Would a covered cockpit have helped Bianchi ?

[mrluke]

These guys stick their head in the wind at considerable speed, so I'd say they have the same problem. If they start incorporating canopies one might argue about loosing identity .

http://www.motorcyclenews.com/upload/26 ... r-test.jpg

Perhaps it would be better to copy their solution, which is not to have solid objects anywhere close to where a driver might crash.

Good point, we should also get rid of seatbelts and just have the drivers wear a set of leathers instead.

[Jolle]

These guys stick their head in the wind at considerable speed, so I'd say they have the same problem. If they start incorporating canopies one might argue about loosing identity .

http://www.motorcyclenews.com/upload/26 ... r-test.jpg

Perhaps it would be better to copy their solution, which is not to have solid objects anywhere close to where a driver might crash.

Good point, we should also get rid of seatbelts and just have the drivers wear a set of leathers instead.

Lets get rid of the whole cockpit, just let the drivers cling on to the chassis like a roadrunner cartoon....

[Manoah2u]

how about we come to the conclusion that a covered cockpit indeed would not have helped bianchi, and that there is no available device that would be safe or usefull in F1 for driver protection without altering the entire class into something different?

[mrluke]

how about we come to the conclusion that a covered cockpit indeed would not have helped bianchi, and that there is no available device that would be safe or usefull in F1 for driver protection without altering the entire class into something different?

if it prevented the tractor hooking on to the roll hoop and stopping the car dead, then yes it would have considerably helped.

[Cold Fussion]

how about we come to the conclusion that a covered cockpit indeed would not have helped bianchi, and that there is no available device that would be safe or usefull in F1 for driver protection without altering the entire class into something different?

Convincing argument, how could we possibly refute it? (Despite your desires to shut down debate)

[Manoah2u]

how about we come to the conclusion that a covered cockpit indeed would not have helped bianchi, and that there is no available device that would be safe or usefull in F1 for driver protection without altering the entire class into something different?

if it prevented the tractor hooking on to the roll hoop and stopping the car dead, then yes it would have considerably helped.

but it would not have, since if the roll hoop would not have clinged onto the back of the truck, then the car would have further smashed into the rear wheel of the truck providing nearly the same results.

all of this is 'arguments' that are 'discussed' are focused at the complete wrong direction; the problem was not the construction of a f1 car nor it's 'driver protection'. The problem was, and is, the precense of a nearly unmovable object at arguably the most dangerous location of the entire Suzuka track.

The f1 car is not the problem, the recovery vehicle is.

(Despite your desires to shut down debate)

ah i didn't know turning f1 into motogp was part of a debate, either.

Perhaps it would be better to copy their solution, which is not to have solid objects anywhere close to where a driver might crash.

and there you have it.

[Andres125sx]

Now since the loose cannon arguments were put in the air about alonso nearly getting facehammered by a grosjean projectile, let's just remind ourselves that a completely loose F1 wheel with 230 kmph versus a +700kg complete F1 car coming down full speed into the canopy are 2 completely uncomparable situations, and the latter one of which i have seen zero evidence that there is any technology available as a canopy or whatever high-grade military nasa or any class material is able to resist such a direct force onto the canopy to protect the driver's head.

Because you´re thinking about canopies, when the solution already exist and is used in lmp cars, closed cockpits, survival cell with a roof and A-pillars, that would have resisted Grosjean impact, or at least deflected the car from driver´s helmet

http://www.fiawec.com/wpphpFichiers/1/1 ... que691.jpg
http://img.speedweek.com/img/29c743379b ... 367JPG.JPG

But looks like we enjoy reinventing the wheel

or, you know, the nose cone could've just gone in behind the pillar, pinning down fernando.

No safety measure is 100% safe, there will always be exceptional situations where it´s not safe.

But if it´s safe on most situations, it´s a good implementation. Your argument remind me those who say seatbelts are not safe because if the car get fire and the seatbelt can´t be released, you´ll die. True, but that´s an exception, most cases it will be safer, so it´s considered a must.

[Andres125sx]

These guys stick their head in the wind at considerable speed, so I'd say they have the same problem. If they start incorporating canopies one might argue about loosing identity .

http://www.motorcyclenews.com/upload/26 ... r-test.jpg

Apples to oranges

[turbof1]

Just so you know, we currently have a 2 part feature on track safety in the works. It'll have some very interesting bits which can be related to Bianchi. Hopefully part 1 can be released within a few days!

[Richard]

The f1 car is not the problem, the recovery vehicle is.

I think the families of marhsalls who have been killed over the years would disagree.

[Manoah2u]

The f1 car is not the problem, the recovery vehicle is.

I think the families of marhsalls who have been killed over the years would disagree.

ok let's rephrase that;

the recovery safety standards are below acceptable means.

Prost said it perfectly on how it is unacceptable that dispite safety levels have advanced to an incredible
degree regarding driver & crowd protection, basic safety levels for marshalls and recovery activities are
near-neanderthal.

True though that just as easy, one or several marshall's lives could have been taken violently in a single shot.
The marshalls were in a very dangerous situation when the marussia crashed, and they struggled with the
sauber aswell.

but there's already a thread for this.

[siskue2005]

scarbs talking about canopy
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-vMPb5rkZM[/youtube]

[WaikeCU]

You could argue all you like, but there's both sides to the concept of canopies. Yes, it does provide a certain safety for the driver's head, but the following paragraphs would prove that canopies are a NO GO in my view.

13.1.3 The driver must be able to enter and get out of the cockpit without it being necessary to open a door or remove any part of the car other than the steering wheel. When seated normally, the driver must be facing forwards and the rearmost part of his crash helmet may be no more than 125mm forward of the rear edge of the cockpit entry template.

13.1.4 From his normal seating position, with all seat belts fastened and whilst wearing his usual driving equipment, the driver must be able to remove the steering wheel and get out of the car within 5 seconds and then replace the steering wheel in a total of 10 seconds.
For this test, the position of the steered wheels will be determined by the FIA technical delegate and after the steering wheel has been replaced steering control must be maintained.

I still believe that a full course yellow behind the safety car is the safest way whenever a recovery vehicle needs to get on to the circuit.

[SectorOne]

You can´t use currently written rules and use them to prove that canopies would be illegal in the future..
That´s like taking the 2013 regulations and claiming all 2014 cars are illegal.

[turbof1]

You can´t use currently written rules and use them to prove that canopies would be illegal in the future..
That´s like taking the 2013 regulations and claiming all 2014 cars are illegal.

I think the point most of all was that a driver needs to get very fast out of the car. 5 seconds might not be doable anymore, though we need to consider too if a driver really needs to able to get out of the car within 5s and not 7-8s