They were talking about that on the commentary whilst Wilson was being cared for. Provoked a mixed reaction about whether it is better to be trapped in a burning car upside down, or have it open and subject to flying debris. If you have closed cockpits, then surely you may as well be in WEC otherwise what is there to really distinguish the two?
Perhaps a way forward would be to look into revolutionary helmet design rather than closed cockpits (fire hazard)? Complex debate but a very important one.
I think it depends on whether you consider open cockpit or open wheels the key feature of the single seater look. An open wheel, closed cockpit design would still be different to WEC. Top Fuel Dragsters have used enclosed cockpits for a few years now: http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...y-antron-brown-don-schumacher-racing/1914579/ It's interesting to see some of their concerns, most notably peripheral vision. Obviously issues such as overheating, etc are avoided as the race is much shorter. They also apparently have a new fire suppression system the drivers appear to be comfortable with. To me, a burning car is more a risk from the past, whilst flying debris is much more a current issue. Whilst fires haven't been completely eradicated, I can't remember the last time we had one as part of a crash. Fires have tended to be engine failures, and the driver can pull over and make a quick escape, Heidfeld being the most recent example that comes to mind. Obviously a canopy would have slowed his egress, but if a canopy can be designed to allow a driver to exit within the current rules, I think it's a step forwards.
I think the problem with changing the helmet is the limitation in terms of energy absorbency. If you've a blunt object (spring, nose cone, wheel assembly, etc) hitting a helmet, the only way to stop all the energy being transferred is to either have the helmet ping the object off at an acute angle so little energy is transferred, or to include some kind of crumple zone such that absorbs energy. The first solution probably requires the whole helmet to have a slope to it, the second is going to require helmets to be larger at the front by at least a couple of inches, possibly more. Whether you could slow it enough in that distance I've no idea. But obviously the larger you make a helmet, the more unwieldy it gets, and the heavier. Weight obviously creates different issues in a collision. As you've said, complex but important debate.
Heat has a habit of warping things out of shape, the trouble is, whichever way you choose has a chance of something bad happening you hadn't taken into account, having some sort of bullet-proof windscreen which must be higher than the top of the drivers helmet would be my choice if a change were to be made
I think the answer lies in cockpit design rather than helmets to be honest. That Redbull concept that was drawn up a few years back is an ever closer reality.
When was the last time someone was trapped upside down in a burning car? It's like asking which is better, to have a cockpit open and subject to flying debris, or to be enclosed in a cockpit with an angry polar bear? The latter never happens.
If the closed cockpit cars looked anything like that render of the Williams and McLaren a few months back, there'd be no complaints on the fans side of things i think, please log in to view this image Obviously there are safety concerns that need addressed, visibility being one, how they react in the rain/in spray another, driver ventilation for hotter events like Malaysia, Extraction from certain accidents etc etc. People can throw the upside down burning car argument in, but it's not really valid with all the cutoff systems and safety fuel cells etc... and if for some reason everything failed, in an open cockpit they'd likely still be trapped, reckon their bulletproof safety cell is probably a better place to be than having the flames licking around their helmet.
FIA are going to carry out tests next month. http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/fia-set-to-carry-out-closed-cockpit-tests Rather than a fighter jet canopy, apparently there would be a series if vertical blades around the cockpit at different heights. Not sure what that means. Also, this concept Mercedes have apparently put forwards looks interesting: please log in to view this image
How confident would they be that a large piece of debris wouldn't break the shield and still cause injury to the driver?
similar to what I have in mind, but I would have a latticed titanium alloy 'chicken-wire' grid screening it, and not have that central support, otherwise that gap could act as a funnel straight into the drivers face.
Instead of a full enclosed cockpit. Why not a frontal protective screen with a strong hoop around the top. Like the merc picture above but with a strong screen. Most of the danger in the sport seems to be from the front. The only case from above is surtees Jr. But a strong structure could prevent a tyre having full impact. Also the biggest issue with a full canopy is driver escape access. Maybe make it easy to clip on if replacing when damaged or clipping off when getting out. Call it the Bandoguard
Interesting! Really, F1 and Indy should get thier combined brains together on this one and start sharing ideas. These designers and engineers can think their ways around any problem given the time and the green light. In the meantime, Indy needs to revert to the original aero spec of the DW12. There's been way too much crap stuck on these cars and too much has been falling off all season, so get rid and reduce the risk of another incident going forward.
Surely if they use a screen, they won't be able to race in the wet? Plus night races with lights will make it pretty much unseeable. I can see why they wanna test it, but I can't see it realistically working.
