On "Freak" Motorsport Accidents

"SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie" (sidewaysondirt) 08/27/2015 at 09:30 • Filed to: head protection, car crashes, safety, deaths

1

11

We keep seeing the same type of accident over and over again. Max Chilton, having lost multiple friends in fairly short succession to the same kind of injury has this to say:

“No matter how much we try to use the word ‘freak’ in order to try and ease the pain or understand such an incident. The reality is that if something happens more than once, we need to rethink the use of that word.”

I couldn’t agree more. When Henry Surtees lost his life, it was a freak accident. When Felipe Massa almost got killed by a spring from a Brawn, discussions started being made, but nothing happened. When Dan Wheldon flew headfirst into a pole, it was another “freak” accident. Same when Maria de Villota had hers. Jules Bianchi’s horrific crash in Japan seemed to really shake the tree for a moment, but the FIA report then came out which again said that the accident was unforseeable even though there were other similar accidents and close calls (one of which was ominously mentioned by Martin Brundle in the moments leading up to the crash about how the crane is right in the line of fire in the rain - yeah, unforeseeable my ass). We got the Virtual Safety Car out of it, which is a nice step in the right direction, but it’s reactive. It keeps a driver from being able to drive too fast like they’re programmed to (they’re race drivers - it’s their job to go as fast as they can go), but it doesn’t prevent the type of head injury that Jules died from in the first place. It prevents cars from sliding into a crane under yellows, but yellows were not present for any of the other accidents. The incidents in which debris could be flung across the track are typically the start of a yellow flag period, so the rule changes would not have prevented any of the prior accidents apart from Bianchi’s. Now Justin Wilson had another “freak” accident consisting of a severe head injury in an exposed cockpit. What are IndyCar suggesting? Nose cone tethers? Please! Nose cones are but one part of a car. Will every piece of body panel get tethers? What about when they fail? Should everything be double tethered? Tether the tether? Yes, you can maybe prevent the nose cone from being a projectile again, but the nose cone is not the problem. The way in which the driver’s heads are exposed is the problem. It is impossible to account for every part that can come off of a car or piece of equipment that the car can run into, but the problem is incredibly obvious and simple. The driver’s head in open-wheel motorsport is exposed and prone to impact. The motorsport community needs to decide if the risk is acceptable. Does the driver’s head get protected, or do we stick with “tradition” or say it’s impossible? These are hard decisions, but in the mean time these are not freak accidents. When you have five deaths at or near the top of motorsport over the course of six years due to head trauma, other similar accidents that luckily did not result in death (Massa, Alonso), and incredibly close calls over the years (Alonso Belgium 2012, Alonso Britain 2013, Kimi Austria 2015) there is nothing freak about it. Head injuries due to open cockpits have become routine, the most likely type of injury, and will continue to occur as long as the driver’s head continues to be exposed. RIP Justin Wilson. It’s a shame we keep losing them in the same way.

Dusty Ventures > SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie 08/27/2015 at 09:54

0

Not disagreeing with you at all, but a canopy wouldn't have been much help for Jules or Maria

SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie > Dusty Ventures 08/27/2015 at 10:15

0

With Jules, it probably wouldn’t have made a difference. Perhaps having at least some deflection from a canopy would have reduced what was ultimately a 256G impact for his head, but I’m not as sold on Maria de Villota. She wasn’t going terribly fast in her impact. She just happened to hit her helmet in just the right spot that the thin tailgate wedged between her visor and the helmet. I think a canopy would have prevented her accident.

Jayhawk Jake > SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie 08/27/2015 at 10:16

1

Maybe I’m in the wrong here, but in my opinion these drivers know they could die out there. It sucks but that’s the risk you take when you chose to make a living by driving a high performance race car at the limit.

While every measure should be taken to protect the drivers there’s ultimately a limit to what can be done. Would a closed cockpit help? Maybe, but now you add a barrier to emergency egress. You also would compromise the performance of the machine. At some point I'm afraid that the audience has to accept that danger to the drivers is a side effect of seeing them perform at the absolute limit, and the drivers certainly have to accept that they put their lives at risk every time they suit up.

uofime-2 > Jayhawk Jake 08/27/2015 at 11:20

1

Aren’t you an Aero engineer?

a canopy would help vehicle performance, yes it is a weight penalty, but it would massively reduce drag, more than enough to offset the weight penalty at a fast track

uofime-2 > SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie 08/27/2015 at 11:53

0

Tangent rant:

Everyone keeps going on about canopys, but that is actually a terrible idea. Canopys would be unsafe in a rollover.

