Closed cocpit F1 car good idea or not?

[Nitrodaze]

Looking back at the number of head injuries that has resulted id fatalities or seriously threatened the career of drivers, one my think closed cockpit F1 cars is a looming inevitability. Most recently was the Massa incident where a spring pierced his helmet and into his head. Then there was the death of Bianchi whose head struck a tractor which retrieving another car at the rain socked suzuka track in 2014. We could go further back to Senna's fatal crash at Imola where a piece of the Williams suspension he was driving struck him in the head and result in his death.

In the open cockpit fomular, the driver's head has been most vulnerable as it is the least protected but exposed part of the driver. And is most delicate part of the driver's anatomy. The helmet worn for head protection is designed to absorb blunt impact but not impact with trajectiles or stationary pointed hard objects. Hence with the death of Bianchi, it if clear that the stakes are still too high for the drivers of F1 cars. Hence the question has been quietly asked if the open cockpit is still a viable proposition. Are the stakes acceptable? Would having a closed cockpit be undesirable and why?

This link ventures to show what a closed cockpit f1 car might look like
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/19/sports/autoracing/cockpit-safety-divides-formula-one-singapore-grand-prix.html?WT.mc_id=2015-OCTOBER-OTB-INTL_AUD_DEV-0928-1101&WT.mc_ev=click&ad-keywords=IntlAudDev&_r=0

Would closed cockpit change the f1 experience for fans? Personally, l don't think so. I can see how it would change the experience for the driver. The sound of the car would be considerably muffled by the cockpit hood, hence would reduce the information that the driver gets from the sound of the engine. Kind of like getting off riding a motorbike to driving a saloon car. But cockpit hood can be a great asset to aerodynamicists as they would have an opportunity to improve the air flow characteristics with the shape of the cockpit hood.

So who s likely to not want it, possibly diehard racers who enjoy the risk element of racing. Who may want it, Engineers because of the added benefits of having it and teams genuinely concerned for the safety of their drivers. Not to mention the FIA, in their fight to make the sport safer. What about the fans? What do you think? Is is going to happen or just another PR thing?

[Duncan]

The problem I see is this: we have seen two fatalities and one serious injury in 20 years that <I>might</I> have been prevented if there was a closed cockpit. We have to assume that the cockpit would be strong enough to withstand the impacts in those cases, which I would say is far from certain.

On the other hand, in that same 20 year period, how many drivers have escaped death or serious injury because they were able to exit the car quickly, and how might that have been compromised if there was a closed cockpit? The particularly scary situation is an upside down car following a crash, especially if the car is on fire.

Just to be clear, I don't know what the answer is here. I just wanted to say that it's not only a case of looking at what could have been prevented with a closed cockpit...

[zako85]

In my opinion, the call whether to use closed cockpits is the drivers' to make.

[Robinho]

I might be wrong, but from what I understand of Bianchi's crash, his head never contacted the tractor and the diffuse axional injury was the sort caused by a rapid deceleration of the head causing the brain to mush itself inside the skull. Like I said, I might be wrong, but it was the immediate stop, rather than a head strike. But that was something I read shortly after it happened, not seen an official accident report or details of marks on a helmet or something. If that is the case, however, unlikely a canopy would have made any difference

[The Black Knight]

The problem I see is this: we have seen two fatalities and one serious injury in 20 years that <I>might</I> have been prevented if there was a closed cockpit. We have to assume that the cockpit would be strong enough to withstand the impacts in those cases, which I would say is far from certain.

On the other hand, in that same 20 year period, how many drivers have escaped death or serious injury because they were able to exit the car quickly, and how might that have been compromised if there was a closed cockpit? The particularly scary situation is an upside down car following a crash, especially if the car is on fire.

Just to be clear, I don't know what the answer is here. I just wanted to say that it's not only a case of looking at what could have been prevented with a closed cockpit...

It's been established that a closed cockpit would have made no difference to Bianchi's crash as it was the sudden deceleration that contributed the most to his injury.

