Closed Cockpits agreed for 2017

[Manoah2u]

"You know the risks, you accept them. If a man can't look at danger and still go on, man has stopped living.
If the worst ever happens – then it means simply that I've been asked to pay the bill for the happiness of my life – without a moment's regret."

Graham Hill

Words of a dead man from a time long past.

People smoke their asses off and get cancer. they die. gov'ment wants to reduce this. is this bad? should it not be done?
People wore cargeogenic clothing [firemen, military]. they die. comes with the job?
Basejumpers/skydivers love the adrenaline rush of the jump. sometimes the parachute fails. you know the risks. you accept them. is it bad to improve safety features for basejumpers so they won't die or chancess are less? is that wrong?

perhaps the question must be:

do we WANT to see people get injured? does that IMPROVE the sport and entertainment?
no?
we dont?
we dont want bianchi-like incidents?

then why the 4-letter word are people bashing this stuff and coming up with this cr*p?

if you want death, go and jump off a building. if you want to see blood, go and watch a bloodsport.

[FW17]

Why did this car have a slot in the windshield?

[domh245]

Slightly clearer image of that car.

I would have thought that the bottom one was for ventilation purposes, and the top one acting partly as an emergency driver extraction hatch and partly as an outlet for the air coming in from the bottom.

[bl4zar_]

When there are about 1 million times more people on libraries along the year than on F1 tracks, so it´s around 1 million times safer

Do you think that there are articles written each time a person get an injury in a library which causes his/her death? Lots of people die every day doing thing considered to be safe and no articles are written about them, but this is not a reason for thinking that this doesn't happen. The article that the other user linked exists just because the girl was 3 yo.

To who talks about simple advancement: advancement isn't something which is always good and to be applied without thinking about it. Do you know what could be the definitive advancement in security of the pilot? No pilot in the car. It would be super safe, he could control the car remotely though a station using a virtual reality visor for example. Absolutely ultra-safe, no one will ever get hurt anymore, super good, great advancement. But no, thanks. Why? Because, like closed cockpits, this is not something acceptable in Formula 1 because of the nature itself of Formula 1.

[turbof1]

Because, like closed cockpits, this is not something acceptable in Formula 1 because of the nature itself of Formula 1.

I can agree with a driver actually driving the car (as anyone would do.). However, whether a closed cockpit not being acceptable really is highly subjective. It's not acceptable to you and a whole lot other people, which I respect. However it is acceptable for a whole lot of different people.

Again, I fail to see how the current format of the open canopy is an issue. The lotus 49c had something quite similar: http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/wp-content/u ... d-2012.jpg

Granted that's a windshield , but aesthetically it's not going to be much different.

I also find the issue about wanting danger in the sport quite hypocritical: when rules came in to enforce the crash structures, nobody ever complained. Yet aesthetically, the front crash structure has a much bigger impact on the car then a canopy can ever have. If you want danger, then abolish everything: crash structures, suits, helmets, HANS, the protected and segmented fuel tank, rollhoop, headprotection,... . But if there is going to be concern for the driver, then let's not do it half arsed.

[Andres125sx]

this is not something acceptable in Formula 1 because of the nature itself of Formula 1.

To me the unacceptable thing is assuming any risk because of a subjective point of view.

Open cockpits don´t have one single advantage, no matter if we look at it from a safety, perfomance or aesthetics point of view. Well aesthetically we can discuss about it, but perfomance wise a closed cockpit is light years ahead of open ones, and safety wise closed cockpits, at least since fuel tanks are so safe, also improve driver protection in different situations

We´ve seen both accidents (Massa, Wilson...) and close calls (Alonso, Kimi...) wich would have been irrelevant with a closed cockpit, but caused serious injuries or even death because they were open. Thanks god Alonso and Kimi only suffered a close call and they´re still driving, but it could have been completely different if some car would have moved half meter to the wrong side. Basically they´re alive because of luck, a bit of bad luck, and the car could have decapitated them, or simply crushed their heads
Alonso at Spa, very lucky to avoid a fatal accident


Kimi at Silverstone, very lucky to avoid a fatal accident


In my humble opinion, ignoring these dangerous situations only because "F1 has always been open cockpit" is nosense. It was front engines too, but it evolved. It was mechanical grip dependant, but it evolved. F1 always evolve.

That´s the real nature of F1, it always evolve as soon as someone find some way to improve it. To me that´s a lot more important than a subjective point of view about how F1 should be

[WaikeCU]

this is not something acceptable in Formula 1 because of the nature itself of Formula 1.

To me the unacceptable thing is assuming any risk because of a subjective point of view.

Open cockpits don´t have one single advantage, no matter if we look at it from a safety, perfomance or aesthetics point of view. Well aesthetically we can discuss about it, but perfomance wise a closed cockpit is light years ahead of open ones, and safety wise closed cockpits, at least since fuel tanks are so safe, also improve driver protection in different situations

We´ve seen both accidents (Massa, Wilson...) and close calls (Alonso, Kimi...) wich would have been irrelevant with a closed cockpit, but caused serious injuries or even death because they were open. Thanks god Alonso and Kimi only suffered a close call and they´re still driving, but it could have been completely different if some car would have moved half meter to the wrong side. Basically they´re alive because of luck, a bit of bad luck, and the car could have decapitated them, or simply crushed their heads

In my humble opinion, ignoring these dangerous situations only because "F1 has always been open cockpit" is nosense. It was front engines too, but it evolved. It was mechanical grip dependant, but it evolved. F1 always evolve.

