In and of itself, the desire to mitigate risk of injury from collisions is hardly an extremist position. If you accept as worthwhile the idea of helmets, let alone energy-absorbing crash structures, then you're already bought into the general concept of protecting drivers from impact. I agree that ending open cockpits would make for a big break with tradition. On the other hand, what in 2015 we call an "open cockpit" bares little resemblance to the original sense of the term. The chassis almost completely surrounds the driver, and the wraparound windscreen is simply worn rather than attached to the car. It's a bit of a ruse.
Something that doesn't add anything to racing is unnecessary. Open wheels are in fact unnecessary; they are kept by tradition, to differenciate formula cars from sports cars, but as such, they don't add anything to the racing. From a technical point of view, they add drag to the car, and aerodynamicists consider a nuisance to have to maintain them just to satisfy rules. From a safety point of view "sticky out wheels" as you call them increase the risk of cars being launched high up in the air in case of contact. The idea that 2 tyres with high grip could make contact against each other at speed is truly a nightmare to contemplate.
Not true. It's a big deal to be able to see your wheels and tires as a driver - particularly for braking. Also, from a spectator perspective, it's big. In addition, it directly impacts how all the drivers attack each other. They know if they touch wheels, all bets are off. This is not the case with fenders. It's a challenge, but that is part of the formula. It's a challenge for the drivers and it impacts the way they drive. ...and yet all these tens of thousands of drivers opt-in from karting on up. So are you also in favor of closed karts for children? What do you think should be done for competitive motorcycle racing since their whole body is exposed? 2 guys just died at Laguna Seca 2-3 weeks ago. See the slippery slope?
Don't forget karts. Not only do they not have cockpits, they don't have fenders or seatbelts or roll bars - as you know.
Thousands of drivers opted-in in the bad old days, too. Determining what constitutes "safe enough" based solely on the behavior of people who have already chosen to participate (particularly the minors who compete in karting) is participation bias at its worst. Motor racing regulations are dominated by safety rules and have been for decades. All of us are well down the slippery slope. I think it's disingenuous to pretend that some philosophical bright line separates the canopy proposal vs. the longstanding requirement of a helmet and rollover structure. It all constitutes meddling with what drivers were once willing to do. We're just arguing about the details.
As I told you before, I give my point of view as an outsider. For me, watching close racing between single seaters or sports cars is the same. Spectators see less and less of the driver in an open cockpit car; he is buried in the car; just the helmet is visible now. But I do appreaciate that the risks of injury in open wheels and open cockpits are higher. Now, you may minimise them or put them aside because it suits you, and that's OK. But I don't understand people who burry their head in the sand and see no problem there. Beyond a certain speed, the feelings and sensations of driving an open cockpit and open wheels car must take second place to safety, because of higher speeds and higher risks as you go up the ladder and get into the 500hp+, and the 900hp+, etc... higher speed, etc... I don't know if racing open wheels makes the drivers think twice before making contact. In F1, Indy or GP2 maybe, but I can tell you that many kids in F4, F Ford or even F3 behave like hooligans and are not shy of making contact. As for comparing cars to motorbikes, the risks are not the same. Riders don't have accidents the same way drivers do, or for the same reasons, and are not prisoners of their vehicles either until the last moment. So, the problems are completely different, but the risks still there.
If you really want to see the driver - ban helmets, ban fire proof gear, and re-enforce a rule that you have to see a Driver's shoulders. Now a few pieces of debris through the eye socket at 200MPH could kill them, but hey, for some of you, that just makes it more thrilling. Once you add mirror tinted visors and closed helmets, you really don't see much of what a driver is thinking at all. Closed vs Open makes little different.
Ah so you are here to save us because we don't know better? We aren't adults? The adults who put their kids in karts aren't responsible? They need someone else to adjust the level of risk they are willing to accept? ...and a line has been walked the entire time to preserve certain formulas and forms of motorsport despite the great risk some of them carry. Are you for banning rally racing? That involves extreme risk and see fatalities just about every year in various classes. I love labels; they are the foundation of great debate as you know. I think it reflects great ignorance to compare helmets and rollover structures to a canopy.
