Motor racing is dangerous. This is precisely what it says on the reverse side of every ticket as you enter a motor racing event. Safety of drivers, marshals and the general public has been an ongoing issue ever since the first fatality in a race. The latest significant injuries and fatalities in motor racing primarily involved head injuries. So it has surely become a no-brainer for the F1 closed cockpit solution. But it’s not quite so easy.
The F1 closed cockpit vs open cockpit debate
Firstly, any argument against closed cockpits which mentions the terms “sanitising”, “history”, “aesthetics” or equivalent should be immediately ignored. Having a roof over your head does not guarantee the safety of a driver. That is a given.
We were reminded of this to its full extent at the 2013 24 Hours of Le Mans, where we unfortunately lost Danish driver Allan Simonsen in the early stages of the race. More recently, Max Angelelli was taken to hospital following the conclusion of this year’s Daytona 24 Hours, having inhaled exhaust fumes whilst inside his closed cockpit Daytona Prototype. Loïc Duval was forced to miss the 24 Hours of Le Mans last year after a monster accident at the Porsche Curves too.
There is no way that putting a roof over the head of drivers in currently open cockpit cars would instantly sanitise their racing and the risks they put themselves in. As for the “history” debate, F1 has fallen behind other series in terms of innovation and advancement in technology as it is. Just with safety on the everyday roads, there is a lot of research and time put into trying to make it as safe as possible for everybody, and F1 should be no different.
Regardless of what those wearing rose-tinted glasses will say, any safety innovation must be at least acknowledged by F1 and by other series. Regarding how these things look, it really does not matter as long as it helps towards reducing the likelihood of a driver being injured or killed through being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
It’s not all so plain-sailing when arguing for the closed cockpit, however. Any concept which has been shared on social media as of the time of writing does not come without flaws. Whilst the obvious solution which involves a canopy would protect drivers from debris, a flipped over car would be seemingly impossible to escape from, which could well be absolutely disastrous in the event of a major fire.
It would also almost certainly have been redundant in the cases of Jules Bianchi’s and Dan Wheldon’s fatal accidents. However, in the cases of both of these drivers, new regulations have been put in place in their respective series in an attempt to avoid a repeat of these tragic deaths. The most popular and most likely proposed idea is the “halo” concept.
The immediate flaw with this concept is the exposure at the very top of the head. This would have not stopped the accidents which took the lives of Henry Surtees and Justin Wilson, solely because of the angle in which they were struck. As is the case with the previous example, getting out of the car in the event of being flipped over does not appear clear at all.
All in all, it seems like a half-hearted attempt in keeping the car an open cockpit, whilst improving the general safety around the head area, bar a few obvious areas. Visibility also seems to be an issue with this concept, and given how little visibility F1 cars have currently, reducing that further will not necessarily help safety either. Having sat in a LMP1 car myself, one thing which immediately grabbed my attention was the lack of visibility, so any roof idea or similar must take that into consideration, especially in an era where drivers complaining about a lack of visibility contributes to races being suspended fairly frequently in poor conditions.
Further head protection is something which is being looked into by the request of the drivers themselves. Given that those in charge fail to listen to the drivers when it comes to pretty much any other aspect of Formula 1, the very least those in charge could do is come up with the best solution regarding safety.
However, it should be argued that any innovation made in F1 regarding further head safety should easily be transferable to other series, such as IndyCar which has suffered two fatal accidents in the space of five years. There have been a number of near-misses in junior categories as well in recent years.
In the cases of Bianchi and Wheldon, where both drivers came into contact with something having lost control, the necessary things have been put in place since then to avoid a repeat of either situation. The debris issue which claimed the lives of Surtees and Wilson remains very much a major point of concern.
There have been far too many near-misses too in recent years too, such as Fernando Alonso at Spa in 2012 and Silverstone in 2013. But putting drivers at risk in other areas such as escaping a car points towards a need for a solution where we need minimal compromise. In some ways, it is a bit like the high/low nose debate which has gone on for a number of years now.
Having watched two fatal accidents involving direct blows to the head happen within the space of a few months, the last thing anybody would like to see is for a similar thing to happen again – especially so soon. Further head protection for drivers is an absolute must in the open cockpit world. We just need to find a sensible, universal solution to the problem with minimal compromise.
Whilst the solution itself if not so clear-cut, one thing which is clear is that drivers feel the need for further head protection in open cockpit cars, so those at the top must act in a sensible way to make this a reality.
Which iconic sports venue is highest on your bucket list? in LastWordOnSports’s Hangs on LockerDome
Main image:
