TBK-Light.com

I'm not convinced a canopy system of some kind would be prohibitively expensive - top fuel dragsters don't exactly have science fiction finances, do they? They also suffer from many more upside and on fire at all angles crashes.

F1 mandated the use of personal oxygen supplies until the early 90s. Bring it back (It'd be much smaller these days), include an extinguisher near the cockpit, and the driver is fairly well protected. I also don't see why rain and heat etc would be a problem with 'bubble' canopies - military aircraft don't tend to baulk at imperfect weather!

Even if canopies have to be ruled out, the concept art from Giorgio Piola shouldn't be. Drivers currently sit lower than ever in the car, and probably can't even see the front wheels. If it's a thin piece of carbon in front, and they're focusing on the track, it should be no less distracting than holding a pencil in front of your face whilst looking to the distance.

There are people warning of knee-jerk decisions, but I don't think this is one. The concept has been bandied about at least since Surtees' accident, and has clearly been worked on in the background for several years. You can only see a third of most drivers in the car anyway these days, so why the resistance over losing those final few inches if it saves lives?

I think a lot of it probably stems from F1 and IndyCar being as fast and reliable as they have ever been. There will probably have been less chance of these sorts of accidents occurring when less cars circulated with bigger performance gaps, but this is only really an unfortunate side-effect, if it even is true.

Doesn't that follow that we need to increase debris and wheel tethers to prevent stuff flying off rather than install a canopy on these cars?

If you botch a job for the Dw-12 and shove a canopy on it after the fact you just know it's going to create more issues than it solves.
They're already having enough trouble keeping the cars on the ground as it is, I imagine plugging the "hole" that the cockpit provides in the airflow atm and then covering the front wheels will make the whole flying car problem much worse as a side effect.

Don't forget Indycar recently cancelled its new car project (rumoured to be the real reason why Walker left) so there's no new car on the horizon that can be designed with them in mind either.

And as for the car upside down on fire thing....remember Simona having to almost fight her own fire before the marshals took too long to get there? And that was on an oval. You dread to think what might happen if someone ends up far from a marshals post at Road America or something.
Yeah, it isn't likely, but it's about as likely as something hitting the driver in the first place which people seem to want to diminish the uniqueness of open wheel racing for...so how come a cure that erodes the legacy of the sport due to something unlikely is ok but the unlikely thing resulting of a side effect of that cure is dismissed out of hand?

Make no mistake, the sport will get better and safer as a result of Justin's accident. But it still needs to remain the sport he left and loved so much and not another branch of IMSA

_________________
RIP Birmingham Wheels: here's some of the crash videos I recorded when it was there:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIaKIE ... 5t9d5PvoHA

Twitter:

http://www.twitter.com/paulhadsley

First thing that Indycar, F1 and any other open wheel classes should do is to get rid of all the smaller wings, winglets and part of the car that can come off after a crash or a small contact.

I mean look at the number of debris from a crash this year (exemple: Indy 500, Sato through the debris... or the start crash of the Road Course at Indianapolis). Make the car as smooth as possible with less artificial wings = less debris = less chance to get hit by one.





It is something that can be easily done for the reminding of 2015 in Open Wheel classes. I know the Indycar picture is from earlier this year but they can still remove some part of the car that can be easily fly after a crash or contact.

The debris problem is a real one - Mario Andretti's first suggestion was tethers for the larger parts - but the fundamental problem here is that carbon fibre shatters when overstressed. You see less debris in older crashes because the parts weren't so intricate, and going even further back they would have been some kind of metal.

I genuinely have no idea how modern motorsport can work around that.

I was thinking about the same thing, Toto.

If we look at the way 90's Reynards and Lola's and even F1 cars looked like, it's a big difference. The cars were much simpler in terms of body work, smaller wings, smaller sidepods, etc. I'm not saying they should get rid of the rear wheel guards, I believe they do have a positive effect in wheel to wheel contact in the type Brack or Briscoe had, but I'm sure some tethering system can be implemented. But all the little wings and winglets should go away, that would reduce the amount of debris and also the costs. I think it's a win win situation here.

I'm on the tether everything side. If pieces like the nosecone, wings, sidepods and such are tethered, things would be a lot safer. If it can be done with the wheels, it can be done with other parts.

You can take all those off but there are plenty of other things that will come off in an accident. You cannot ether everything down and even then, tethers can and will fail.

Conway's big accident at Indy, his radiator hot Castroneves' airbox. Where will that be tethered down where it wouldn't come away?

Then you get other bits of debris that can get kicked up by a car going offline.

OK, I'll bite

I'm not against changes to the cars. If there is a genuine, practical solution where the pros outweigh the cons, I'd be all for it. But there isn't

The FIA has done substantial testing on front roll-hoops and canopies and decided neither was worth bothering with - the canopies were too flexible, and the front roll-hoops looked hideous and got in the way of the driver. I'm sure the same will go for that Mercedes proposal - there's far more risk of that coming off and hitting the driver in a roll-over or violent accident, as well as the eyeline issue. And of course, other than the canopy, there are still ways of bits and pieces getting around the protection

Unless you cover the driver's head totally, it's at risk - and if you cover the driver's head totally, you'd be doing so with something that prevents him/her getting out quickly, would need to be kept clean so that they could see where they were going, could deflect the debris or wheels into crowds where they could potentially injure or kill many people instead of just one, and would likely make single-seater cars even more unaffordable further down the racing pyramid (unless we're going to decide that only F1 and IndyCar drivers are worth protecting, in which case what's this all about - safety or business?)