I can appreciate that. But for me, and many others apparently, watching them is not the same at all. Driving them is much different also. You label it a problem, I label it a risk. Rally drivers fly by trees that will kill them a hundred times a stage sideways. Sometimes they hit the trees and die. Do we mandate guardrails on rallys effectively killing it? Do we only allow rally in stadiums, effectively killing it? Or do we accept that the drivers and spectators are adults who know what might happen there that day and live with the risk of driving and the risk of seeing someone killed? But why, and is that really so? There are career ending injuries and deaths in karts, with kids involved. There are deaths in FF as well. It doesn't take much speed to be unlucky enough to die. Shifter karts scare me way more than formula cars personally. Right, but you see those kids either reel that in or wash out. The kids that progress have to show effective aggression and the ability to compromise for points, etc. Bottom line, in something like a touring car, you can make contact and race on. In a open wheel single seater, it can easily mean the end of your race, or worse. The contact you see is not intentional, it is in an attempt to make a move, hold their place, etc. The contact is the failure of that decision. Sure, but that is exactly my point. Who determines what level of risk is acceptable to the people that are opting-in to the sport and what makes them qualified to do so?
I would say the sporting authorities, the organisers, the national ruling bodies, the FIA and so on... Improving safety is always at the forefront of their concerns. There is nothing that affect the image of a sport more than unnecessary death. Never mind about the fact that people enter a sport knowing its risks, the organisation around the sport have something at stake too. That's why safety improvements have been made in the last 50 years, to reduce the risks of accidents, to minimise their outcome and to make the motor racing safer, more friendly and less of a gladiators sport.
Honestly, I am astonished the way rally has turned to be in the last 25 years. The cars have nothing in common with showroom cars, their power and performance are insane and the speed on specials are highly dangerous to me. The format has changed too. There are hardly any liaison sections, no night driving, no concentration run, etc... An international rally is run in 2 days, with most of the specials run several times in loops, etc... It's not so attractive to me now ...
What makes an F1 (or Indy) car an F1 car and at what point is it not an F1 car? Is it single seater in a single seater proportioned car? Wings? Open wheels? Open cockpit? Indy cars have their rear wheels covered. Are they still the same? They seem like they're still Indy cars but something seems off. If F1 (or Indy) cars have closed wheels and a closed cockpit are they still close enough to the paradigm? Is being a single seater in a single seater proportioned car all that is required? -F
This whole closed cockpit is a huge croc IMO. One things for certain, Charlie won't be allowed near any MotoGP rules.
"Us?" I am not try to save you or the mouse in your pocket. The conversation is about F1. F1 is not the personal property of those twenty drivers. Theirs aren't the only opinions that matter. And even if it was, yours isn't one of them, either. This argument can be used against changing anything. Let's turn it around. If canopies were mandated for 2016 and twenty drivers showed up, would you interpret their participation as endorsement? Because the odds of filling every seat is 100%. You're the one who brought up karting; specifically that the willingness of the children to "opt-in" was affirmation of your own argument against canopies in any formula. No one is attacking anybody's parenting. That's a cheap shot. You might as well argue that advocating for improvements in child safety seats is an insult to previous generations' moms and dads. No. I'm sure you do.
That's funny because if the goal is to protect people, then F1 represents a fraction of a percent of the drivers affected. So we only care about the best drivers and not the thousands of others that are racing open cockpits? You just care about the famous ones? Just the ones on TV? One of the classic arguments for safety improvements in F1 is that it trickles down and sets the standards for other classes and even road cars. That's pointless. F1 is the most lucrative form of driving in the world, so it will always have 100% participation until that fact changes, if it ever does. Yah and you totally missed the point. If you really want to protect people, then there are a lot of other areas to focus rather than just F1 drivers.
At least they have *mostly* removed the insane fans of the 80s that forced Audi to pull out. But you do see some asinine stuff still. Agreed on the cars. Same goes for DTM - the new cars might as well be spaceships compared to the old road cars modified for racing. But in any event, there is a sport where the risk is the same or worse and the band plays on. There is only so much to be done before you kill it. I think we are in a similar place with F1. At what point does an F1 car just become another racecar with a special power unit, and will anyone care about it at that point?
