FIA tests fighter-jet canopy for Formula 1

So "super rare" that of the top of my head i can quickly think of 5 different drivers who have had serious injury or killed by helmet strikes (Senna, Henry Surtees, Tom Pryce, Massa and Helmut Marko).
And in recent years we have seen many close calls (Fisichella flipping over on top of the fencing at Monaco, Wurz almost getting decapitated by Coulthard's flying Redbull in Melbourne)

Why is an open cockpit such a key principle for you? F1 moves with the technology's of the time, always has, and hopefully always will.
People once thought that front engined cars, slick tires, or normally aspirated engines were all key principles, but the only real key principles that really matters is that F1 is the fastest, most advance racing formula in the world.

Also, we can barely see the drivers as it is now anyway, it might even be the that clear canopy's might allow the designers to show more of the drivers.

 

You just answered that one yourself:

Since Senna's accident the trend has been to protect the driver more and more and therefore make him invisible to the fans. A bad trend, but we can still see them from the front. Now the FIA wants to make that even worse with a canopy? Imagine the glare on these things and you won't be able to see the helmets anymore.

And what if an accident happens (e.g. the car flips over) and the canopy breaks and the driver still gets injured? Then they will replace the Lexan cover with a real CF roof and a rollover cage and we have arrived at Group C.

Here is how I define F1:
- fastest cars around a road course
- true monoposto (none of that fake 2nd seat as in Le Mans racing)
- open wheels
- open cockpit
- standing start
- racing rain or shine

We're already loosing the last two as evidenced by the pathetic use of the safety car and subsequently the red flag in Montreal. Let's not take this safety focus any further please or watching F1 becomes a bit like watching slot car racing.

I'm not blood thirsty, but I want racing to retain an element of risk. I am all for safety equipment and things like CF structures, crash tests, fire extinguishers, HANS etc etc. But don't mess with the 6 elements listed above or it is no longer F1 but some watered down series for wussies.

 

My bad.

Pete

 

Good post, but we are not in the Jackie Stewart days where safety was not even thought about.

This is a difficult one to discuss, but I do believe we have now reached the pragmatic right level of safety. To go any further with radical changes does imply we are going down the path to banning sports due to the risk being considered too high for governing bodies and that my friend is not the right path.

Already the EU is working on banning motorcycles. Somewhere along the lines you have to accept that if you fully inform a person of the risks and they want to enrichen their lives by taking that risk then it is not right that you ban that risk taking from them.

When I first had children I went through the over protective stage and was concentrating so hard you would not believe when I drove them anywhere, etc. My boss at that stage had kids too and he was telling me a story about his son climbing a tree in the back yard and he fell out of it and gave himself a fright, and went running and crying to his dad. I was like "How could you let him do this and not be there, etc.", and he was like mate you have to let your children live mate otherwise you suffocate them and deny them the proper chance to learn first hand.

My wife and I discussed this a lot and not that long afterwards I realised a small ambition and learnt to ride a motor cycle. I've now ridden to work and back for ~80,000km's since then. For a long time it was every single day, rain, hail, whatever, but recently my m/c developed an oil leak and I could not get the required part in time so took the bus. I've now learnt that the bus is faster and simply a better method of getting to work and back, so I'll probably sell the m/c as I do not have enough spare time just for joy rides.

I've enjoyed the experience and my children have a more content father. To actually live your life you have to take a few risks, otherwise you are just getting older.
Pete

 

This argument works both ways. What if the FIA do nothing, then one of the drivers is stuck on the helmet and killed, say at Monaco, and due to not being in control of his car, which then gets airborne, then results in a major spectator disaster? A tragedy like that could finish the sport, especially when the unavoidable investigation which would follow reveals that the FIA had workable solutions to prevent something like this happening.

I think that almost without question, that not doing something that may prevent serious injury or death for no greater reason than that it was always done that way is embarrassingly stupid. For me an open-cockpit is just historical, it neither adds or takes away from the skill or the show.

One thing for me is that for sure we do not want risk for its own sake. And i find the 'it ought to be dangerous' argument to be a moral disgrace to be honest.

 

Chicko,

Of course there has to be an element of danger otherwise nobody is proving anything.

We could easily lap faster if we connected the cars to a rail system and then the drivers just sat there, but that is not motorsport. Motor sport is all about defying the odds and seeing if a man made contraption controlled by a man/woman can be made to lap faster than anybody else. This by it's nature means we have to take risks.

Remove all risk and you do not have that challenge, you just have something faster.


Lets remember that 95% of the population find especially F1 boring. Most people like me only watch because they have raced in some form at some stage in their lives and thus sit in front of the TV appreciating the speed and going oooooh arh, holy **** at little tiny things thay nobody else notices.

Thus take the ooooh arh and holy **** moments away and you have nothing, and that is what you will have when motorsport has absolutely no risk at all.