Until someone comes up with something that gets rid of all of those issues, it's surely a no-goer. It's simply not scientifically possible at the moment, unless the FIA decides it's going to ride right over the top of those requirements and does what it wants to anyway, which would make me seriously question their motivation. It is a bit strange that all of the pro-canopy/protection talk that I've seen has come from people who aren't/weren't drivers - for all the rhetoric aimed at fans who are against this about how it's easy for them to say this when they're not the ones in danger, the ones who are actually in danger aren't complaining

Put it this way - this is not like the 1970s, no matter how many parallels you may want to draw. Back then, the drivers were pushing the governing bodies and circuits all the time for improvements, because people were dying and the improvements were realistic. It must have been possible to foresee a situation where the vast majority of fatalities would be prevented. This is not even like the situation in the 1990s with broken necks and HANS. Back then drivers were still dying on an irregular but still frequent enough basis to be a cause for concern, and there was a ready-made practical solution available which the drivers accepted; the only downside became a non-issue after one major fatality, when everyone realised it was a petty complaint. The drawbacks for canopies are nowhere near as trivial

To say this is about tradition is a straw man argument (which is ironic considering one of the main public exponents of it is a guy called Straw) - reading around I don't see many people saying that. The point is there isn't a solution to this which doesn't have more potential problems. Implementing this now or in the next couple of years would be a massive kneejerk reaction to one accident, or rather a handful of accidents spread over decades - 3 fatalities (Senna, Surtees and Wilson) being prevented in 30 years, between hundreds of races and tests each year. You can talk about near-misses all you want, but the point with near-misses is that they are just that - misses. It's stating the obvious, but not being struck by something is vastly more likely than being struck by something. Even if it happened again next weekend, that wouldn't change the odds - it's still a minute possibility

The drivers know this. They are aware of how unlikely it is. They aren't the ones really pushing for this - the pressure is coming from the media, some hardcore fans and certain administrative figures. There's no Jackie Stewart figure saying "we're not going to turn up if we don't have canopies on the car", or anything close to that. Ultimately they are the ones putting their necks on the line, and the reaction of the drivers last night was "we'll race again next weekend, no question about that". I don't believe that as a fan I'm taking advantage of that, because they know far more about it than I do. The FIA researchers certainly do, and they've said there's nothing they can do. To claim there's something they can do in the face of all that evidence from the comfort of my armchair would be ludicrous - I trust the experts

I know we're used to changes after every major crash because of the prevailing idea that we must not let things happen a second time, but there doesn't have to be a safety advancement from every fatality. You can't legislate for everything - road and aviation safety are good examples of this. It's a totally reductive argument to say that they have to eliminate all the risks, because like it or not, the logical conclusion of that line of thinking is no racing at all - that's the only way of having no risks. I'm incredibly sad over Justin dying like everyone else here, but even if there had been a canopy in place to prevent him being hit, he could easily have slipped getting out of the car and hit his head - does that mean IndyCar should put steps on the side of each car to help drivers get out? No, of course not - that would be silly

There are many things that would've saved Justin's life, including him not turning up to the circuit on Sunday. But that's not the point. This is what we have, it's relatively safe while still being a thrill, and it will continue to be even if no changes are made. If they want to minimise the risk of debris hitting the drivers, then the first thing they should do is look at the debris - how about a study into the nature of debris and see if there's a way of making sure it doesn't get near the cars, drivers AND the bystanders who are so often overlooked in these drives for safer racing? Only after that should they look at canopy-type solutions, as a potential long-term aspiration. But we're talking years away, possibly decades

But I fear the FIA are being backed into a corner by emotive reactions and outside influences, and that we might see something in place in a couple of years that will prove to be an ill-thought-out, rushed solution to an issue that barely exists which will create more problems than it'll solve, all for the sake of a couple of freak accidents. My mind goes back to the Williamson fire and the resulting push for over-zealous marshals that killed Tom Pryce and Frederik Jansen van Vuuren - and of course the fire extinguisher which smashed up a car in the car park, because it still carried huge velocity after deflecting off Tom and the car. If they make a radical change, there will be undesirable knock-on effects, and I don't believe it's worth the risk at the moment

My main concern about canopies is the effect they could have on aerodynamics - especially in IndyCar. What if they were more likely to get airborne with them? I think they'll have to design a whole new car rather than put put on makeshift canopies.

But I am no expert and I am likely wrong about everything.

_________________
R.I.P. Justin

Exactly this. That's why I brought up that the building of racecars was completely rethought, with the interest of protecting the driver by having the car come to pieces in the event of an accident, to absorb energy.

