AUTOSPORT's technical expert GARY ANDERSON answers your questions on F1 safety in the wake of Jules Bianchi's horrific Japanese Grand Prix crash
Many can see the benefits of closed cockpits in F1. What is your view?
Will Tyson, via Twitter
I would rather change the question around and give you my views on driver head protection in general.
First of all, it is important to compare a side view of a current Formula 1 car with an early 1980s, 1990s and a 2000 car. This will show the progress that has already been made. But that said, safety improvements should never stop.
To answer your question, yes I do believe head protection needs to be improved. If I was trying to do this, I would be looking at an increased screen height, with the front and sides of it being the same height as the headrest beside the driver's head.
This would still leave F1 as an open-cockpit formula, albeit with a much smaller opening, but it would still allow the driver to get out without removing anything.
The minimum cockpit opening in the chassis is defined by the FIA, so with a little fiddling of the numbers the screen could also be a defined FIA component that all the teams must use.
This could then be made by a specialist company. Doing it his way should keep the costs to a realistic level and you might even be able to find a company that would see F1 as a reasonable market to show its wares in such a specialist area.
The rest of the answer fits in with the next question.
Would a closed cockpit have reduced the risk in the case of Jules Bianchi's accident?
@welshracer, via Twitter
I have not seen the accident in enough detail to comment on this in any depth, but anything that could have deflected his head or the car just that little bit would help reduce the g levels imposed on his brain.
In any accident, centimetres can be the difference between life and death. It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to simulate the difference an improved screen would make, but that doesn't mean it is not worth doing.
My first step, as detailed above, is more for deflection of things like wheels, or car components like the spring that hit Felipe Massa in Hungary in 2009.
Drivers look vulnerable and exposed pre-'95 but at the time it looked OK. Does anything stand out now as a problem that might not be obvious?
@mrmarkf1, via Twitter
Current technology is always seen as cliff-face engineering, but I am sure if you look back in 20 years you will see things on the current cars that make you cringe.
It's not the going fast that is the problem, it is the stopping quickly. Anything that can be done to ease the deceleration of a car in an accident will always help reduce the risk to the driver.
Personally, I am not a big believer in the low noses we have this year. I believe the nose crash area and the rear crash structure should be at the centre of the wheels.
This would give the best protection from flying over another car or from submarining under another car or tyre barrier.
Slow zones: yes or no?
@goonerf1, via Twitter
Yes, yes, yes. So, how is this achieved? If I was in charge I would have made changes in Russia.
Firstly, I would have made it mandatory for two yellow-flag zones before an accident instead of one. After an accident location, I would have another yellow-flag zone and then a green at the next zone instead of an immediate one.
This would mean the incident zone would be longer, but it would allow the marshals to do their job without always looking over their shoulders.
Secondly, I would have implemented the immediate use of the pit speed limiter in any yellow-flag zone. When the driver enters the first yellow-flag zone, he presses the button on his steering wheel and his maximum speed is reduced to a safe level - I would suggest 100km/h - when he reaches the green flag he resets the limiter and off he goes.
Doing this means there is no compulsion to just go that little bit faster.
As a final incentive for the driver to obey the change in regulations, if the data during the race or after the race showed that the driver didn't comply with the speed control in the yellow-flag area he would be immediately disqualified from this event and the next one, no pitlane drive-throughs for me.
Lots of talk since Jules Bianchi's accident has been about not implementing any changes based on kneejerk reactions. Can you recall any times that F1 did make kneejerk reactions that - either at the time or with hindsight – shouldn't have been done?
Gary Deservham, via email
From my point of view F1 is actually too often guilty of not reacting rather than over-reacting.
In the past, there have been changes made that weren't the right way to fix a given problem. But as long as these are identified and rectified as quickly as possible, then something better will always come out of it.
