Poll Is it time for cockpit canopies ?

[Dario Resta]

It's an open wheel, open cockpit formula. I love the LMP cars, but that's not F1. How many drivers in F1 history have been decapitated by other cars? Yes, several have lost their lives after collision with barriers etc. but none as far as I know by other cars. That isn't to say it couldn't happen, but drivers now sit very low in the cockpit anyway, minimising the risk to a certain extent. Any structure over their heads could either be destroyed in an impact and penetrate the cockpit / driver or deform making getting the driver out more difficult.

The forces in Bianchi's accident were huge, and he was in one of the slowest cars on the track, in wet conditions (so even more slow).

The problem is agricultural machinery retrieving cars in a combination of poor weather and light conditions. Long reach cranes behind the barriers, or leave the bloody car where it is and wave yellows at that point until it can be cleared under the safety car. Oh, and tell the driver to stay in the car - unless it's obviously unsafe until told to get out by race control. That will keep marshals out of the firing line too.

 

[jez101]

I'm really in two minds on canopies. Greenlantern101 makes a lot of good points and it is brave to be the odd one out in 19 voters and still be arguing your case, but I respect that.

I guess the thing for me with canopies is whether they would prevent anything. Or would there be unintended consequences to visibility and other problems that we don't have without them.

I fear they could just become another aero device and how to prevent that while keeping the primary function of protecting drivers is mind-boggling.

I think the discussion about the use of farm vehicles is something different and far from mutually exclusive. Perhaps there should a different thread on recovering stranded cars, safety of marshalls and what could easily become a safety-car fest with one sent out every time a car stopped out on track.

 

[ATL11]

Simply No.

To many scary scenarios vs the benefits for something that happens maybe once every 5 years.

 

[teabagyokel]

Firstly the truck was lifted in the impact. The video is in the Bianchi thread. The truck lifts a good few feet off the ground where the Marrusia passes under the rear end of the truck. So yes the truck is heavy but it was already lifted so the canopy would have additional effect. Its simple physics. It is this deflection from the lower nose ramping up that probably prevented Bianchi being decapitated. The canopy would have effectively extended this ramp over his head.

Which would be fantastic, but he wasn't injured by a blow to the head. He has suffered diffuse axonal injury, which is caused by rapid deceleration. The deceleration would not have been slowed by the canopy.

Secondly let me ask you a question. If it was you in that car and you were having the crash, would you rather have the canopy or not bother. I know which one I would choose.

We're not talking about this accident, we're talking about all Formula One cars in all crashes in all conditions. It is more difficult to extract someone from a car with a canopy. I believe the risk of asphyxiating someone because they're in an inverted car that is on fire could return to Formula One.

And, despite the use of a canopy and even roof, there are still serious injuries in other series.

What happens if the canopy caves in on the driver and becomes yet another thing to strike him on the head? I don't believe there is a substance in the word that is both transparent and can stand up to the sheer G-forces involved in Bianchi's crash. Plus, of course, visibility in the wet would be by orders of magnitude worse.

There's the conflict but in the interest of the drivers safety steps should be taken and peoples minds should go beyond the interest for the danger of the sport (which will remain anyhow) and the aesthetics.

Canopies are not ugly. Stepped noses are ugly, but were introduced for safety reasons. The organisers of Formula One have shown that they do not compromise safety for looks on a consistent basis.

 

[rufus_mcdufus]

Is there any other series with open wheel-style cars with canopies added? The lack of windscreen wipers would make wet weather driving impossible surely?

 

[Hamberg]

This is interesting reading. Especially Grosjean. Massa has lost all respect for me.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/29551563

 

[Rutherford]

Stepped noses are ugly, but were introduced for safety reasons. The organisers of Formula One have shown that they do not compromise safety for looks on a consistent basis.

I wasn't talking about the organisers but solely about the fans, after all the passage you partly quoted begins with "the fans", some may find it ugly and reject the idea on that ground.

It's an open wheel, open cockpit formula.

There is a closed cockpit and open- wheel racing series in the U.S. I don't see any reason why, if found necessary the current formula can't be reformulated, as it has been done with the engines and other safety measures in the past.

The measure of adding a canopy wouldn't be taken to eradicate all dangers as this will never happen as long as humans are seated within the vehicle but to decrease the risk of life-threatening and long-term injuries, particularly brain injuries.

Yes these accidents are rare but is it worth it, rejecting canopies and accept potential deaths or lifelong injuries because they are unusual? No. Rejecting this idea on the basis of history or the current formula alone, would make all safety measures of the past redundant.

Of course all outstanding questions must be cleared and it must increase the drivers safety.

 

[Chad Stewarthill]

Hamberg therein lies the real issue perhaps.
Perez admits that he doesn't slow down enough for double waved yellow flags, and at the same time demands that the FIA 'provide answers'. How about if they gave the answer, "slow down substantially and be prepared to stop, or you'll see a black flag next".

