yes, I'm happy to sit here in my burning car while I wait for the marshals to put this fire out."

 

Also, an extract from an article in Autosport this week:

 

The governing body researched the effects of introducing a roll structure in front of the driver, after encouraging tests that were designed to avoid a repeat of the Surtees incident, where he was struck on the head by a flying wheel.

 

...

 

The FIA decided to discontinue expensive work in this area following an October 2013 meeting of F1's strategy group, during which leading teams rejected the governing body's rollhoop solution. The teams agreed that F1 should remain an open-cockpit formula, and the rollhoop solution, which Whiting said was the only closed cockpit concept the FIA believed could work, was not an avenue they wanted grand prix racing to pursue.

 

What I take from this, and particularly the bolded part, is that the FIA did a lot of work - and deemed canopies as an unsuccessful solution for whatever reason, whether safety related or something else. But hey, I guess people on the internet know more than the stupid FIA on this topic, right?

[johnmhinds]

A trapped driver with an open cockpit but a canopy protecting the driver from fire?

It's getting ridiculous, isn't it?

 

You're the one saying that fire is a risk to a trapped driver.

 

If a driver crashes his car and breaks his legs or gets knocked unconscious and the crash is so huge that his fuel cell is ruptured, which would you rather he was in, a closed or open cockpit car?

 

I'd really like to hear the reason why you think an open cockpit is better in the scenario of an injured driver being trapped in his car and the car catching fire. 

[JHSingo]

You're the one saying that fire is a risk to a trapped driver.

 

If a driver crashes his car and breaks his legs or gets knocked unconscious and the crash is so huge that his fuel cell is ruptured, which would you rather he was in, a closed or open cockpit car?

 

I'd really like to hear the reason why you think an open cockpit is better in the scenario of an injured driver being trapped in his car and the car catching fire. 

 

Neither is particularly preferential.

 

But yet in that situation, at least with an open cockpit a safety crew would be able to pull a driver out quickly, far more easily than if they were hindered by a canopy or whatever. And that is probably the most important thing in that type of incident.

[johnmhinds]

Neither is particularly preferential.

But yet in that situation, at least with an open cockpit a safety crew would be able to pull a driver out quickly, far more easily than if they were hindered by a canopy or whatever. And that is probably the most important thing in that type of incident.

If the driver has had such a huge crash that the fuel cell has been compromised (a crash big enough to rip the car apart and rupture the fuel cell would probably kill the driver anyway) the last thing you'd want to do is ask marshals to risk their own lives and risk further injury to the driver by pulling him out before the fire has even been put out.

[maximilian]

Well It works also the otherway around isn't It. Because there isn't mutch prove doesn't mean the dangers aren't there. What you can't see, is still there isn't It?


To impliment a change for Safety reasons, you have to be damn sure It wil be saver. because Otherwise you impliment the change for a false sense of security and that really isn't a good reason is It?

 

That's a bit like saying "Prove Bigfoot DOESN'T exist, else we'll just presume he DOES exist".