Should Formula 1 Be Considering Closed Cockpits?

F1 racing is not exciting. So that leaves technology. Does innovation in F1 racing trickle down to innovation in consumer vehicles? Hardly. If anything, seems to me that a bit of consumer safety innovation needs to trickle its way up to F1.

Oh, why don't we start with something we in the consumer world know as a "collision avoidance system", Terry.

This is a system in which information is received by the vehicle's computer which ultimately instructs one or more wheels on the vehicle to BRAKE. The source of the information can be radar, GPS, lidar, or TELEMEATICS.

I emphasize TELEMATICS because this is the simplest to implement and therefore the place I recommend the pathetic, arrogant, money-grubbing, hedonistic BOZOS who run F1 start. The telematics involved in F1 collision avoidance, for example, may or may not include a fucking button an observer in the admin booth can push to either fully or partially immobilize all the race cars if an obstacle such as a fucking TRUCK appears on the track.

If OnStar could do it in the fucking 90s, perhaps so too can Bernie Ecclestone in 2015.

OnStar can not help you avoid an accident, in the 90s or today. Onstar can turn off an engine, per authorization from their service reps via the authorities or owner, once the car comes to a complete stop.

Vehicles now have collision avoidance, but this is usually effective only in a straight line and not after "loss of traction" events.

By your comments, you don't seem to grasp the nature of Auto racing or desire to keep many automated control out of the cockpit.

"OnStar cannot help you avoid an accident"

No shit sherlock. I brought up OnStar to demonstrate how anitquated the concept of remote immobilization is.

Hence, the guy with the BUTTON in the booth. A collision was avoided, because the vehicle was

Any input that interferes with the driver's own input to avoid a collision can be considered collision avoidance. This includes something rudimentary like remote immobilization.

So - - - other racing venues use "collision avoidance systems", just not F1? These systems may work well at low speeds, but at 200 mph, I don't see how they can possible work and would be likely to cause accidents. In this case, to use you words, there wasn't even a "fucking TRUCK" on the track, it was far off the track. Don't blame the car, don't blame the driver, don't blame the safety F1 safety features, don't blame Bernie - - - blame race control. In a race, they are the immobilizer button and should have sent out a safety car.

Really now, do you believe F1 is less safe than any other race venues - - - or do you just have a hard-on for Bernie?

How is remote immobilization antiquated?

Secondly, what is your point?

You were/are wrong about F1 tech filtering down into production vehicles.

Jules' accident was a freak one that could have been avoided if:

- the race was started early
- the crane used to remove Sutil's car had "safety" skirts
- etc.

Also, Variable Valve Timing was taken from F1 and applied to consumer vehicles. The recent talk about Honda's return to F1 and Fernando's potential return to McLaren reminded me of this.

@ Terry989

That comment(s) was meant for Randy. I should have addressed them to him/her.

With comments like that, I don't believe you have ever watched a F1 race or understand the technology behind it. There hasn't been a Driver death in F1 since The last Ayrton Senna in 1994 and the last major injury was in July 2009 when Felipe Massa was hit on the helmet by a spring. Masa was out for the rest of the season but returned to F1 for the 2010 season. Name another major race organization with a better record.

Since you are the expert here, what consumer safety innovations should trickle down to F1 cars? Jules Bianchi ran head on into what was pretty much an immovable object at 140 mph. What consumer technology would have prevented the injury? He wasn't injured by an equipment failure or lack of safety equipment, he was injured by the G-forces generated by going from 144 mph to 0 in micro seconds.

First of all, your point is weak because freak accidents will always occur and NO vehicle is completely immune. Massa's accident can be likened to a light on an overpass, or ceiling tile, falling onto a vehicle. In this case, Felipe was able to survive because of his helmet and his conditioning. If a consumer were suffer the same accident, he/she would not survive because windshields are not subjected or designed to protect the driver in such a rare occurrence. Senna's accident, an ultimately his death, was caused by the impact of the wheel, not his loss of control.




Multi-point harnesses and better understanding of the optimal spacing of driver to wheel and pedals have filtered down from F1, and other forms of human to vehicle interaction, to consumer vehicles. You can also include optimal placement of important vehicle information and vehicle dynamics as features taken from F1 to consumers to help make driving safer.

So again, what is your point?

While I would enjoy the option of having a factory installed 3 to 5 point harness in my car, no manufacturer, aside from Volvo in concept form, has ever tried to incorporate them. This is due mainly to the fact that regulatory bodies do not mandate them.

As for Helmet tech, it has grown significantly stronger, lighter and better able to protect the driver/rider. Felipe's, and possibly Jules' accident, will prove this.

Due mainly to the weight and cost penalty, the only way to realistically protect a driver from those two types of impacts would be to completely enclose the passenger compartment(no glass) and have the driver see outward via panoramic display screens wrapped around the inside cabin with cameras position outside the vehicle that allow a 360 degree representation of the outside world with ZERO latency. This technology has not been perfected, you need only to ask the U.S. Air Force.

MorePower - - - I agree with you.

Note that my posting was sent at:
Posted on 10/13/2014 2:16:15 PM

My response was to address the original one from Randy and hopefully makes more sense to you in that context. I just forgot the select the "Reply to this comment" key the 1st time, so everything was out of order.

F1 doesn't need cockpits, but needs to address the exposure the driver's helmeted head has to foreign debris. This can be done by lowering the driver's seating position in the car, or "growing" the car around the driver's helmet to offer better protection.

The cost and weight needed to design a piece of plexi to be able to withstand a tire impact at 100+ mph is staggering.

I wonder if it would be possible for Randy to complete a sentence without using the "F" word? If so I think his relative IQ might be elevated considerably. Sounds like a 14 year old trying to impress adults with his ability to sound like a moron. I bet you can do better Randy. You may find that your comments are taken more seriously.