I'm personally not in favor of closed cockpits unless a solution can be found in which a driver's is not impeded from swiftly exiting the car in ALL situations. And that word ALL is extremely important because, with the safety standards so high nowadays, we're now at the point where only freak accidents are going to cost drivers lives. Therefore, if closed cockpits are introduced there must not be any situation where a drivers exit from the car is impeded, otherwise you're only removing the possibility of one type of accident and enhance the chance of another.

We all saw Sainz's crash in Russia FP3. I'd be very concerned actually that a closed cockpit could have actually injured a driver in this kind of situation, especially with some of the solutions which have been brought forward.

I remember Jenson Button came out and said he felt F1 should introduce closed cockpits after Justin Wilson's crash and I was quite surprised at Jenson's knee-jerk reaction as he is normally quite reserved. All closed cockpits solution unfortunately have drawbacks and, given the unlikelihood of losing a driver in modern day F1 vs the risk of closed cockpits, I'm not convinced that closed cockpits will provide any overall extra safety margin.

[Rollo]

The particularly scary situation is an upside down car following a crash, especially if the car is on fire.

I think that it's absolutely reasonable to think that a sport which spends millions of dollar pounds and has over years come up with such ideas as active suspension, improved turbo charging, the f-duct, traction control, ground effects, the monocoque, extensive use of carbon fibre and other exotic materials and regenerative braking, is too stupid to work out how to deal with technologies surrounding closed cockpits.

[Duncan]

I think that it's absolutely reasonable to think that a sport which spends millions of dollar pounds and has over years come up with such ideas as active suspension, improved turbo charging, the f-duct, traction control, ground effects, the monocoque, extensive use of carbon fibre and other exotic materials and regenerative braking, is too stupid to work out how to deal with technologies surrounding closed cockpits.

I don't think stupidity is at issue here. What is at issue is whether closed cockpits introduces an additional constraint into the design which necessarily results in impeding driver exit from the car in some cases. As noted further up-thread, we're now in the territory of dealing with freak events that occur once a decade or less.

[Rollo]

What is at issue is whether closed cockpits introduces an additional constraint into the design which necessarily results in impeding driver exit from the car in some cases.

And what I've said with my tongue firmly in my cheek is that tech heavy organisations who have found solutions to all sorts of things, should also be able to find a solution to this.

I can't honestly think of a single instance where a closed cockpit wouldn't have been safer.

Fires like Verstappen's at Hockenheim in 1994, or Diniz at Buenos Aires in 1996, Berger at Imola in 1989, or even Lauda at Nürburgring in 1976 would have all been safer for the drivers if they'd sealed in a survival cell.

And as for something like this:
http://adn.gpupdate.net/news/167154.jpg
It would have been far safer for Schumacher to have been in a stress rated cockpit than have his head sheared off by a Force India. Incidents like we saw with Massa being hit by debris or Senna being pierced probably wouldn't have happened either.

Besides which, if a quick escape is needed, pyrotechnic fasteners (explosive bolts) have been in use in aircraft cockpits since at least before the time of the English Electric Canberra bomber which flew in 1949.

[Nitrodaze]

I think that it's absolutely reasonable to think that a sport which spends millions of dollar pounds and has over years come up with such ideas as active suspension, improved turbo charging, the f-duct, traction control, ground effects, the monocoque, extensive use of carbon fibre and other exotic materials and regenerative braking, is too stupid to work out how to deal with technologies surrounding closed cockpits.

I have to echo this comment. The technology for closed cockpit is already in use in fighter jets. In terms of hardness of material to withstand high impact, that already exist in aircraft manufacture. The question of emergency escape has been addressed also in figter jets. And l am not suggesting that driver be launched into the air to avoid an impact. but the cockpit can be ejected by the driver pushing a button on the dashboard of the car and get out of the car in the normal current emergency exit procedures.
Cockpit do not introduce an impossible challenge, nor does it compromise driver safety at emergency situations. After all we talking about some of the smartest engineer on the planet. It is a simple question of does the drivers mind having it or not.

[denkimi]

a lot of lemans cars have a closed cockpit, so the solutions are already there.

[Duncan]

It would have been far safer for Schumacher to have been in a stress rated cockpit than have his head sheared off by a Force India. Incidents like we saw with Massa being hit by debris or Senna being pierced probably wouldn't have happened either.