They just need to go with a closed cockpit, fixed top and “doors” the side sills will need to be lowered, but that should be OK given the extra rigidity from the fixed top.

The cars will likely gain 50-100lbs and it is going to require a complete chassis redesign with 1-2 years minimum to implement unfortunately.

They’ll gain downforce and reduce drag so overall aero regulation as well as power regulations need to be rethought.

It will be a lot of work that needs to be done.

Jayhawk Jake > uofime-2 08/27/2015 at 12:09

0

I am. I stand by my statement.

In order to have a canopy that is in anyway strong enough to prevent a head injury from flying debris, it’s going to add quite a bit of weight. Especially once you add additional safety features to allow for quick removal of the canopy for emergency egress. Just slapping a canopy onto an F1 or Indy car isn’t going to make it perform better, they are highly optimized designs. Just adding a canopy doesn’t automatically ‘massively reduce drag’, the entire car would need to be redesigned around it.

SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie > uofime-2 08/27/2015 at 12:10

0

I don’t know that all of the canopy designs are bad. With the speed these cars go, it may not even have to be 100% enclosed. I see a number of options that could prevent the canopy from interfering with egress while also providing more safety. One is to have a somewhat passive removal option similar to the cockpit surrounds already present on F1 cars and IndyCars. If the top of the canopy is kept below the line formed between the top of the roll hoop and the front bulkhead, it will still be removable in most rollover situations unless the car is on very soft ground and manages to dig in. I can see the current cockpit surrounds causing a similar situation in that type of accident, and they need to be removed to pull the driver out. The other option I see is not a full canopy, but a forward windscreen. This would prevent items from entering the cockpit at speed since it could extend an inch or two above where the driver’s head is while not impacting egress. This could also remove the need for some of the other safety considerations presently in use. For example, the cockpit front and sides could be lowered to improve visibility and the cockpit surround which protects the side of the driver’s head could probably be done away with. If the design and cockpit opening were standardized, it could even improve egress pretty dramatically compared to today. I’m not as big of a fan of the roll hoop or halo designs. They seem to continue along the line of thinking that is present at the moment that making the driver’s head as hidden as possible is the way to go, which clearly isn’t working. We’re at a point now where just the very top of the helmet pops out and drivers can barely see where they’re going. Sticking more carbon fiber around that area doesn’t seem to be the answer.

uofime-2 > Jayhawk Jake 08/27/2015 at 12:25

1

I agree, of course the whole care would be redesigned around it, the idea of slapping a canopy on the current design is unsafe and ridiculous.

uofime-2 > SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie 08/27/2015 at 12:36

0

The forward windscreen is a pretty good 80% solution.

It is not as safe as and actual closed cockpit, but it could probably be implemented faster, doesn’t have the egress concerns and lets them keep the feel of the open cockpit cars.

I’m not sure how much they’re going to want to reduce the framing around the driver with the windscreen though because that’s going to be bad for chassis rigidity though.

SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie > uofime-2 08/27/2015 at 12:57

0

Yeah, but they also have the windscreen which they can use structurally at that point. That being said, if the structural rigidity of the last inch or so of the cockpit were that critical, the engineers would have been doing it before they became mandatory.

SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie > Jayhawk Jake 08/27/2015 at 14:24

0

I don’t think that anyone’s suggesting just slapping a canopy on and calling it a day. For what it’s worth, most F1 cars would be able to run well under the minimum weight if they were allowed to. In order to do it correctly, the regulations would need to be rewritten to accomodate the canopy. On the bright side, this could alleviate the requirement for some other safety features. For example, the cockpit surround that F1, IndyCar, GP2, and others use would no longer be necessary, the top of the monocoque could be lowered, the roll hoop could be integrated into it, etc. While adding a canopy with the existing cars would add weight, I don’t think that it would negatively impact performance if engineered into the regulations correctly. When Adrian Newey designed his no-rules cars for Gran Turismo, they all had closed cockpits because the aero advantage negated the weight penalty just like wings and diffusers do.