But now we find that the construction and subsequent debris field is a problem.

I feel the only real solution will be to find a new material to build the cars from. But that won't happen for quite some time.
In the meantime, we could see open wheel cars with cockpits. That will bring about its own set of idiosyncrasies.

I had the chance to talk with a buddy of mine who races open Wheel cars about it.

What he told me was, the main thing he loves the open wheel racing is the open cockpit and I absoulte agree with him, but he had the idea, what he had on the picture with the Window infront
Also the parts and aero parts / Kits that we have more and more wonder him.




Matthias

Amen to everything you said.

Today I got the thaught what moto gp drivers might think of this discussion and of open wheel drivers beeing worried about half of their head is exposed.

I'm really sorry for what happened. It's an unbeleavable tragedy.
And yet I am willing to accept it if this risk stays.
Don't get me wrong, I dont like that risk. I just think its an acceptable one, since I think it's actually unlikely to happen again soon and it seems a huge effort to lower it.

Sorry if that might be offensive to anyone.

Cristiano da Matta is pro-canopies, and of course for a good reason.

http://www.motorsport.com/indycar/news/da-matta-numerous-accidents-prove-need-for-closed-cockpits

But guess who's under his rear wheel in the picture? It's Justin Wilson.

_________________
"Indy doesn't give you a second chance. You have to earn it."

Obviously you don't understand how humidity and temperature differences work. If RainX is your solution to replace windshield wipers, then how come Le Mans prototype cars have wipers? And air-con? And a heater? You're telling that F1 don't need those because driver helmets haven't fogged up for a decade (source, please?) and RainX is all you need? I'm sorry but I call that bullshit.

_________________
"Indy doesn't give you a second chance. You have to earn it."

canopies could be also fire resistant and the car could carry extinguishers that are actvited with fire nearby

_________________
Motorsports trend for 2024: everything is a bad taste joke now

If memory serves the last person to die in an upturned car that was on fire was Christophe Hissette about four or five years ago, so not quiet such a prehistoric event as you think Scotty.

I'll admit it was not F1, but an open top Radical Cup car and the general concensus is a canopy must be a sport-wide change, and not just something for the pinnacle of the sport, so it's best to take all the facts into account. RainX doesn't prevent fogging (it didn't in my time anyway), it just allowed the water to disperse faster, was bloody expensive, and wouldn't last a club race length let alone a GP.

There is no doubt a canopy would save lives in certain circumstances, similarly it could also cost lives in other situations.

At the end of the day we can argue all we want about whether they must be used or not, however it would perhaps be best to listen to the people who would be affected by a change as drastic as this, the drivers, before listening to the fans, since as far as I know, not one active driver has demanded canopies be made mandatory yet.

Hah, I knew you would go on bashing instead of rational debate. You still obviously don't have a clue in what condition windscreens fog up, do you? First you say that drivers can open up the visor by 2mm, then you say F1 cars would have better sealing than touring cars and Le Mans prototypes. You see a discrepancy there? With helmet you remove the insulation but with F1 you get near to perfect insulation? Guess what would cause fogging with too great insulation? I feel sorry for you so I'll help you out. It's drivers breathing. If helmet is not ventilated properly it will fog up.

I have 70's classic GPA helmet and I know it gets foggy if the temperature difference between inside and outside of the visor are great enough and there's humidity in the air (like from breathing). These days F1 drivers can't open their helmets while driving as there's the latch that was introduced after Ralf Schumacher's accident at Indy 2004. So that's not an option. While Le Mans has mandatory wiper, they don't have mandatory heater. Yet they have it for some reason. Ian-S already pointed out that on his experience RainX doesn't work. Surely some nanotechnological canopy could work eventually without wiper, I can admit that, but is there one available already? Shouldn't the visors have this technology instead of tear-offs today already? It might cost a tenth or two when driver removes a tear-off, would it make sense to have high-tech visor to gain almost a full second in the race? And there's still the need for the air-con/heater. Even cheap touring cars have that and for a reason. Like said many times, there's real issues with canopy system that still needs to be solved before making them mandatory.

Anyway, real life F1 engineers have said that there's many issues with the canopy system, some of them have pointed out that after fire hazard and driver getting trapped inside that the rain races to be difficult due fogging. So it was never my argument, just something I've heard the pros have said.

If there's going to be a quick change due (obvious) safety concerns, the Mercedes proposition would be a good pick.

I hate to be a grammar-nazi, but I can make an exception with you, Scotty.

_________________
"Indy doesn't give you a second chance. You have to earn it."

Slight change in this now, as both Button and Alonso have called for the introduction of some kind of protection in today's press conference:





Hamilton seems to support the idea, with some reservations:



And Nico Hulkenberg is against it:



I read an interesting article from an IndyCar reporter that pointed out that there is a huge difference between the dangers of racing, which are broadly unavoidable, and the risks, which usually are. I think that's the distinction that is being missed in a lot of the arguments.



Not sure who has and who hasn't said such things, but Gary Anderson this week seemed all for the idea, pointing out that ex-F1 drivers now in WEC haven't expressed any worries about being trapped in their cars.