Sure. But their responsibility is also to maintain the sport in question. I think if you close the cockpits and the wheels, then it is no longer F1 IMHO. In addition, I worry exactly about your point - that it is more about image than impact. Because again, unless the FIA solution is something that can be applied down through the open cockpit/wheel/single-seater ranks (many of which are under their supervision), then you aren't protecting most of the drivers anyway, just the ones that might spoil the TV ratings. No one is going to put a $60k cockpit on a $60k racecar. In addition, the more friendly you make it and the less they seem to be like gladiators, the less appeal it will have to the general public. That's just a fact IMHO. If it looks like something with no risk and which many people could do, then why does anyone care? That's why athletes are celebrated in our cultures. If you take away their ability to do the seemingly impossible, then no one will care about them anymore. There's a reason why people like Kimi Raikkonen and Fernando Alonso are calling for more difficulty and more danger. They believe they are the best, and they believe they can truly prove it with more skill and risk involved to separate them from the other competitors. Well assuming Alonso gets a competitive car again one day ; )
First it was how dare I tell people how to raise their children, now it's how dare I not tell people how to raise their children. And that remains the case. F1, the actual subject of this forum as well as this conversation, is the place where something like a canopy would have to be developed. Or are you arguing against that? I can't tell. You're making my point for me. Participation should not be taken as tacit approval of every regulation. An hour ago you were just arguing the other way around. Enough of this.
I wouldn't be so sure. One shouldn't underestimate the power of pressure outside F1. F1 isn't a closed shop left to its own device anymore; it's a worldwide business, depending from commercial, and political lobbies to exist and prosper, not just participanta and spectators. If track owners, national federations, organisers, sponsors, motoring organisations, and governments want changes, they will get them. And the trend, worldwide, is to improve safety. The FIA is even campaigning in many countries to that effect, therefore it would have no answer if it was challenged about F1 and did nothing about it. Of course, they must find solutions acceptable to most, but as Charlie Whitting said, doing nothing just to please the purists or the nostalgics isn't an option.
I've been reflecting on this. The start of the golden era of Grand Prix race cars, started with a rules packaged with a Maximum weight, this was intended to limit the size of and horsepower engines. Teams built rather frail cars, with most of the weight in the engine. Covered wheels would take away from potential horsepower, as they would count to the maximum weight. This led to all the larger displacement entries having uncovered wheels. The same horsepower penalty would also be applied to a closed cockpit. The Mercedes W125 was the last winner under this format. The Supercharged German Grand Prix entries required a re-think of the rules as the rules had not been written with forced induction in mind. A new formula was created, with a minimum weight, and maximum engine displacement. This format ran until WWII interrupted the racing world. Since many of the engines and chassis survived the war, these later 1930's racers were the go to of the rich gentlemen drivers that restarted Grand Prix racing post WWII. Formula 1 was written for these cars to be the backbone. Pre WWII, Grand Prix racing was a national pride and effort. Post WWII countries weren't as interested, and privateers, and some factory teams carried the torch. A change to engine format, led to one team to try putting their engine behind the driver to make up for their lack of power to the factory backed teams such as Ferrari. The car was competitive, and over the next few years, more and more team's started using cars with this layout. If we wanted to argue purity - any car that isn't front engined could be considered an unpure F1 as it took decades for it to catch on. How beit - under the pre F1 maximum weight limitation rule, a mid engined V12 Audi designed by Dr. Porsche did take a championship. In essence - F1 cars were open wheel because the designers considered it the fastest option available, F1 cars were open cockpit as designers considered it the fastest option available. What ended up locking F1 into an open wheel format, was the discovery of downforce producing bodywork being advantageous over entire emphasis on light weight and low drag. This quickly resulted in downforce producing bodywork being mounted to the unsprung mass. The F1 cars when this happened, were designed to a minimum weight without these devices, so these devices were quite frail. Concern over failure, led to rules about aerodynamic devices attached to the unsprung weight. F1 cars have been open wheel ever since. So interestingly, F1, is open wheel, not by some sacred tradition, but for reasons of safety. Pro drivers, with motivation beyond the gentlemen enthusiasts of the 1950's, will perhaps bring about the regulation of closed wheels, if they drive F1 like a contact sport. Closed vs open wheel will largely be decided by how the drivers behave on the track. I prefer an open wheeled format, as it promotes *much* smarter driving from the drivers.