We learn something new every day and F1 is, or should be, at the cutting edge of technology. I don't believe that the group of very intelligent engineers that make up the F1 grid should ever make knee-jerk reactions, but they do need to react to what they have learned or seen on any given day and make calm and calculated changes to address the problems.
After all, that's what teams do as far as a car's development direction, or indeed problems within their own teams, are concerned.
It just seems to be when they all get together as a group, and I have been part of that group, getting something done is nearly impossible.
What was the single most important improvement in driver safety during your time in F1?
Mark Lovas, via Twitter
Without doubt the improvement in fire protection. This stems from the fuel-tank developments, the chassis structure around the fuel tank and the driver's fire-suit protection. Everything has moved on an incredible amount.
I was at Zandvoort in 1973 on that terrible day when Roger Williamson lost his life. Fire is the one thing that every F1 driver of that era, and even a lot later, feared. And justifiably so.
Will engineers always find ways to get around safety changes for performance reasons? You and Adrian Newey both produced cars in 1996 for the cockpit rules that looked like they might have been less safe than some of the others like Benetton and Ferrari?
Ben Church, via email
That is why F1 engineers are employed: to find the loopholes or grey areas. Competition is tough and the headrest interpretations that Adrian and I came up with were very different from each other.
I remember sitting in the Technical Working Group meeting and when the change of regulation came up for discussion, I rubbed my hands together and immediately thought of what we could do.
I still think it was a lot better than the 'skip' style design that Ferrari came up with. Can you imagine, with that design, a spring coming at your head as happened to Massa in Hungary? You would have no way of trying to move your head out of the way.
I remember Eddie Irvine and Michael Schumacher having to hold their heads to the side to try to get a better performance out of the air box intake. Was that safer than our design at Jordan?
Ross Brawn was very vocal in Australia with regard to our design and I believe he stepped over the line when he said to the British press that I was jeopardising Martin Brundle's life. Actually, he was just pissed off that Jordan, a nobody team, had found a better solution. Just look at the following year: who copied who?
As I said to him at the time, those who live in glass houses should be very careful when throwing stones...
Do you think Max Verstappen will be regretting the decision to move into F1 at 17 following Jules Bianchi's accident?
Ellie Bartley, via Twitter
No, I don't think so. He has total belief in himself and it will be his level of talent that will make or break him, not his age. He has been driving competitively since he was six so that's eleven years of experience. Takuma Sato didn't start driving until he was 20, so when he arrived in F1 he had a lot less experience than Max.
If you look at Bianchi's accident it was a set of circumstances that led to his injury; Max and those around him will know that.
With all the normal safety criteria in place, Adrian Sutil crashed at that corner, hit the barrier and stepped out of the car completely uninjured. A lap later, Jules crashed and suffered very serious injuries.
The difference between these two accidents was the introduction of a completely unprotected tractor at the scene of the accident.
Crash-barrier protection has come on leaps and bounds during the past 30 years. But tractors have stayed the same. That, in reality, is why Jules Bianchi is fighting for his life.
AUTOSPORT's technical expert GARY ANDERSON answers your questions on F1 safety in the wake of Jules Bianchi's horrific Japanese Grand Prix crash
Many can see the benefits of closed cockpits in F1. What is your view?
Will Tyson, via Twitter
I would rather change the question around and give you my views on driver head protection in general.
First of all, it is important to compare a side view of a current Formula 1 car with an early 1980s, 1990s and a 2000 car. This will show the progress that has already been made. But that said, safety improvements should never stop.
To answer your question, yes I do believe head protection needs to be improved. If I was trying to do this, I would be looking at an increased screen height, with the front and sides of it being the same height as the headrest beside the driver's head.
This would still leave F1 as an open-cockpit formula, albeit with a much smaller opening, but it would still allow the driver to get out without removing anything.
The minimum cockpit opening in the chassis is defined by the FIA, so with a little fiddling of the numbers the screen could also be a defined FIA component that all the teams must use.
