Closed Cockpits in F1

[emd645e6]

Caught this article over on the Racer Site. Alonzo was definitely lucky that he did not take a helmet hit. I'm torn between safety and tradition on this issue. What do all of you think about it?


http://www.racer.com/lowe-closed-coc...rticle/257201/

Closed Cockpits Now Inevitable in F1

Closed cockpits now appear to be inevitable in Formula 1, with technical chiefs set to ramp up efforts to bring them in following Fernando Alonso's lucky escape in the first-lap crash at the Belgian Grand Prix.

Romain Grosjean's Lotus flew over the front of Alonso's cockpit in the pile-up, and it was fortunate that the Ferrari driver did not suffer any impact on his helmet. The good fortune served to highlight the biggest weakness in the modern safety design of F1 cars, and comes as the FIA and technical figures continue work on closed-cockpit concepts.

McLaren technical director Paddy Lowe thinks the first-corner crash will serve as a reminder about how important this work is and increase a push being made to change cockpit designs for as early as 2014.

"I think 2014 is intended, as we started the project a year ago," said Lowe, who has been involved in work on the cockpit project. "Personally I think something is inevitable because it is the one big [safety] exposure that we have got.

"You see it time and time again and think, 'That was lucky!' One day it won't be lucky. At the same time, it is an open-cockpit formula so we have to protect that, but it should be technically possible one way or another."

Work on closed cockpits ramped up after the injuries that Felipe Massa suffered at the 2009 Hungarian Grand Prix when he was hit on the head by a car component, just a few days after Henry Surtees was killed in a Formula 2 race when he was struck by a wheel. Lowe says that an initial focus on canopy protection has now been abandoned, with tests highlighting that a bar/cage type design is much better.

"We have made a test piece and it has been tested structurally with various impacts, like firing wheels at it, and that was successful. So we understand some of the parameters in terms of the angles that are needed and the strength of the pieces. The work that is currently in progress is assessing its visibility, and we've done some work on the simulator with our interpretation.

"Ideally, a driver wants nothing in the way, but in the same way as you drive a road car or even the old VW camper van with the center pillar, you just get used to it, don't you? We found that as long as the pillars don't get too big it is something you can get used to. So we have some parameters about pillar size, and now we are looking at making something with that pillar size and to the right strength requirement."

Ferrari team principal Stefano Domenicali says that work on closed cockpits should not be rushed, because there are numerous safety considerations needed.

"We were lucky because nothing happened to Fernando on the head," he said. "We are working with the federation to work on the right system of protection, because on what we are testing and working on, there are also some problems that you may have, like moving the protection in the event of a fire or worse. So we need to be very careful on all these devices."

[PFS]

I'm all in favor of a constant development of safety...but a formula car is open wheel, open cockpit. If it has a canopy, it is a closed cockpit and no longer a formula car, thus it cannot be a "Formula" 1 car. And they cannot use Massa's accident to promote a "cage" design, because that may not have prevented his injury at all. Racing will always be a dangerous activity, and all danger will NEVER be designed or engineered or legislated out of it.

[cdh]

____________

[Rosso]

We've been through all of this before in the 1960's & 70's with TQ's, Midgets and Sprint Cars when the change was made to 4-bar cages from the hoop style roll bar. I'm sure people older than me (are there ANY?) will surely also chime in that "we went through that in the 50's when roll hoops were mandated." The arguments are always the same: TRADITION, not manly, if you're scared, go play with sticks & balls, "...the annual decapitation is good for the show..." I appears what they are talking about implementing is more akin to an enhanced protective halo than an actual closed cockpit.

[Slowhands]

I find myself torn about this. There is the half that agrees with looking at ways to improve protection but keep the cockpit open, without what would look like a cage from a spectator standpoint. As a fan, what I have always loved about formula car racing is the driver being able to fly his "freak flag" via his helmet, allowing a passionate identification well beyond the purely informational. As a driver, an open cockpit is part of the sensory experience that addicted me to racing. For me, it just doesn't feel the same in a closed, fendered sedan. The same way the "cage-free" bikers feel, but with 4 wheels and a roll cage.