Again we are not in the Jackie Stewart days. People very rarely die in any form of motorsport. It is now FAR safer than driving a road car and being a pedestrian ... mission acomplished. Well done FIA.
Pete

 

Exactly! I do not understand the reaction to what may be another step to save a driver's life just so the fan can see better. If they can make canopy cockpits work in boat racing, why not in car racing? Drivers do not drown in their closed cockpit F1 boats when there is an incident, so the comment about fire, etc, is not relevant.

Whatever it takes to make racing safer is fine by me. I just wish they, whomever they are, would work at making sex safe again.

 

I absolutely can not agree with this. It is the competition that proves everything, not the element of potential harm.

 

F1 in its current form (200+mph cars, racing wheel to wheel on unique twisting tracks, surrounded by spectators) will always have an element danger, as Its virtually impossible to prepare for the out-come of every possible synario or accident. I don't like this, but have always accepted it.

But my point about this driver protection/canopy argument is that we all know about a weak point, and we all have seen on numerous occasions what can happen when this weak point is exposed. I simply believe that its the FIA's duty to do something about it, before more people are hurt or killed.

 

+1

 

Agree 100%. Especially with the sex part

 

You are forgetting the personal challenge. A racing driver is not just racing other competitors he is also proving something to himself/herself.

I also would hate to have a fire in a car with a canopy ...
Pete

 

C´mon, man, how many people die in fires in sports cars, GTs and touring cars?

I´d bet that someone said the same thing about fires when they introduced seat belts.

 

Good point, I retract my comment. Consider it a brain fade moment .

Pete

 

Pete, there would likely be a button (not a Jensen) in the cockpit that would release the canopy. I would also believe there would be an external button and an external manual release in the event the driver was incapacitated and a safety worker needed to remove the canopy.

Like I said before, if the the canopy concept works in F1 boat racing, it would most definetely work in auto racing. Think about a boat flipping over and landing on the water on its top. The driver has a way out, so any of the examples given here concerning a canopy on an F1 car are just not realistic. Driver safety is the number one priority.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

There is a few existing systems that could be utilised in making the canopy system work without trapping the drivers.
They could develop an explosive bolt/hinge system like used on the gullwing doors of the Mercedes-Benz SLS AMG road and racecars, so that when a car is upside down, the canopy can be completely released from the car in seconds.

http://www.streetfire.net/video/crash-test-mercedesbenz-sls-amg_720289.htm

Skip to around 2:10.

 

Varsha commented on the FIA safety tests of the canopy during the Hungarian GP practice and finished his comments with the statement, that up and down the F1 pitlane people didn't think these canopies would be a good idea for F1.

I'm very relieved to see that this nonsense has been stopped for the time being. But it wouldn't surprise me if the discussions flare up again once there is another head injury. Until then we can continue to enjoy open cockpits with relatively unobstructed view of the drivers.

 

I only have one issue with the concept of a canopy on an F1 car. In the event that the car rolls and stops upside down, in a relatively remote location of track, (a) how is the driver going to be able to get out and (b) if the driver is unconcious and there is a fire... That being said, I suppose if the driver were unconcious and there were a fire and no one to get to the driver I guess the driver would be in a SNAFU anyway, regardless if there were a canopy. Other than those predicaments, I don't really mind the thought of a glass canopy. For one, safety would be improved for the most part, I suppose. Two, the car would become more aerodynamicly clean. Since the canopy would obviously be built quite strong, and would probably have a strong metal frame, the side sills could be lowered allowing for improved visibility, both into and out of the car. Performance wise, the only disadvantage I can come up with would be an increase in weight. The question that arises now is, how much weight? Polycarbonate and carbon fiber don't weigh that much, however the latches and other secondary egress mechanisms would probably double the weight of the canopy, maybe more... Formula 1 racing is the front runner in racing and auto technology and innovation. That is part of what makes this series so exciting. In the event that the FIA goes through with this, which at some point it probably will (the question being how far into the future will it be?), I will be excited to see how the engineers will make this work, and what will the effects be on performance.

 

And what's wrong with British nepotism? Ours is amongst the best in the world!

All the best,
Andrew.

 

I don't buy the "British nepotism" argument. Yes, a lot of key players are from the UK but I can see easily other forms of nepotism towards Italy or France or any combination of it.

I doubt that being the sole ECU supplier is a big deal.

 

I agree with you as far as Charlie Whiting is concerned. However his boss is Todt, a French man more closer allied to the French/Italian side of things.

In case you missed it: I'm probably the biggest opponent to the canopy idea you could find. I thought I made that clear with all my posts in this thread...

 

I've just skimmed over this thread very lightly, so forgive me if I am bringing up something that has already been mentioned. At one of FIA's canopy tests, they fired a tire at the canopy. It hit the canopy, bounced off and kept on going.

And going.

And going.

And going.

And going.