...but he didn't get his head sheared off, because other structures around the cockpit deflected the other car, which is also a viable solution that so far has been very effective. We've seen people routinely walk away from some horrifying-looking rollovers because of this.


Besides which, if a quick escape is needed, pyrotechnic fasteners (explosive bolts) have been in use in aircraft cockpits since at least before the time of the English Electric Canberra bomber which flew in 1949.

How would that work if the car is upside down?

[Rollo]

How would that work if the car is upside down?

Push a button - explode the bolts - push the canopy to the side. Done.

More likely though, if the car is upside down, ignore it.
Let the marshalls sort the problem out before retrieving the driver. The main reason that a driver needs to escape an upside down is the possibility of fire; if the safety cell is sealed, that's no longer an issue. A driver does not need to get out in a hurry if they're protected in a sealed cell.

[Starter]

Push a button - explode the bolts - push the canopy to the side. Done.

More likely though, if the car is upside down, ignore it.
Let the marshalls sort the problem out before retrieving the driver. The main reason that a driver needs to escape an upside down is the possibility of fire; if the safety cell is sealed, that's no longer an issue. A driver does not need to get out in a hurry if they're protected in a sealed cell.
Ah, no need to worry about breathing then. Just hold your breath. I have to assume you've never been around a really hot gasoline fire. Sealed cell or not, it's going to get pretty toasty in there real fast.

[Starter]

There comes a point where the allure of auto racing begins to fade if there is no risk involved. How safe is safe enough? Or not safe enough. Or too safe?

If we are really worried about safety then take the drivers out of the cars and let them compete by remote control from the pit lane. The technology for that is readily available now and relatively cheaply too. Just expect empty stands and TV ratings below your average infomercial.

I'm not advocating a callous disregard for safety. Just putting things in perspective. Getting out of bed in the morning is a risk. Everything is a risk of some sort. I wonder about those calling for extreme safety measures as in no driver should lose their life. It sure doesn't match the record of road drivers in just about every country that has cars. I also haven't seen a drop off because of safety issues in those standing in line to get a ride in one of the F1 machines. Just sayin' you know?

[truefan72]

It's been established that a closed cockpit would have made no difference to Bianchi's crash as it was the sudden deceleration that contributed the most to his injury.

I'm personally not in favor of closed cockpits unless a solution can be found in which a driver's is not impeded from swiftly exiting the car in ALL situations. And that word ALL is extremely important because, with the safety standards so high nowadays, we're now at the point where only freak accidents are going to cost drivers lives. Therefore, if closed cockpits are introduced there must not be any situation where a drivers exit from the car is impeded, otherwise you're only removing the possibility of one type of accident and enhance the chance of another.

We all saw Sainz's crash in Russia FP3. I'd be very concerned actually that a closed cockpit could have actually injured a driver in this kind of situation, especially with some of the solutions which have been brought forward.

I remember Jenson Button came out and said he felt F1 should introduce closed cockpits after Justin Wilson's crash and I was quite surprised at Jenson's knee-jerk reaction as he is normally quite reserved. All closed cockpits solution unfortunately have drawbacks and, given the unlikelihood of losing a driver in modern day F1 vs the risk of closed cockpits, I'm not convinced that closed cockpits will provide any overall extra safety margin.

Perfectly said Black Knight!!!

[rjbetty]

Right then, my 2 cents. Heck I'll throw three in.

Not sure if closed canopies are the way to go.

However, I am past the point that something does have to change. Heads being so vulnerable and exposed are a tragedy waiting to happen. I was first really alerted to this after Australia 2007 when Alex Wurz rode over the top of David Coulthard's car. There was a sharp looking undertray sticking out under Wurz's Williams and I seemed the only to notice "flippin 'eck, that looks quite close to slicing 'is 'ead off".

Where I really settled it once and for all was Abu Dhabi in 2010. Dunc posted a pic of that. The big issues that day were Sebby winning his first world title and the fallout of Alonso and Petrov etc. But overall I remember more the Michael Schumacher collision in the beginning.

He spun round after possibly not even touching Rosberg, but then with cars sweeping past him, he just accelerated forward a very short amount. Fractions of a second later Liuzzi piled up onto his car with his car's nose to the right of Schumacher's head. Had Schumacher not accelerated forward that little bit, Liuzzi would literally have driven up into his face.

