After this past weekend’s Australian Grand Prix all eyes are on Formula 1 once again, but not for the reason that we would like. Instead, we are faced with the Formula 1 closed cockpit problem. Any analysis of the 2016 season opener will include the terrifying accident that sent McLaren Honda driver Fernando Alonso flipping through the sand in a rapidly disintegrating race car. Ultimately, this will bring Formula 1’s safety back into the forefront of the public consciousness, as teams have been wondering what measures they can take to keep their drivers protected in the dangerous world of open-cockpit racing. To do this, Formula 1 should be looking to their fellow FIA-sanctioned rival WEC for guidance on protecting their driver’s heads and adopting closed-cockpit designs.
If it’s history you want, look no further than either Formula 1 or WEC’s Le Mans racing series. Both series are steeped in legend and prestige, but this comes at a price: fear of change. Take the most recent engine changes in F1 for example. A surprisingly large portion of the sport’s viewing audience said they’d never tune into an event again due to the fact that the engines were not as loud as they once were. This mindset is understandable in attempting to keep the traditional elements of the sport, but should not matter in driver safety. After his horrific accident in Melbourne, Alonso posted on his Instagram that he “spent some of the luck remaining in life” before going on to thank his team and the FIA for their safety regulations (source). Despite this gratitude to how far the sport has come in driver safety, the accompanying image of Alonso crawling out of what remains of the #14 Honda F1 car is nothing short of unsettling. This image highlights one of his own words: luck.
With endurance racing holding their own unique history, the question was brought up concerning their safety leading into the 2014 season. Previously, Le Mans Prototype cars were broken into open and closed-cockpit teams. That season it was required of all teams to design closed cockpit cars for the upcoming year. Obviously a reaction to safety concerns, the news had its detractors. Four-time 24 Hours of Le Mans winner Henri Pescarolo told Autoweek “I have always preferred open cars, even when I was driving, but most importantly I don’t like the idea of everyone being obliged to build the same type of car” (source). This is made worse by the fact that the lower LMP2 class was still able to use open-cockpit car designs. This concern reflected the fact that the series may become bland in having teams using near-identical designs (something that obviously would hold no issue in the tight constraints of Formula 1 cars) and take some of the character out of the series. Replace the word ‘character’ with ‘identity’, and you have the real reason for much of the closed-cockpit backlash in both formula and endurance racing.
It cannot be denied that the closed-cockpit style of Le Mans Prototype cars has seen an increase in driver safety and has coincided with the sport’s growing fanbase. This shows that the uniform car designs have not had a negative effect on the sport’s fans. This successful change, coupled with the fatal head injuries of Formula 1 driver Jules Bianchi and IndyCar driver Justin Wilson (formerly of F1), have prompted Formula 1 to begin testing of a ‘halo’. This new design has been described as both successful and hideous, but it is a start. Red Bull Racing has proposed their own version of the halo, which closer resembles the windshield of a convertible. These designs would keep Formula 1 cars classified as open-cockpit while blocking debris that could strike drivers in the face, the type of impacts that their helmets cannot adequately protect against. Although this is obviously a move forward for the sport’s safety, there is still an undying desperation to keep Formula 1 rooted in its open-cockpit past. At this point, it has to be decided if it is more important to protect the sport’s image or its drivers. Typically, Formula 1 is referred to as open-WHEEL racing, rather than open-cockpit. Closing the cockpit is not the start of a slippery slope that will turn Formula 1 cars into LMP1 clones, rather it would allow the engineers to focus more on the performance of the cars and excitement of the series once questions surrounding the driver’s safety can be put aside.
Of course, there are far more concerns facing the closing of F1 cockpits apart from cosmetic or identity issues. One of those is the issue of visibility. In Le Mans, there have been several accidents comparable to that of Alonso’s Australian GP crash that have possibly been brought on by lack of visibility. One of those was Allan McNish’s accident in the 2011 24 Hour of Le Mans, in which McNish’s contact with a slower competitor seemed inexplicable from a driver of his ability. Whether or not the accident would have been avoidable in an open-cockpit is debatable, but whether or not injury would have been avoidable is not. An issue that was brought up almost immediately with these large accidents, and an issue that has been prevalent in NASCAR for years, is that if cars land the wrong way, drivers could become trapped in overturned cars whereas open-cockpits allow drivers to slip out. This has yet to prove much of an issue in endurance racing, with small doors on either side of the car’s cockpits, and Formula 1’s halo designs could just as easily trap a driver in an upside down car. Not all of Formula 1 is afraid of this change, as Alonso’s team McLaren Honda presented their own idea of a closed-cockpit F1 design: the MP4-X (source). This design shows that once driver safety is as guaranteed as it can be, the team engineers are free to put their imaginations towards incredible machines to a standard only the pinnacle of motorsport can maintain.
Based on the rising success of endurance racing and the demand for greater driver safety, Formula 1 has a lot they can learn from WEC. They may not like to admit it, but after Fernando Alonso’s shocking Australian Grand Prix accident, they need to seek outside help even if it is from a rival series. Lifelong fans of Formula 1 may have an issue with the sport having to evolve in this way, but it’s hardly the first time the sport has had a major overhaul, and this progression would be a noble one. The topic has come up more and more in recent seasons, and for good reason. The buffer space from Ayrton Senna’s fatal accident in 1994 after which F1 boasted no more fatal accidents has been lost, and that has provided a lesson that must be learned. A lesson that WEC and Le Mans racing could teach Formula 1.
Main Photo:
