Pit lane reporting a thing of the past?

[Daniel]

Fair point. Reflecting back to Senna's accident, I think that was so freak that even a canopy could have been pierced by the suspension....

It's quite possible, but it would have been that bit more protection.

[Daniel]

I don't think a canopy would have prevented Henri Surtees' injuries.

No doubt, Massa's incident likely would have been different if the car had had a canopy.

Note that 2 recent driver deaths (Allan Simonsen, Andrea Mame) were in closed cockpit cars, a 3rd (Jason Leffler) was in an open cockpit car that had a full roll cage, AND the driver was wearing a head and neck restraint system.

Canopies introduce a whole new range of safety issues:
Driver extraction, canopy melting temperature in a fire, resistance to abrasion if a car is sliding upside down, etc.

Then there are the more practical considerations.
Even with an open cockpit the driver gets hot from the physical exertion of driving a race car.
After having done laps at speed, drivers have pulled into the pits, un-zipped their drivers suits and have had inside the suit temperatures of 140+° recorded.
Imagine what that would be without the air flow from an open cockpit.

The weight of a canopy and it's mounting hardware would be high on the chassis, negatively affecting the car's CoG.
Another concern is aerodynamic, particularly if a car gets sideways at speed. From the side, the curve and area of a canopy may make the car unstable (like airborne).

Massa's accident happened 4 years ago. F1 cars do not have canopies today. You might wonder why if they are the panacea many think they are.

The FIA did a canopy test, but that test took place 3 years and 3 months after Massa's incident.
The jet aircraft canopy the FIA tested was several times longer than the cockpit opening of any current formula car.

The jet canopy test was a proof of concept test, it wasn't a test of the solution they were/are going to adopt, if the jet fighter canopy hadn't performed well, then they would have known that canopies are of no use at all. You completely miss the point of a proof of concept test.

I think that you overstate the possible complications of a canopy, firstly if there is a fire that a driver couldn't get out of on their own, then the best thing is for them to be isolated from the fire by a canopy, if the car is upside down then they weren't getting out of the car anyway without assistance. Resistance to abrasion? A canopy would do a better job that a drivers head, that's for sure.

Yeah, drivers get hot in cars, no surprise there, which in touring cars for instance, the drivers have a fresh air feed ducted to their helmets. This is F1, if next year Bernie said that cars should do a complete loop in the tunnel in Monaco then the engineers would find a way of doing it and doing it safely. I have no doubts that they could cool a driver in the cockpit of an F1 car, it's not like the driver gets that much airflow over their body anyway, the engineers make sure of that as it would create drag.

Why would a canopy have certainly not prevented Henry Surtees' injuries? Even the less ideal open top windscreen deflects the tyre COMPLETELY away from where the drivers head would be, the canopy does a far better job.

FIA Institute canopy test - YouTube

F1 loves knee jerk reactions, If Massa had been killed or permanently brain damaged then we may have seen changes made, sadly F1 has a history of needing people to die before instituting changes.

I'm not familiar with Mame's accident, but Simonsen's accident wouldn't have ended well in an F1 car either, F1 cars would probably perform even worse when hitting something small, hard and immovable like a tree.

[Tazio]

Love them or hate them the newish tracks don't have the risk of a relatively small abutment murdering a pilot nearly to death, like the old imola, Spa , Nurbergring or the like

[dj_bytedisaster]

I'm with Daniel here. A canopy could have saved Surtees and even Senna. Remember - a piece of suspension pierced his helmet and then his head. With a canopy it would have had to pierce that first, dissipating a lot of energy. There is a good chance that it would have been enough to prevent it from piercing the helmet. Same goes for the Massa accident.

The only case in which a canopy would be more dangerous would be, if there was a fire inside the cockpit. But even in that case you could still come up with a solution that 'detonates' the canopy off, like it is done on fighter planes when die pilot ejects. The downside of that solution - where does it fly? Into the stands?

[Whyzars]

I'm with Daniel here. A canopy could have saved Surtees and even Senna.

Save Senna maybe, lose Lauda definitely.

My feeling is that they will go driverless before they go with canopies.

[Daniel]

Save Senna maybe, lose Lauda definitely.

My feeling is that they will go driverless before they go with canopies.