So while there were celebrations, I was chilled at just how close we were to a fatality that day.

There was also Alonso also being wiped out by Grosjean as well as Massa and the spring. With just a little less good fortune we could have had a handful of fatalities instead of just one or 2.

Some simple sort of structure would be a good safety improvement, if not perfect, without the problems of a full canopy.





Discaimer: I'm a bit biased because I know myself, being a tall guy, if I was driving those cars I would fear being in a rollover accident as I have much less space to crouch down and duck my head than most people. If I was a driver, I really think I'd actually prefer an inferno (in this day and age) to rolling upside down.

[Rollo]

This documentary film is quite interesting - I shall leave it here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-vMPb5rkZM

[Nitrodaze]

Well done Rollo, that video gave really clear insights into what is possible. I particularly like the revelation that closed cockpit is not new to F1. It has been done in some way in the past. Though those chassis were much different to what they are nowadays, hence new design approach shall be used. I think there shall be alot of different cockpit canopy designs if this is adopted.

I particularly like the the new level of access to the cock that could be available to the fans if cameras are fitted inside the cockpit to show what the driver is doing at particular points in time. It could be a great learning aid as well.

I think we have seen enough for the discussion to move on to the subjective aspect of deciding if this should be implemented. Or at least for a trial phase to kick in before the commencement of the 2016 season.

I personally think that another death in F1 or any motor racing due to head trauma will be a measure of the FIA's failing to keep up with its safety commitments to F1.

[Nitrodaze]

And the beat goes on; the head protection discussion has cast aside the closed cockpit idea for an open cockpit solution. The FIA has looked at a number of propositions but seem to be settling for the design put forward by Mercedes; see http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/122599

The Mercedes idea has one minor flaw in that it has a small blindspot in corners. It might not be significant when the car is navigating corners without other cars present, but may prove tricky when a gaggle of cars are jostling through the corners in a pack. Then there is the question of resilience to hard impact from hard objects or big projectiles like a flying tyre etc. Safe to say, agreement on the way forward is yet to be agreed.

The Mercedes design looks funky, certainly more aesthetically pleasing than the other designs put forward. the question remains whether it would hold up to tough testing. Whatever the case, l am glad to see something is being done.

[Big Ben]

The Mercedes design is absolutely hideous and I don't really know how effective it is in an accident like Massa's

[Stan Reid]

That looks more like a roll cage than a closed cockpit. A bubble top would look sort of cool but they might have to mandate some sort of air conditioning for the cars.

[Bagwan]

I saw a review of the set up from , I think , Ant Davidson , and he said he was surprised that he had ample peripheral vision , but had real trouble with the front pillar on the straights .

There is a point at which impairing the vision of the driver whilst trying to keep him safe becomes a self defeating proposition .

Thinking about this brought an idea to mind .
We know that the head protection for the side impact has been raised in recent years to the detriment of peripheral vision .
Is there a reason that they couldn't project an image taken from outside the cockpit , on the inside of the cockpit surround , giving the impression to the driver that the surround is much lower ?
If possible , the idea could allow even higher sides , while providing much more head protection without giving up an open cockpit .

Could it work ?

[airshifter]

I saw a review of the set up from , I think , Ant Davidson , and he said he was surprised that he had ample peripheral vision , but had real trouble with the front pillar on the straights .

There is a point at which impairing the vision of the driver whilst trying to keep him safe becomes a self defeating proposition .

Thinking about this brought an idea to mind .
We know that the head protection for the side impact has been raised in recent years to the detriment of peripheral vision .
Is there a reason that they couldn't project an image taken from outside the cockpit , on the inside of the cockpit surround , giving the impression to the driver that the surround is much lower ?
If possible , the idea could allow even higher sides , while providing much more head protection without giving up an open cockpit .

Could it work ?

I'm sure they could make it work, but really even in F1 why?

I think they could easily make a roll cage, hoop, or methods other than full enclosures that would satisfy even greater safety than they have currently, and make driver visibility as good or better than it is now. I'm really not opposed to being able to see the drivers less, if whatever they come up with improves safety and satisfies a long term goal.