So that's the dilemma, you do want to be safe even while playing on the limits. The physician/engineer half (engineer by temperament, not training) lauds F1's modern embrace of a proactive corporate safety ethic, where safety is the prime directive, an ethic that grew out of the aviation and industrial safety disciplines, and whose lessons have informed even organized medicine. The no-brainer stuff should be done, no question.

But where do you draw the line? This is a question that faces humanity in a lot of arenas, as technology has progressed. I think there is a line where you lose the essence of your particular sport, and closing in wheels and cockpits is probably where that lies for formula cars.

What enthusiasts and purists might fail to give sufficient weight to, however, is that over the past 40 years, as the technological requirements to remain competitive have made pro racing too expensive for the average garagiste and middle-class privateer, teams have been forced to accept sponsorship from unrelated businesses that want the glow of the glamour and bravado of racing for their own brands. Teams have turned into businesses themselves. Williams and McLaren have divisions that, practically speaking, have greater allegiances outside the sphere of formula car racing. In business, when you bring the money, and people are dependent on it, you make the rules.

On a philosophical level, I would argue that these are the guys ultimately driving the safety rules nowadays. F1 is no longer sport, but business, and not the business of racing, but the business of promotion, which has gotten bigger than the racing. Having your brand ambassadors put out of commission is bad for business, as Kubica's backers will attest. Risk to Alonso's life in a year where he is in control of the World Championship has business ramifications that dwarf the sporting issues. Businesses related to him look to harvest a windfall if he were to win. To lose all that in a microsecond in a crash triggered by a rambunctious rookie driver is more than they can bear. You better believe all Alonso-related businesses (Ferrari not least) are going to weigh in on this with a vengeance, in private, through the offices of team principals, Charlie Whiting's office, and the FIA. Many likely already have.

Wouldn't it be ironic if the most traditional, historic, and old-school of all racing marques, Ferrari, who once famously said "When we design engines, we do not care about the smell of the air," is instrumental in finally closing the cockpit on the formula car?

[Slowhands]

p.s. I've attached a pic of Jack Brabham's experimental 1967 canopy (that was subsequently banned).


Here's something from another site; I'd be interested in others' reactions:

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2012/08/2...els-future-f1/

Adrian Newey's concept of an F1 car with covered wheels and cockpit:

[oldredracer]

Several random thoughts...which is pretty much how my mind works anyway.


Slowhands is right about driver identification. One of the reasons I don't keep up with NASCAR or Sprint Cup or whatever is that keeping of who is driving what is too much like work. I identify more with drivers than cars, so being able to identify them means more.


Jacques Villeneuve commented a couple of years ago that safety has improved to the point that drivers take crazy risks because they're likely to survive them. He's actually a pretty good example, now that I think of it. I heard Sir Stirling Moss say last weekend that without danger there's not much point to racing. Denise McCluggage wrote an article about risk-takers vs. thrill-seekers in which she said that no risk-taker would get on a race track without his helmet while a thrill-seeker only wants to hear his passengers scream. Racers are risk-takers. In the sixties an F1 season without casualties was rare.

The pictures of turn 1, lap 1 at Spa are frightening.


It was disconcerting to discover that the new Mercedes Gullwing uses explosive bolts in the hinges of its doors so they can be opened in the event of a rollover. I believe those hinges would be about 3 inches from the driver's head. What could possibly go wrong? F1 applications?

Here's an idea. Take all advertising off the cars and hold the events just for the sport.

Where'd everybody go?

[cdh]

I think I had a snow sled that looked like that Harsha - a nice design exercise, but make it for slot cars and not formula racing.

Here's a similar post from a thread following Danny's death, an ugly rendering of an enclosed "formula" car.
Is there an article asking F1 drivers what they think? Would like to know.

What I see as potential trouble are the very sharp/flat noses on the current F1 cars, I would not want to be hit broadside (say, right at my neck) by one...shudder...

[cdh]

Some earlier designs with these leanings

[cdh]

Another Ferrari rendering, nicer but still awkward/unappealing, I really hope an F car remains open wheel/cockpit. Looking at the Spa crash I was always more shocked at what could have happened to Fernando's hand on the steering wheel -- could have easily been crushed, and that could be a career ender.

