Whiting and closed cockpits

I think if the racing is good, the cars look decent, nothing much will change. There needs to be lots of changes in F1. I think we all know that. I'm not opposed to anything that increases safety really... yes... I can hear all the "... well it's a dangerous sport and they know the risks... blah, blah, blah" crowd. Whatever.

I think we envision the current car with some stupid bubble over the driver. That won't work nor be accepted. However, if F1 develops an entirely new car concept like those McLaren concept images going around awhile back...then I think it's something that everyone will just adapt to. F1 has to change... and it has to evolve. There's always the fans who want to go back to yesteryear but that's not reality.

 

So, you are another one against safety improvements in racing.

You should have lived in the 50s: they had casualties almost every week then...

Whitting isn't old: he is wise, and if wisdom is only a virtue for mature people, the more the pity.

People who really have motor racing at heart don't wish to make headlines for the wrong reasons. And if F1, the FIA and motor racing in general are not able to put their house in order by making it safer, the insurance companies or the courts may force them to do it.

How could a less than 2 hours race ever been compared to Le Mans series?

 

+1

 

They benefited from the risk factor by signing multi million dollar contracts to take them and race. The lesser the risk the lesser the fat contracts.

Lets see how safe they want these cars when it affects their money. Spoilt wimps. Nothing more.

If they don't want those risks they should pack up their things and sign up to drive for Uber not F1.

 

Disagree with all this.

If F1 was risk free they'd still be getting the same amount of money. They don't get ''gladiator pay'', what a ridiculous assumption.

If this was true why are Rugby players paid (far) less than footballists on what is essentially almost the same game? Quite simply put, there's way more sponsorship in the latter, yet the possibility of harm is much.

F1 was ''death free' for 20 years, yet the top end of drivers where earning much more than before, when they ''dropped like flies'', to put it a tad vulgar.

 

That is a very naive view of F1 if you actually believe that. People don't enjoy death but many certainly enjoy crashes, bumps, scrapes and exploding tires.

 

Reading Whiting's comments it seems clear to me that he and F1 will not accept a solution that they did not invent and is unique to F1. This is so typical...NIH, Not Invented Here.

WEC has a perfectly good solution. Hydroplanes have used the F-16 canopy for years. Modern polycarbonate bubbles can be made essentially bullet proof, and there can be a means to remove the bubble to extract a driver. A driver today, risks being trapped in a car that is upside down. Whiting seems to imply that if a solution like a poly bubble is heavy then he'd rather live with the risk

 

The way you make it sound like that if there was no risk, somehow there would be many people ringing up Mercedes and say ''listen, you're paying hamilton 40 million...I can do the job for just 100K!''

These guys get paid for their talent. Not risk factor.

 

Again, I think that is a VERY naive view on F1's appeal.

They should sanitise F1 at their own peril.

 

Why don't they get rid of the driver in the car altogether? Let the drivers "drive" the car from the pits with modern high-tech drone guidance systems. Then no one gets hurt! The do-gooders destroy everything by making it "better." What's next---all motorcycles have to have three wheels so they don't tip over?

 

They should just ban the F1 circus entirely, and just race via simulators. Totally safe and no more on-track-on-computer correlation issues. Kills 3 ducks with 1 stone, since it will also save huge on the circus transport costs.

 

Yup.

Part of the huge pay checks are for the risks they take.

Nobody wants to see blood but if you make it totally safe part of the thrill is gone. Thats why tight rope walkers dont wear safety harnesses because people wouldnt watch in as big numbers

 

This makes me wonder if it isn't the same reason why Chess champions also have MM$$ incomes.

I don't think in todays F1 you are on the right track. Merc dumps millions of Lewis for two reasons. He is one of the small pools than is proven to be able to bring home the title. Secondly, they use him to refresh their brand.

The juniors receive a salary that doesn't even permit them being neighbours with a chess champion, they wouldn't be able to afford that. Yet they are exposed to the same risks as the drivers in the top teams. So, clearly no. Salaries are based on marketing value, on sponsorship deals (same?) and maybe daddy's pocket.

 

Easy solution proposed:
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Not arguing that. Just saying if you are paid these ungodly sums you should be willing to take some risks. The drivers up to the nineties didnt get that kind of $ AND died in their cars.

 

Are you too blind to understand that it's not only about the risks involved against the big pay checks(is racing better when people die?) but about the image of the sport in general?

F1 is a $ multi-billion sport with a worldwide audience. Its races are broadcasted live all over the world, and the last thing it needs is to show people needlessly dying, even more as a result of accident that are not their own.