[Bagwan]

I'm sure they could make it work, but really even in F1 why?

I think they could easily make a roll cage, hoop, or methods other than full enclosures that would satisfy even greater safety than they have currently, and make driver visibility as good or better than it is now. I'm really not opposed to being able to see the drivers less, if whatever they come up with improves safety and satisfies a long term goal.

I'm not talking about seeing the driver , but , rather , the driver's vision .

Although , I do like to see the driver working in the car , so I'd prefer no halo or hoop from a strictly aesthetic point of view .
It's also a part of the danger that makes the sport alluring , to strap one of these rockets on with the visor in the wind .

And so , comes the idea that the sides could be higher , but treated like a screen to give the pilot rails both sides for wider debris to ride over , and better side impact protection at the same time .
I would guess the only issue to be the loss of the screen during racing , which could be catastrophic .
But , given all the tech seems to have become almost impossibly reliable , I'm sure also that redundancies could reduce the issue to almost an impossibility , itself .

[airshifter]

Bagwan,

I did get your point about the drivers vision. Even though F1 could deal with the complexity of it, I just think it would be easier to form protection the driver could see through. Similar to the designs that might use a roll cage vs a canopy, I think it would be fairly easy for F1 to engineer an easier solution than the screens.

I also thought about if the screen died during a race, and if it would force a driver to stop, or worse possibly force a dangerous situation. There would have to be some type of external monitor and that could get covered with debris, and the electronics could go as well. I'm sure they could do better than now, but at the same time the drivers seem to be able to use those tiny mirrors fairly well. It's almost hard to believe they get to the point of overlapping wheels at times, so they must have better vision than we suspect.

[Bagwan]

Yeah , the deal breaker , of course , would be the potential to break down .

It is a cool concept though , that makes me wonder if they've thought of it in that world .
As they've got lots of simulator gizmos around , it wouldn't surprise me if they had , but I don't think I've ever seen anything like the idea .
If it was added to the cars right now , as they are , it would seem to be something that might help .

Allowing more unobstructed vision , or more properly stated , perhaps , as "reconstructed" vision should result in a much more confident and committed driver , and , thus , results , don't you think ?

[Nitrodaze]

That looks more like a roll cage than a closed cockpit. A bubble top would look sort of cool but they might have to mandate some sort of air conditioning for the cars.

Yep, a bubble top would be cooler, but it seems there is resistance to closed cockpit. An open cockpit solution is being sought. so far, finding a solution that does not impair driver peripheral vision, is aesthetically pleasing, tough enough to withstand heavy forces and a deflector of small projectiles, is proving difficult to find at this time. The mercedes halo is the best option at this time it seems. Maybe someone would find that the closed cockpit idea was the best after all, we will see.

[airshifter]

Yeah , the deal breaker , of course , would be the potential to break down .

It is a cool concept though , that makes me wonder if they've thought of it in that world .
As they've got lots of simulator gizmos around , it wouldn't surprise me if they had , but I don't think I've ever seen anything like the idea .
If it was added to the cars right now , as they are , it would seem to be something that might help .

Allowing more unobstructed vision , or more properly stated , perhaps , as "reconstructed" vision should result in a much more confident and committed driver , and , thus , results , don't you think ?

I do think they could use technology to improve driver views, but it's hard to say which views might benefit them more. Certainly better peripheral vision might be one of them that could help. It would be interesting to see the actual POV the drivers get from the current mirrors. Though compared to street cars we think of them as small and somewhat useless, you can often see drivers watching the mirror. For me personally when I lived in Okinawa and had a car with forward mounted mirrors, I thought they gave an excellent view of the road and were more useful than most door mounted mirrors.

The guys driving these things seem to be able to absorb a ton of data, so I would think any screen that actually just works as a view or mirror wouldn't bother them at all, and might even make it easier to keep their vision focused within certain areas.

[Nitrodaze]

I do think they could use technology to improve driver views, but it's hard to say which views might benefit them more. Certainly better peripheral vision might be one of them that could help. It would be interesting to see the actual POV the drivers get from the current mirrors. Though compared to street cars we think of them as small and somewhat useless, you can often see drivers watching the mirror. For me personally when I lived in Okinawa and had a car with forward mounted mirrors, I thought they gave an excellent view of the road and were more useful than most door mounted mirrors.

