FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

Discuss the sport you love with other motorsport fans

Formula One related discussion.
#280605
We must always increase safety, but I feel the cockpits would cause as many issues as it would solve. For it to be effective, you really need a cabin with doors, not a cockpit.
If you want a cabin, then you go and drive sportscars......

There are some circumstances that you just can't effectively engineer against, such as Dan's accident, Greg Moore's or Alex Zanardi's.

I agree that the exposed wheels are the bigger issue, not the open cockpits, though they are far from open at all....
Once again, if you want to race with covered wheels, race sportcars.

Covering the wheels would also result a massive escalation in speeds, as the exposed tyres are biggest contributor to drag on most wings and slicks classes......
#280607
There's no way to say whether that picture in the first post, or a closed cockpit in general, would have saved Dan Wheldon.

I have a concern for escape from an upside down car with a closed cockpit.

as has been said, there are racing leagues and classes and formulae that have those other features like closed cockpits and closed wheels. That's why there's this one that doesn't. There should be something for everyone.

And as LewEngBridewell stated, there is already a thread about this topic. You must

Image

before starting a thread. It's in your TOS.
#280625
Sort of like the rollercoaster harness, if the helmet gets hit it transfers the energy to the monoque.


How's the driver meant to look at where he going? They need to move their heads when sighting corners etc
#280626
I think that the tragic death of the IndyCar driver wasn't caused by open wheels, or open canopy, or racing on a high speed banked oval - but by fuel and fuel cell technology. We have seen F1 cars bounce all over the place, smash into each other and even flip right over without catching fire.

Maybe this is because there is no refuelling in F1, so there is less chance of a fuel fire, or whatnot. But when I watched the Indy crash, cars are burning left and right, bursting into flames!!! The rare fire we seem to have in F1 are either burning bodywork or engine malfunctions.

I may have to change my stance on refueling based on this accident.
#280629
The fact that the cars refuel isn't the issue that caused the fire. Indycars are built to a tougher impact standard than F1 cars, due the high speed racing they do. Most of the extra weight they are over an F1 cars is due to mandated panel thicknesses. They are stout cars.

Perhaps the fact that the fuel cells are more rigid than the bag style used in F1, means the rear bulkhead is a bolted in aluminium plate, rather than an integrally moulded one like F1 cars, may have seen the bladders come loose or rupture. I don't know, I'm only speculating......

You have to remember that F1 cars don't sit at 220 mph (350 km/h) for minutes on end. The briefly touch 200mph (320 km/h) right at the end of straights, and are normally following line astern. If they raced 3 abreast at those speeds, I guarantee you'll see similar accidents, and possibly fires. The forces involved in oval racing crashes are just unimaginable. The cars sound like a bomb when they hit the wall. I doubt an F1 car would be able to withstand those impacts any better.....

Remember Ralf Schumacher hit the wall at Indy in '05 at 270 km/h, and knocked the stuffing out of him. Indycar drivers typically climb straight out aftr that type of impact.

Remember the front quarter impacts that killed Senna & Ratzenberger, are typical of an oval impact, yet their tough build standards, have mercifully seen very few serious accidents in recent years. There is something to be said for that....
#280630
Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought Dan died from head injuries, his car hit the fence upside down.

The fires were superficial from what I could see, I say superficial as in they looked bad but drivers weren't in danger because of them. I'm not sure if indycars use bladders or fuel tanks but given F1 don't refuel so start of a race they are laden with roughly 100kg of fuel so in an accident like this I'd much rather have less fuel for obvious reason.
#280644
Bloody awful! This is just the knee-jerk reaction after another death. F1 is an open cockpit series, always has been, always will be. I don't think this would be a suitable solution.



Agreed would be against it.There is no reason why F1 should even need it.It's not like we have stupid ovals with concrete walls anymore.
#280645
What if they design a helmet that is incorporated into the monoque?

Wouldnt that mean your head might come off in some crashes?
#280651
Bloody awful! This is just the knee-jerk reaction after another death. F1 is an open cockpit series, always has been, always will be. I don't think this would be a suitable solution.



Agreed would be against it.There is no reason why F1 should even need it.It's not like we have stupid ovals with concrete walls anymore.


But there is plenty of debris that can still harm a driver.

I wonder if, instead of a full canopy, a strong windscreen might be better. Would still have visibility issues, but at least you wouldn't have to worry as much about emergency exit and driver comfort.
#280655
Remember Ralf Schumacher hit the wall at Indy in '05 at 270 km/h, and knocked the stuffing out of him. Indycar drivers typically climb straight out aftr that type of impact.


Ralf Schumacher hit that wall at Indy hard twice!

The first was during the race in 2004 when he was driving for Williams. He was replaced by Marc Gene and Antonio Pizzonia for much of the season.

The second was the following season, during practice. He was driving for Toyota at the time, and he had a scarily similar accident, but not as serious. Still, it was part of a chain of events that led up to a race F1 would rather forget.

See our F1 related articles too!