If F1 (like Indy) cannot sort itself out and take care of the safety of its participants when they are victims of flying debris, what's the point of calling it the pinnacle of motor racing then? All that technology, and chassis test, and bla, bla, bla, to see a driver killed by a flying nosecone, or an errant wheeel, etc...

F1 has mastered the issue of fire (almost), of chassis rigidity, or the effect of whiplash, now it has to take care of protecting the head of its drivers. Is that too much to ask in what is supposed to be the spearhead of automotive engineering?

 

When was the last time that a F1 driver was killed by something hitting his head?

This is an extreme measure for something that might happen once in ten years. Or less.

 

I have to take exception to your comments. I think Racing today, is FAR, FAR more safe than ever, but i just dont think you can take all the danger out of it. Motor Racing is inherently dangerous by defintion. cars are made by people operated by people and there is a margin of error in all of that.

I think Justin Wilson's death is tragic, but i also think it was a fluke - much like Bianchi, and Senna etc... It is sad and horrible to see a person get killed. However as far as i can remember racers know the risk, and they accept it. it is regardless of what people say one of the attractions to the sport - the bravery of people competing in a dangerous activity.

I dont know if canopy's are the way to go or not, but i think trying to eliminate all danger at all time will kill whats left of the sport.

will someone get killed driving a racing car in the future... most assuredly. It is sad and sobering... Racing is not a video game, and people can make mistakes, and they can be in the wrong place at the wrong time... JW was just such a person.

I think in this case oval track racing is much more dangerous because of the high speeds, and perhaps that needs to be looked at. There is just no place to go, and when you hit a wall... at 160 + mph ... it's not going to be good no matter how much safety you have.

 

Another thought about closed cockpits, or "protected cockpits" as Charlie Whutting call them - in fact the later sounds better.

People should look at photos of F1 since 1950.

In 1950, drivers were seating upright in cars, and spectators could see their head, torso, arms, and their thighs.

In 1956, the drivers were still seating, but the cockpit operture shrank, leaving only the head, the arms and torso visible.

in 1961, when the rear engine arrived, drivers were in a semi-reclined position, with only their head, upper-torso and the arms visible to spectators.

As the cockpit shrank even more over the years, and the drivers adopted a reclined postion (with feet up now!), less and less of them became visible from spectators

In fact now the drivers are deeply buried inside the cars, and need to remove a pannel to get out. From the side of the track, you can hardly see movements inside the cockpit, and if anything is worth showing, an inboard camera can do that.

So, I cannot see what the spectators would miss if the cockpits were fully enclosed in future, or "protected" as Whitting said.

As for the drivers? Nothing to loose, and everything to gain from improved protection.
I sure would have liked to see Jules Bianchi on the grid this year, and Justin Wilson would probably still be with us.

 

Dont bring Bianchi into this. That deceleration was not survivable, canopy or not

 

We must note that closed cockpits wouldn't spoil the show, the races themselves would be the same. Actually, engine and tyre rules, or track modifications have done more to spoil the show than closed cockpits would do. It wouldn't be such a big game changer.

If closing the cockpits helped to keep alive old and dangerous tracks like Spa, I'd settle for that.

 

Let's put it that way.

I can watch a race and see plenty of mistakes, contacts, spins, off-road excursions, crashes, safety car periods, and then more mistakes, contacts, cartwheels, wheels flying, etc... and at the end of the race everybody is safe and sound, penalties dished out by stewards, etc... I am happy whith what I have watched.

Or, I can watch another race punctuated withe rthe same incidents, spins, crashes, contacts, etc... until a red flag is shown, marshall shroud a car with screens, whilst para-medics extract a driver. Later that evening, or the next morning, I learn that the driver didn't make it.

What race do you think I prefered to watch? Whilst the former will get hardly any mention in the media, the later will make headlines and the result will be broadcasted every hour during the news bulletin.

No, we cannot take all the risks out of any human activity, that's true. But what was acceptable in the past is not now. Motor racing isn't a blood sport.
F1 has already reduced some risks, proof that it is not incensitive to critic.
Another step forwards wouldn't hurt. (no pun intended)

 

Agreed to all.

I'm just not (yet anyway) convinced that a canopy, or a T-bar, or whatever will improve things.

Cheers,
Ian

 

I have no idea. in 1994 with Senna maybe?

Massa was hit by a suspension part since. That could have been fatal.

Many divers have been hit by debris since, or miraculously escaped severe head injury.

Statistics prove nothing, and we shouldn't hide behind them.

If only ONE life is saved by a safety improvement, it is worth doing.

F1 is only one among many open-cockpit categories; it should show good example by improving safety.

 

But I'm certainly willing to listen to what the FIA Safety Institute has to say......