The guys driving these things seem to be able to absorb a ton of data, so I would think any screen that actually just works as a view or mirror wouldn't bother them at all, and might even make it easier to keep their vision focused within certain areas.

I personally think they should get rid of those tiny mirrors and stick some rear facing cameras on the car. And display the info from the cameras in a screen in the cockpit. it may also be a projected image to panels on either side of the steering wheels. The driver would benefit from a better rear view than from those tiny mirrors.

[anfield5]

The main issue with any hoop, halo, cage or bubble is the drivers ability to get out of the car if it ends up with the wheels at the top, I would guess the halo has been tested upside down, but it still looks like it would hinder the driver

[Nitrodaze]

I think my real concern is that the halo could afflict fatal damage to the driver if it fails during an accident resulting in a roll over or violent flip.

[Jag_Warrior]

I personally think they should get rid of those tiny mirrors and stick some rear facing cameras on the car. And display the info from the cameras in a screen in the cockpit. it may also be a projected image to panels on either side of the steering wheels. The driver would benefit from a better rear view than from those tiny mirrors.

Maybe a little off topic, but I agree. I also think this would be one of the more important (and effective) safety additions. As technologically advanced as F1 cars are now, I can't understand why the cars still use mirrors that aren't any better than what's on a cheap road car. If the drivers could better see what's around them, I think this would greatly add to accident prevention.

[Nitrodaze]

This is what the Mercedes Halo driver protection system looks like

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/02/25/07/315792AA00000578-3462731-Mercedes_trialled_the_Halo_last_season_with_Sky_Sp orts_providing-a-1_1456384615096.jpg

[steveaki13]

Wow that's a weird design.

Not sure what to make of that

[Big Ben]

I think Mercedes just want another wing-thing. I don't know if that thing is much help against debris and a tire coming at the right angle might still cause injuries if that picture is realistic. i think it also makes getting out of an upside down car pretty impossible. I have my doubts about its effectiveness. One thing sure though, it's butt ugly and that's one thing they are consistent about. I didn't like when they made those rear wings so small and the front one so wide that they looked like snowplows. Then the big penises came, the porno version. After that those little ones, the flashing pervert kind. And finally now they are going to put this crap on top of them.

[Nitrodaze]

I think Mercedes just want another wing-thing. I don't know if that thing is much help against debris and a tire coming at the right angle might still cause injuries if that picture is realistic. i think it also makes getting out of an upside down car pretty impossible. I have my doubts about its effectiveness. One thing sure though, it's butt ugly and that's one thing they are consistent about. I didn't like when they made those rear wings so small and the front one so wide that they looked like snowplows. Then the big penises came, the porno version. After that those little ones, the flashing pervert kind. And finally now they are going to put this crap on top of them.

This post really cracked me up :-)

[denkimi]

The main issue with any hoop, halo, cage or bubble is the drivers ability to get out of the car if it ends up with the wheels at the top, I would guess the halo has been tested upside down, but it still looks like it would hinder the driver


I think my real concern is that the halo could afflict fatal damage to the driver if it fails during an accident resulting in a roll over or violent flip.

they have been using closed cars in so many other racing series, so it is already proven that none of these issues are real problems.

[Nitrodaze]

FERRARI's HALO

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/onesport/cps/800/cpsprodpb/1440B/production/_88555928_gettyimages-513462146.jpg

driver view through the halo:-

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/onesport/cps/624/cpsprodpb/B1F3/production/_88555554_jg.jpg

Visibility on the horizontal plane does not seem too bad. This is the most used plane of observation during serious racing anyway. The Vertical view seem to be nonexistent. I wonder how the information boards they hang out on the pit straight is going to work. At speed the chances of missing it is alot higher with the halo installed. Maybe information would now be wirelessly transmitted to the car and displayed in an led screen on the dash or steering wheel.