That´s the real nature of F1, it always evolve as soon as someone find some way to improve it. To me that´s a lot more important than a subjective point of view about how F1 should be

Why haven't they reacted when Tom Pryce got hit by an fire extinguisher back in '77?

[Andres125sx]

Why haven't they reacted when Tom Pryce got hit by an fire extinguisher back in '77?

How do you think they should have reacted?

[Frafer]

this is not something acceptable in Formula 1 because of the nature itself of Formula 1.

To me the unacceptable thing is assuming any risk because of a subjective point of view.

Open cockpits don´t have one single advantage, no matter if we look at it from a safety, perfomance or aesthetics point of view. Well aesthetically we can discuss about it, but perfomance wise a closed cockpit is light years ahead of open ones, and safety wise closed cockpits, at least since fuel tanks are so safe, also improve driver protection in different situations

We´ve seen both accidents (Massa, Wilson...) and close calls (Alonso, Kimi...) wich would have been irrelevant with a closed cockpit, but caused serious injuries or even death because they were open. Thanks god Alonso and Kimi only suffered a close call and they´re still driving, but it could have been completely different if some car would have moved half meter to the wrong side. Basically they´re alive because of luck, a bit of bad luck, and the car could have decapitated them, or simply crushed their heads
Alonso at Spa, very lucky to avoid a fatal accident
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/6 ... ngrabs.jpg

Kimi at Silverstone, very lucky to avoid a fatal accident
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/06/ ... Image_.JPG

In my humble opinion, ignoring these dangerous situations only because "F1 has always been open cockpit" is nosense. It was front engines too, but it evolved. It was mechanical grip dependant, but it evolved. F1 always evolve.

That´s the real nature of F1, it always evolve as soon as someone find some way to improve it. To me that´s a lot more important than a subjective point of view about how F1 should be

In my humble opinion, i can not see how a windshield'd have helped in alo case or in kimi's one

[Andres125sx]

I never said a windshield would have helped, but a fully closed cockpit certainly would

But looks like being innovative in F1 is more important than using proved and safe solutions wich are working on different series for many years!



To me the only debate is about what is more important, identity or safety. To me F1 identity is not related with the cockpit setup, F1 is the fastest sprint series, fullstop. Difference between LMP and F1 is race distance, one is an endurance race, while the other is sprint race. The cockpit, IMHO, is irrelevant to the series identity

To me shitty tires wich force drivers to drive carefully instead of driving to the limits is a lot more harmful to F1 identity than any cockpit, closed, open, halo or windshield would ever be, but this is just my opinion...

[FW17]

In my humble opinion, i can not see how a windshield'd have helped in alo case or in kimi's one

And why wouldn't it have helped?

[turbof1]

In my humble opinion, i can not see how a windshield'd have helped in alo case or in kimi's one

And why wouldn't it have helped?

Well a windshield with the sole function of effectively being a shield to wind would probably have been sliced up/crushed. However a thick windshield also aimed to protect the driver would have kept Kimi fairly safe as it would have risen Alonso's car higher.

Aside if it should be closed, half-open or any interpretation of fully open (quite subjective with the driver already submerged into the car), I feel any solution really has to do 2 things:
-Keeping any object from horizontally hitting the driver's head from any direction (horizontal).
-Limiting the chance that an object can hit the driver's head vertically.

It should be noted that the side protections of the head are already quite high, halfway up the head:

Obviously nothing can hit the driver from the back, so that leaves half of the head sideways and the whole head frontal exposed. I think Red Bull's canopy/windshield (it really is a bit of both) is a good solution. Could use a bit of rounder edges for styling, but given it's not a closed cockpit and there is precedence in F1 for a windshield, it's the best compromise.

[Frafer]

In my humble opinion, i can not see how a windshield'd have helped in alo case or in kimi's one

And why wouldn't it have helped?

In ALO vs GRO case i cannot see how a windshield of this type could change the direction of an airborne f1 car travelling at 200 kph, maybe just a bit, but if the car is on collision course with the head (more or less 50 cm/ 20 inches "more towards" alo) you are running out of luck i'm afraid..

In ALO vs RAI is even worse, the car is coming from behind and the difference of speed is little so... imagine the floor of alo getting kind of stuck against the windshield and reversing its way towards the driver,

[FW17]

The shield is a carbon fiber roll cage with some integrity to deflect objects. While the monocoque is designed as crumple zones the bulk head is designed a lot stronger to hold the structure together and transfer the forces to the crumple zones.

[F1NAC]

I have an idea. What do you think about mix with Halo and aeroscreen. Sides are formed like on aeroscreen and infront of the driver put the piece like on halo infront. On that way you remove problem with bugs and dirty screen and possibly problems with sun reflections. With little tweaking to ensure visiblity in the mirrors and look on sides for apexes it could work. It's only an idea. Sorry if anyone posted this version already