There is an inevitable question raised in the aftermath of any accident where the driver of an open cockpit car suffers a head injury. ‘Should closed cockpits be used instead of open ones, and indeed why are open cockpits used at all?’

This question was raised in the wake of the fatal accidents suffered by Dan Wheldon and Henry Surtees and the near fatal accident of Felipe Massa. More recently Jules Bianchi’s horrific crash at the Japanese Grand Prix, Maria De Villota testing crash in England and the death of Justin Wilson has again brought the topic to the table.

Indeed for 2017 additional cockpit protection systems have been included in the draft technical regulations though the details of them is vague at best. Despite this a number of designs have been subjected to both static and dynamic tests.

‘We should at least check and try or test the idea of closed cockpits’ Fernando Alonso told the press following Bianchi’s crash. ‘We have the technology, we have aeroplanes, we have had many other samples that they use in a successful way so why not think about it? All the biggest accidents in motor sport over the last couple of years have been head injuries so it’s probably one part where we are not at the top of safety.’

Open cockpits have been part of Formula 1 and other open wheel classes since the birth of the sport, of a time it was felt that it would be quicker to get out of a car on fire with an open cockpit, but then that was the same argument used against having seat belts fitted.

Today open cockpits remain largely for reasons of tradition and that has a significant impact. ‘If you look at Formula One cars since the beginning of Formula One and open-wheeled racing, I think it’s one of the things that are very special about Formula One’ explained Sebastian Vettel following Bianchi’s crash.



Open cockpits give the sport the benefit of driver identity, your favourite drivers helmet should be distinctive, and often the only way to tell two team cars apart, it also offers a perception (and reality) of danger, one of the key draws to the sport. But some would argue that these emotional, historical and marketing reasons are not ones good enough to endanger drivers.

What then would be required to introduce closed cockpits into Formula 1 and other series like it? ‘From a technical point of view it’s something very easy to implement,’ Rob Smedley of Williams F1 claims. ‘It would change the look of Formula One cars, which I guess there is an aesthetic argument for. They are open-wheel, open-cockpit racing cars. It’s something that we’ve looked at in lots of the Technical Working Group meetings. It’s something that has all come about from 2009 when Felipe had his accident.’

A bit of background

Formula 1 cockpit safety has increased hugely over the years, from a time where a drivers shoulders and upper body were visible from the side of the car to today where only a portion of their head can be seen.



There has been a significant increase to the head protection in the last two decades, a process that was started largely as a direct response to the events of the 1994 season that saw both Roland Ratzenberger and Ayrton Senna lose their lives. Today the cockpit sides are significantly higher than they were, to the point where lateral visibility is limited.



Research to date

The FIA Institute has undertaken significant research in this area, and has looked at the drivers helmets, and cockpits in an attempt to increase safety.

Closed cockpits have been on the agenda for some time now, and the FIA institute has already conducted substantial research in this area. Its project was started largely in response to a pair of accidents where drivers were hit in the head by debris from other cars. The then Ferrari driver, Felipe Massa suffered very serious injury in 2009 after being hit by a suspension spring while Henry Surtees sadly lost his life when he was hit by a wheel and upright during an F2 race.

At the long abandoned RAF Bentwaters airfield near Ipswich the FIA conducted a number of tests to see what effect a closed cockpit might have, and how it would deal with the scenario that cost the life of Surtees.

The aim was simple: to fire a Formula One wheel and tyre, together weighing 20kg, at 225km/h into, first, a polycarbonate windshield and, second, a jet fighter canopy made from aerospace-spec polycarbonate, and measure what happens.

The base point of the testing was known data from the effect of a bird-strike into a jet fighter canopy which assumes a 1.8kg bird impacting more than 1000km/h, creating energy of 73 kilojoules. Today’s fighter canopies, such as that used in the tests at Bentwaters are designed to resist this type of impact without discernable damage.



But Formula 1 cars are more likely to hit larger, more solid objects with a greater mass at a lower speed. In the case of the Bentwaters tests a wheel and tyre with some upright assembly attached, totalling around 20kg.

The results can be seen in the videos above, the firing into the 30mm-thick triple-layer (3x10mm) polycarbonate windshield resulted in it being shattered as it deflected the wheel and tyre assembly. The canopy, however, deflected the wheel assembly suffering no permanent deformation.

A third concept was tested during a second phase of testing at Bentwaters, it used a titanium roll-hoop structure manufactured and supplied by the Lotus F1 team. The roll-hoop could theoretically be fitted to a car from the front edge of the cockpit opening to the point where the nose section meets the front bulkhead,with a peak height 100mm above the top of the helmet, so forming an impact-deflecting barrier ahead of the driver.