Compared to the Mercedes Halo, the front part of the Ferrari halo dips downwards.This reduces the forward visibility compared to the Mercedes halo. This has the advantage of being a better deflector of projectiles heading towards the driver. Also the forward strut of the halo on the mercedes has a smaller diameter compared to that of the Ferrari which is considerably thicker, hence reduces forward visibility more. That said, the Ferrari strut looks tougher but does not mean it is stronger.

[CNR]

I do not think this would be that safe a bit flying off a car could still cause the same thing that happened to massa in 2009

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/123121
Force India driver Hulkenberg voiced strong objections to the prototype halo device trialled by Ferrari on Thursday and Friday in pre-season F1 testing.

Hulkenberg claimed it "looks horrible", and called on the FIA not to implement it, believing it "sends out the wrong message".

[Stan Reid]

they have been using closed cars in so many other racing series, so it is already proven that none of these issues are real problems.

Yes, at least one closed cockpit car has even run in the Indy 500.

[Nitrodaze]

I really wonder if the Halo is the right way to go. It offers a partial solution at best and does slightly restrict visibility. It would do little to prevent small projectiles such as the one that hit Massa from Barrichello's Brawn a while back. Maybe Redbull's windshield idea would be better. We get to see it next month. the Halo just doesn't look a good addition to a formula 1 car which is the ultimate streamlined structure on four wheels. Its a step in the right direction, something must be done to address head safety and it has to start from somewhere l suppose.

[Nitrodaze]

Checkout a video of the test of the Ferrari halo

http://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/f1/teams/ferrari/10189886/ferrari-test-new-halo
You also get to hear the sound of the Ferrari engine from an up close position. It sounds fantastic. The idling sound is a bit weird though, kind of like a cross between a litre bike at slightly open throttle and a running cement mixing machine. Your impression may be much different to mine when you listen to it.

[AndyL]

I don't know how you can call an F1 car the ultimate streamlined structure when they have exposed wheels, exposed driver's head and a barn door bolted on the back, all contributing to a drag coefficient 3x higher than an average road car and more than twice that of an LMP1.

I think all F1 cars have been ugly since 1968 so I have a hard time accepting arguments based on the halo looking bad. Is it really any more unpleasant to look at than wings, or barge-boards, or funny noses?

[CNR]

redbull if any
http://blackflag.jalopnik.com/red-bull-wants-to-protect-f1-drivers-heads-with-a-big-1765072021
Red Bull Wants To Protect F1 Drivers' Heads With A Big, Curved Windshield

[schmenke]

redbull if any
http://blackflag.jalopnik.com/red-bull-wants-to-protect-f1-drivers-heads-with-a-big-1765072021
Red Bull Wants To Protect F1 Drivers' Heads With A Big, Curved Windshield

"Flip-flop" :laugh:

Seriously, that proposal, not withstanding the requirement for wipers, looks like the most sensible by far :mark: .

[The Black Knight]

"Flip-flop" :laugh:

Seriously, that proposal, not withstanding the requirement for wipers, looks like the most sensible by far :mark: .

Yeah I'd agree with that. I don't think the Halo design is good or very effective. The RBR one seems really well thought out and wouldn't look too bad either.

[Bagwan]

Say goodbye to racing in the rain with the Red Bull version .

I don't like any restriction of vision for the drivers , so none of them are acceptable as far as I am concerned .
Restriction of sight will only cause more incidents , which means more debris to hit .

"Catch 22" . No win .

[Nitrodaze]

http://e2.365dm.com/16/04/16-9/20/bull-red-canopy_3452387.jpg?20160420155934

This is what the proposed Canopy screen from Redbull looks like. I have to say it looks better, safer and less visually inhibiting that the Halo. But like the halo it has its issues. The first one that crosses most people's mind is the build up of dirt on the screen from oil, tyre bits, insects and rain smears. How would they sort that out, would they be installing a windscreen wiper or is it going to be a tear off like on the helmet. If a tear off, how would the driver manage that at speed?
Then there is the question of whether the screen can sustain the weight of the car if it were upside down. Then there is the question of how it disintegrates upon hard impact with amco barriers. If it shatters into elongated pieces, they could transform from a protector into a harmful projectile during high impact accidents.