[cdh]

Some good sim replays in this - I think it's a cool design, but it isn't an F car...please

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmtehAZVDUY

[Slowhands]

Originally Posted by cdh

I really hope an F car remains open wheel/cockpit.

When it comes right down to it, I'm with you. An F car is an F car. It's a specific platform for motorsports, probably not the safest, but there you go. Drivers and fans gravitate toward F cars for what the F car brings to the sport of driving and racing. Make them as safe as possible, but if you change what makes them an F car, you no longer have an F car. Humans have an innate need to be challenged and take calculated risk, and to create organized sports around the neural chemicals that facilitate and result from playing on the limits of both performance and ultimately life-- adrenaline, dopamine, endogenous opioids. It's natural, it's part of our neural circuits, if it did not make us more adaptable to our environment and support our thriving as a species, evolution would have selected against it long ago, and our entire existence would currently consist of sitting in our dens watching TV.

Oh, right.

[ML Peter Ludwig]

These drivers and regulatory bodies are turning into bigger and bigger pan-zees. When I watch races and racers from the good old days these were pilots with balls, so we're the track workers. Safety, electronic intervention and paychecks are getting way out of hand and dulling the senses. Just my opinion. BORING

[dalyduo]

Reading Chris Economaki's book "Let 'em all go!" would help the context of this argument. In the early days of motor racing, not just F1, death and serious injury was common. The danger was both horrifying and an attractant for race fans. Because the danger was understood when people died they'd announce the passing during an event, have a moment of silence and race on.

When Sir Sterling Moss spoke at Lime Rock last week he only half joked about John Fitch owing him money as Sir Sterling was leading the famous 1955 LeMans race by four laps when Fitch's Mercedes driving partner Pierre Levegh crashed into the crowd killing 84 people. He called John Fitch a "twit" for lobbying Mercedes to ultimately withdraw their cars from the race in respect for the loss of life. Moss's old school point of view was, "It was a terrible tragedy but nothing was going to bring those people back so why pull out of the race?
The organizers considered stopping the entire event but chose not to because they were afraid the traffic congestion would choke off the roads to and from the track that were now filled with emergency vehicles attending to the 84 dead and over 100 injured.

Death and serious injury is so rare these days that we take safety engineering for granted. Drivers take more risks because the consequences of their actions are more survivable. Does that make them more brave? Of course not. But we'll never go back to the blood sport that motor racing was in its early years.

If changes are made that produce fast cars and good racing it will move the sport forward whether we traditionalists like it or not. Even Sir Sterling understood that in the end racing is show business and if the show is compelling people will watch. Killing or injuring people has been, for the most part, engineered out but there will always be danger and risk no matter what you do.

[WatertownNewbie]

Originally Posted by dalyduo

Reading Chris Economaki's book "Let 'em all go!" would help the context of this argument.

I agree with this comment as well as the rest of what you wrote, and I encourage everyone to read the book too.

[Gerardo]

I think there is already a Formula 1 racer who has been rather successful with the closed canopy style design. He has certainly sold a ton of tickets with his racing displays and is considered by millions to be a great looking race car...

[Gerardo]

And for a more serious reply,

I respect everyone's points about how racing probably should never lose some element of risk and danger. I can appreciate that, as that risk is something I completely enjoy when competing in any race car.

I have had the privilege of racing both an open cockpit LMP prototype and a closed cockpit canopy LMP prototype coupe, both in 2008 with Mazda, and would like to comment on the comparisons between the two.

From my perspective in the car, it made little difference which car design we raced. The thrill was extremely high in both cars. A great deal of the thrill came from simply managing the car at speed, in traffic, sorting the balance, sorting the level of risk in passing, line choices, etc.

Given how insanely fast F1 cars are, and how difficult to drive they are, running a canopy should still offer an extremely risky and pleasurable experience to the pilots.

Whether or not the fans, observers, writers, critics, and officials can accept the look of a canopy car is another valid story worth discussing.

But, I cannot agree to an argument that the racing would be easier in canopy closed cockpit F1 cars. Winning against great drivers/pilots is hard whether its electric indoor karts, Skip Barber cars, Spec Miatas, LMP prototypes, F1 cars, or fighter jets.