Ummm OK, tell me why Lauda would have died? As it was (without a canopy) he got burnt up quite badly and almost died. You do realise the canopy would have kept the flames away from him right?

I hate to say a canopy would have saved/killed x fo shizzle unless there is evidence to suggest that it's a near certainty.

Senna saved by a canopy? Maybe
Surtees saved by a canopy? Almost certainly, the FIA test backs this up.
Lauda killed/injuries reduced by a canopy? Could be either, we don't know either way, personally I don't see how it would have made it worse.....
Massa's injuries reduced/eliminated by a canopy? Almost certainly
Dan Wheldon saved by a canopy? I have to say that I doubt it tbh, the car essentially got grated by the fence, we're talking about a bloody heavy object (the car) hitting a fairly immovable object (the safety fence attached to the earth) no matter how strong a canopy is, it's always going to struggle with something like that.

The physics of a wheel or a spring or blown tyre hitting a canopy are far more favourable though.

Canopies for pit lane reporters perhaps? *strokes chin*

[SGWilko]

fo shizzle

I recall 'Slick Vic' from Big Brother (when it used to be reasonably entertaining) using the phrase 'shizzle my nizzle', but WTC does 'fo shizzle' mean???

[Whyzars]

Ummm OK, tell me why Lauda would have died? As it was (without a canopy) he got burnt up quite badly and almost died. You do realise the canopy would have kept the flames away from him right?

A terrible incident and one that went on an on. You are thinking flames but asphyxiation is what came primarily to my mind. It was in response to another poster and I thought it was in context.

I hate to say a canopy would have saved/killed x fo shizzle unless there is evidence to suggest that it's a near certainty.

The entire purpose of a canopy/no canopy discussion is safety. I would like to think that they were never being considered for aero advantage.

The whole canopy idea is dead in my opinion and I can't accept that they were ever seriously considered. I keep getting mental images of the "Homer" doing 300km/h.

If they are determined to wrap drivers in cotton wool then slow the cars down to 100km/h and make them race on pushbike tyres - has the added advantage of not hurting pit lane reporters when they get hit by one.

Canopies for pit lane reporters perhaps? *strokes chin*

Now, that would work...

[Nem14]

The upper part of Niki Lauda's head got burnt because his helmet came off during one of the multiple collisions involved in his accident.
Niki Lauda's main medical issue was the searing heat and smoke he inhaled, not the burns to his head.

Again, closed cockpit drivers continue to receive lethal injuries.

Canopies on open cockpit cars create more safety issues than they solve.

[Daniel]

The upper part of Niki Lauda's head got burnt because his helmet came off during one of the multiple collisions involved in his accident.
Niki Lauda's main medical issue was the searing heat and smoke he inhaled, not the burns to his head.

Again, closed cockpit drivers continue to receive lethal injuries.

Canopies on open cockpit cars create more safety issues than they solve.

Lets dissect this post.....

1) If you have the canopy separating the driver from the fire or at least reducing the intensity, then I don't see how it would have made Lauda's injuries worse. I'm sorry but I do not follow this at all, it's a nonsensical argument.

2) If you're talking about Simonsen, an F1 car against armco which was more or less against a tree would have fared just as bad. The issue here with drivers in GT cars getting killed has nothing to do with the fact that their cars are closed cockpit cars is it? F1 cars are tremendously strong, stronger than GT cars, if we want to talk like for like, what about P1 prototypes?

McNish


Rockenfeller


Two mahooooooooooosive accidents in cars which have a similar standard of crash resistance to Formula 1 cars with them both being carbon fibre tubbed cars designed to shed bits and reduce the energy involved. That said, if an F1 car or one of the P1 prototypes had hit that tree reinforced armco at tertre rouge then it could well have been curtains for the driver in that car too. If we want to be silly and talk about open cockpit drivers you only need to look at Dan Wheldon and Henry Surtees to know that people can die in open cockpit cars also..... Just because people die in closed cockpit cars doesn't mean that it's the open cockpit nature of F1 cars is what makes them safe. That's spurious reasoning at its best!

3) How so? People always talk about extricating a driver in an upside down F1 car...... have you ever seen someone get out of an inverted open wheel car without a shedload of assistance?