If they could solve these sorts of problems, l think the Canopy resolves those problems relating to small projectiles which the Halo is unable to protect the driver from. The sort that almost ended Massa's career. That said, the Canopy share a common problem with the halo regarding how less they affect the quick exit of the driver from the cockpit after an accident. Or in the case of Alonso's accident in Australia, if it would impede the exit of the driver in an accident where the car is upside down or leaning on the amco barrier in Alonso's case.

It is clear that there are no easy answers to the head protection dilemma. If l had to choose, l am lean towards the Redbull Canopy, partly because that type of solution has been used in F1 before. Lots of F1 cars in the 70s and 80s had some form of canopy.

[Stan Reid]

Jack Brabham's "closed" cockpit back in 67.

943

[AndyL]

Jack Brabham's "closed" cockpit back in 67.

943

That is interesting. I'd love to know more about it. Presumably it was designed more for aero than protection at the time. I wonder if it was successful, and what happened to it. I guess if it worked, it was probably banned; I wonder what reason would have been given for banning it, if that was the case.

[BleAivano]

The first one that crosses most people's mind is the build up of dirt on the screen from oil, tyre bits, insects and rain smears. How would they sort that out, would they be installing
a windscreen wiper or is it going to be a tear off like on the helmet. If a tear off, how would the driver manage that at speed?
Then there is the question of whether the screen can sustain the weight of the car if it were upside down. Then there is the question of how it disintegrates
upon hard impact with amco barriers. If it shatters into elongated pieces, they could transform from a protector into a harmful projectile during high impact accidents.

WEC have windscreens on the LMP1 cars and they have dirt/oil remains as well on the windscreen which they have solved it by simplywiping the windscreen every time the car
is making a pit stop. Not really a big problem. Rain might be an issue since the windscreens are quite small/round which might be tricky for windscreen wipers but I am sure
that the engineers will be able to solve that. I do think there is some kind of lubricant/spray that you can apply to the windscreen which prevents waterdrops from "sticking"
to the windscreen. I do not know if it would work in racing though,

Durability of he glass is not different to WEC, modern acrylic glass (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poly%28methyl_methacrylate%29) is incredibly strong and is not really a concern.
If it is strong enough for WEC (which also have bigger windscreens then F1) then it should be strong enough for F1 as well.

[Stan Reid]

That is interesting. I'd love to know more about it. Presumably it was designed more for aero than protection at the time. I wonder if it was successful, and what happened to it. I guess if it worked, it was probably banned; I wonder what reason would have been given for banning it, if that was the case.

I'm not sure why it was scrapped Andy.

Here's a closed cockpit car that ran in the 1919 Indianapolis 500 driven by Roscoe Sarles. The car won 20 races in its career. It was mostly driven by racing legend Barney Oldfield.

944 Click to enlarge

[Stan Reid]

Here's Junior Johnson's enclosed cockpit car for the 1963 Indianapolis 500. He practiced in the Kurtis Offenhauser but did not qualify.

945

[Tazio]

Closed cockpits?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fz1K9UCpLRo :dozey:

[Stan Reid]

Do we want closed cockpits?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OtKNEc6Uoo

[Tazio]

:stareup: I'll go along with that! ;)

[AndyL]

I'm not sure why it was scrapped Andy.


According to the Wikipedia article on the BT19 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brabham_BT19), Brabham's designer Ron Tauranac had been doing wind tunnel research since 1963. I guess that cockpit was fruit of that research.
It seems he had a record of rejecting aerodynamic improvements that weren't effective enough to justify their weight or complexity, so maybe that was the fate of the Brabham closed cockpit.

[JakefromWRC]

I think closed cockpit is a good idea. It believe it adds down force and possibly more protection.

[Stan Reid]

Here's a closed cockpit Indy car built for the 1955 500.

963 Click to enlarge

[Stan Reid]

Another closed cockpit car also for the 1955 Indianapolis 500.

964

[Stan Reid]

Here's Bernd Rosemeyer driving a closed cockpit Auto Union in the 1935 race at AVUS.

1255Click to enlarge

[Owain]

It's an impossible compromise, isn't it?

At one time it was important for the driver to get out if the car burst into flames. Those days are thankfully gone, so some form of windshield is now more viable (and even desirable, considering what happened to Massa). But if it means an end to racing in the rain, no thanks!