It performed well in the tyre impact scenario but has some notable shortcomings, but the projects leader Andy Mellor is at pains to point out that what was tested were far from final concepts. ‘At this stage it’s almost pure research, which we need if we’re to understand what the loads are in such impacts, we’re not at all looking at final solutions as such. The work is absolutely exploratory and we are beginning to understand the mechanisms in order to protect a driver’s head in this kind of impact. This is the next step in a very detailed process.’



Other research has been conducted by private groups including the now defunct Lola Cars which used its unraced 2010 MB-01 Formula 1 design to evaluate everything from cockpits with removable driver capsules to fighter jet style canopies. One concept (above), not dissimilar to the design tested by the FIA at Bentwaters saw a polycarbonate screen wrap around the cockpit and remaining open at the top.



Another refinement of this concept (above) saw the car fitted with a smaller screen ahead of the cockpit and an additional safety hoop above the drivers head, this would protect from debris and intrusion from above and ahead but not from oblique angles.



A discussion article published in Racecar Engineering magazine in early 2010 came to the conclusion that the general feeling among racecar designers was that closed cockpits could make cars less safe overall. You can read that report in full by clicking on the front cover above.

In 2015 three new solutions were tested by the FIA using the same technique with the wheel and tyre assembly at Bentwaters.



The first of these concepts was the much discussed ‘Halo’ a metal ring mounted above the drivers head with a frontal stay.



The next solution was a set of fins ahead of the cockpit, three variants of this were tested and all were fairly effective.



The final variant tested used three composite ‘wires’ running over the drivers head, in an impact the deflect and act like the cables on a cable car, but clearly this solution raises questions about driver extrication.



Red Bull Racing has proposed a concept which is quite similar to one of the initial designs tested by the FIA at Bentwaters. That shattered when hit with a tyre so it will be very interesting to see how the Red Bull version performs. It seems likely that the screen will cause some level of visual distortion and it does not seem to have any method of dealing with rain droplets or build up of dirt and debris.

Could any of these concepts be employed in F1?

Closing the cockpits of Formula 1 cars (or indeed Indycars) would have a number consequences that would need to be considered. The titanium structure designed by the Lotus F1 Team aloong with the ‘Halo’ are probably the simplest of the proposals to implement, though they would both require a notably different monocoque design on the cars with additional mounting points and bulkheads for the structure.



One obvious limitation is visibility, having such a large structure ahead of the driver is certain to impede his vision, in turn raising the risk of a crash. Visibility is a key concern and reducing it can clearly lead to accidents. The Halo has been tested by Ferrari at Barcelona (above) and on a GP2 Dallara, the drivers claim it is not an issue but history suggests otherwise.

This is an issue that has been faced in Le Mans Prototypes in recent years. LMP’s are the top level of closed cockpit cars and are not all that different to Formula 1 cars in engineering terms. The chassis construction is not that dissimilar, though the cockpits are much wider and the monocoques somewhat heavier (though perhaps not as much as one may presume).

The roofs on the cars serve as part of the cars roll over structure, and to ensure that they can withstand the loads dictated by the crash test regulations they tend to feature a thick support pillar ahead of the driver. This causes a significant reduction in visibility and poor visibility is though to have been a major contributing factor in Allan McNish’s accident at Le Mans in 2011 (below).



Even if the cockpit is not fully enclosed as with the windscreens tested by the FIA and the similar Lola Concept there is another visibility issue that would need to be addressed and that is distortion caused by the curvature of the screen. It is something suffered to a limited extent by Le Mans Prototypes, but they are notably wider than F1 cars and the narrower the cockpit the greater the visual distortion.



A more relevant area to investigate is World War 2 fighter aircraft canopy design. Many aircraft of this era such as the Messerschmitt Bf109, Mitsubishi A6M and Hawker Hurricane used a greenhouse style canopy with many small panes of glass with minimum curvature but a few such as the famous Supermarine Spitfire and Hawker Tempest used bubble canopies. These aircraft suffered from significant visual distortion according to pilots, this distortion was a minor issue in dogfights where the distance between aircraft was often over 100 metres, but in a wheel to wheel battle in F1 where cars are separated by 10mm that distortion could be critical.