 

[Mezzer]

I'm a "no". There's nothing that can be done to always protect the driver. On motorbikes you get a helmet and a set a leathers... More realistic is a mechanism that controls the speed of the cars whilst not penalizing drivers who have built up leads etc. How about an FIA-controlled speed limiter that engages after a 5 second warning period (so that the driver does have time to prepare for the loss of performance)? Cars remain, more or less, with the same gaps and their ability to have an incident at lower speed is reduced for the duration of whatever the incident is. The switching off of the limiter would also have the same 5 second warning period so that the drivers could, again, prepare for the change in performance. Boom, no fundamental car redesign, just a software update. This solution to be known as MezCon (TM) from now on.

 

[teabagyokel]

Do you want to put "Con" into the brand name? Seems unwise.

 

[Greenlantern101]

 

[Mezzer]

Do you want to put "Con" into the brand name? Seems unwise.

I'm flexible on the name, less so on the royalties.

 

[Rutherford]

I'm a "no". There's nothing that can be done to always protect the driver. On motorbikes you get a helmet and a set a leathers...

You may want to think about your vote again then.

First of all, the canopies won't be implemented to protect the driver from every injury just as lower noses, HANS, higer head rests and other safety features weren't introduced to fulfill that aim, as it will never be achieved but to improve general safety of drivers.

Your comparison to Motorcycle sports is inconvenient, as those vehicles don't have the possibility of adding safety features unlike F1 and other open-wheel cars.

Apart from that, most of the people here, seem to miss the point of the canopy entirely. It isn't about accidents that occur under yellow flag conditions like Bianchis, and of course something has to be done there to ensure that the track marshals are safe, when removing a car.
The canopy is there to act as additional protection to the drivers heads in cases like Spa 2012, Hungary 2009 Australia 2007 (and many more). These didn't happen under yellow flag but racing conditions!

 

[Rutherford]

Simply No.

To many scary scenarios vs the benefits for something that happens maybe once every 5 years.

Let's say canopies were beneficial, would you still reject their introduction because the accidents a close but miss and that accidents like Jules's only happen every 5 years?
And if so, and a driver would die every five years, why not accept one or more deaths or long-term injuries a year?
Why not revert to cars in the 50's, why did we ever improve safety standards, what a waste of money. 7 billion humans live on this planet surely we can gather 20- 24 for every weekend to risk their lives for a world wide spectacle at least the audience had its fun. And hey, if one dies or sustains severe disabling injuries, who cares he was probably an idiot anyway and not adhering to the rules.

/sarcasm off.

 

[Mezzer]

You may want to think about your vote again then.

Thank you for your suggestion but I'll stick with my "no".

 

[Greenlantern101]

 

[Chad Stewarthill]

...most of the people here, seem to miss the point of the canopy entirely. It isn't about accidents that occur under yellow flag conditions like Bianchis...

Then why argue for canopies in this debate caused by an accident under yellow flags where a canopy wouldn't have helped and indeed may have made matters worse for Bianchi?

I agree totally with Mezzer on this one. It's the speed of the cars under such conditions, especially double waved yellows, that needs looking at and I like the idea of a temporary FIA speed limit, either as a driver warning or automatically imposed.
This sort of idea, whether it's called 'MezCon (TM), 'Virtual Safety Car' or 'Slow Zones', seems to be gaining ground and has been discussed quite a bit on the James Allen F1 website (and no doubt elsewhere too).

The speed limit could be applied very quickly by race control and could be adjustable for different conditions, both in the speed and duration. Waved double yellows during a wet race for instance could be an automatic 'Full-course' yellow, requiring everyone to slow to the designated speed, which could itself be lower than on a dry track and/or for less serious, 'stationary single yellow flag' incidents.

This wouldn't need to be done in isolation; if there were a good way of making recovery vehicles safer or eliminating them altogether by the use of trackside cranes, at least at the most dangerous locations, there's no reason why such measures shouldn't be undertaken as well as a speed-limit system. Canopies though, in my view, are not the answer.

 

[FB]

Just to revisit the complaints about the run off area at Parabolica, if there had been a bigger run off area at this corner (whether practical or not I don't know) Sutil wouldn't have smashed his car against the barrier and the crane wouldn't have been trackside. Sutil's slide was pretty low speed and another 20 metres of tarmac would probably have meant his car was intact.

 

[rufus_mcdufus]

I'm surprised windshields don't get a bigger mention. A strong-ish structure which can protect again debris strikes and provide some head protection against flying cars but open around the driver so escape is easier. Still a problem with visibility in wet weather as a disadvantage.

 

[ATL11]

Let's say canopies were beneficial, would you still reject their introduction because the accidents a close but miss and that accidents like Jules's only happen every 5 years?
And if so, and a driver would die every five years, why not accept one or more deaths or long-term injuries a year?
Why not revert to cars in the 50's, why did we ever improve safety standards, what a waste of money. 7 billion humans live on this planet surely we can gather 20- 24 for every weekend to risk their lives for a world wide spectacle at least the audience had its fun. And hey, if one dies or sustains severe disabling injuries, who cares he was probably an idiot anyway and not adhering to the rules.

/sarcasm off.

Ouch