If the distortion is resolved then the build up of dirt on the screen can be an issue, most closed cars contesting the World Endurance Championship use giant windscreen tear offs to deal with this, but its far from perfect. In wet conditions those cars are also equipped with windscreen wipers, something a closed or enlarged windscreen F1 design would have to consider.



One implication of introducing a fully enclosed cockpit, or indeed the almost fully enclosed concepts is a resulting reduction in overall drag and better airflow to the rear wing, not so badly disrupted by the cockpit and roll hoop. This could lead to notably higher straight line speeds and potentially higher cornering speeds both of which could be a factor in the severity of crashes, and the requirements of the circuits themselves.

A more obvious implication harks back to the days when open cockpits and no seat belts were considered safer as a driver could get out of a burning car faster. But there is a reality to that which needs to be considered. If a cockpit is fully enclosed then how would it open? An F16 style forward opening canopy would be little use if the car was either upside down or buried in a tyre wall. As any seasoned marshal will tell you if a car is upside down, then it should never be righted with the driver inside due to the risk of making any head or spinal injuries even worse.



Perhaps an older style aircraft canopy that would slide backwards such as seen on a Hawker Hurricane would be an option but it would have to accommodate the roll hoop, something that would not be straightforward to do if it were to retain its structural properties. If the roll hoop was to be placed under the canopy then the engine air inlet and some cooling ducts would have to be relocated. But even this layout is vulnerable to crash damage, or issues with a stuck mechanism. A memorable scene from the 1969 film ‘Battle of Britain’ shows a Hurricane pilot being badly burnt when the canopy on his burning aircraft jams. LMPs get around this by having a pair of doors one of either side of the cockpit, not likely an option for F1.



Another consideration of the fully enclosed F16 style cockpit or similar concepts is the drivers condition inside the bubble so to speak. In a fighter aircraft pilots have an oxygen mask on so that they are always able to breathe, in LMP cars the cockpits are air conditioned so that the occupant does not overheat, though often they come close.

Almost all of these things, windscreens, canopies, additional crash structures, wipers, and air conditioning will increase the weight of the cars and in a series with a very tight weight distribution limit and total weight limit this too could become an issue.

The main contenders in 2017

After experimentation throughout 2016 with the ‘Halo’ and the ‘Aeroscreen’ a new solution dubbed the ‘Shield’ made its debut at Silverstone in 2017. Similar to the Aeroscreen the new device was aesthetically more pleasing according to onlookers however initial feedback indicated that there were indeed issues with visual distortion as well as reflections. Further testing was clearly required but by July 2017 time was running out for implementation of the Shield in 2018.



The Shield is made of a polymeric material supplied by Isoclima, but the exact shape, dimensions and thickness were not defined at the Silverstone test and at least four variants had been developed with only one trialled by Ferrari ahead of the British Grand Prix.



If the Shield design is not finalised ahead of the summer break it seems certain that the 2018 cars will be fitted with the controversial Halo system.

Conclusion: Could closed cockpits be introduced to F1?

Introducing closed cockpits or partially closed cockpits to Formula 1 is certainly possible, but it may well not be desirable for both aesthetic, engineering and safety reasons. It is certainly debatable whether they would actually make Formula 1 any safer, in some scenarios it could be argued that they would increase the danger, but in others such as that of Henry Surtees it seems likely that a closed car would have saved a human life.

It should not however be assumed that just by adding structures to a car that it is safer, many of the concepts mooted in the media would likely have made no difference to the accident that befell Jules Bianchi. It should be noted that the roll over structure on his Marussia MR03 was torn off the chassis almost instantly, despite being designed to withstand five tonnes laterally, six tonnes longitudinally and nine tonnes vertically without deforming more than 50mm in a test environment, not the impact with the engine compartment of a stationary tractor. It seems logical that any canopy on an F1 car would have to withstand the same criteria as the roll hoops already do.

Closed cars can also have roll hoops and windscreens torn off in accidents as Loic Duval’s smash at Le Mans in 2014 showed, fortunately he was not seriously hurt. It is also worth highlighting that the canopy of a F16, it is designed to withstand a 2,000kph bird strike not a piece of heavy machinery at 100mph. Something the FIA Institute report points out.

While many fairly casually discuss the introduction of closed cockpits into Formula 1, suggesting that it is fairly straightforward, the aim of this article was to highlight that there are some notable and unresolved engineering challenges in doing so.

Danil Kvyat, when asked about closed cockpits has the final word; ‘I think now, when these kind of things happen, you have to take a little break and calculate everything, try everything and calculate what would be the best solution. Like everyone else said, why not but it has to be tried and has to be very well calculated.’