This could then be made by a specialist company. Doing it his way should keep the costs to a realistic level and you might even be able to find a company that would see F1 as a reasonable market to show its wares in such a specialist area.
The rest of the answer fits in with the next question.
Would a closed cockpit have reduced the risk in the case of Jules Bianchi's accident?
@welshracer, via Twitter
I have not seen the accident in enough detail to comment on this in any depth, but anything that could have deflected his head or the car just that little bit would help reduce the g levels imposed on his brain.
In any accident, centimetres can be the difference between life and death. It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to simulate the difference an improved screen would make, but that doesn't mean it is not worth doing.
My first step, as detailed above, is more for deflection of things like wheels, or car components like the spring that hit Felipe Massa in Hungary in 2009.
Drivers look vulnerable and exposed pre-'95 but at the time it looked OK. Does anything stand out now as a problem that might not be obvious?
@mrmarkf1, via Twitter
Current technology is always seen as cliff-face engineering, but I am sure if you look back in 20 years you will see things on the current cars that make you cringe.
It's not the going fast that is the problem, it is the stopping quickly. Anything that can be done to ease the deceleration of a car in an accident will always help reduce the risk to the driver.
Personally, I am not a big believer in the low noses we have this year. I believe the nose crash area and the rear crash structure should be at the centre of the wheels.
This would give the best protection from flying over another car or from submarining under another car or tyre barrier.
Slow zones: yes or no?
@goonerf1, via Twitter
Yes, yes, yes. So, how is this achieved? If I was in charge I would have made changes in Russia.
Firstly, I would have made it mandatory for two yellow-flag zones before an accident instead of one. After an accident location, I would have another yellow-flag zone and then a green at the next zone instead of an immediate one.
This would mean the incident zone would be longer, but it would allow the marshals to do their job without always looking over their shoulders.
Secondly, I would have implemented the immediate use of the pit speed limiter in any yellow-flag zone. When the driver enters the first yellow-flag zone, he presses the button on his steering wheel and his maximum speed is reduced to a safe level - I would suggest 100km/h - when he reaches the green flag he resets the limiter and off he goes.
Doing this means there is no compulsion to just go that little bit faster.
As a final incentive for the driver to obey the change in regulations, if the data during the race or after the race showed that the driver didn't comply with the speed control in the yellow-flag area he would be immediately disqualified from this event and the next one, no pitlane drive-throughs for me.
Lots of talk since Jules Bianchi's accident has been about not implementing any changes based on kneejerk reactions. Can you recall any times that F1 did make kneejerk reactions that - either at the time or with hindsight – shouldn't have been done?
Gary Deservham, via email
From my point of view F1 is actually too often guilty of not reacting rather than over-reacting.
In the past, there have been changes made that weren't the right way to fix a given problem. But as long as these are identified and rectified as quickly as possible, then something better will always come out of it.
We learn something new every day and F1 is, or should be, at the cutting edge of technology. I don't believe that the group of very intelligent engineers that make up the F1 grid should ever make knee-jerk reactions, but they do need to react to what they have learned or seen on any given day and make calm and calculated changes to address the problems.
After all, that's what teams do as far as a car's development direction, or indeed problems within their own teams, are concerned.
It just seems to be when they all get together as a group, and I have been part of that group, getting something done is nearly impossible.
What was the single most important improvement in driver safety during your time in F1?
Mark Lovas, via Twitter
Without doubt the improvement in fire protection. This stems from the fuel-tank developments, the chassis structure around the fuel tank and the driver's fire-suit protection. Everything has moved on an incredible amount.
I was at Zandvoort in 1973 on that terrible day when Roger Williamson lost his life. Fire is the one thing that every F1 driver of that era, and even a lot later, feared. And justifiably so.
Will engineers always find ways to get around safety changes for performance reasons? You and Adrian Newey both produced cars in 1996 for the cockpit rules that looked like they might have been less safe than some of the others like Benetton and Ferrari?
Ben Church, via email
That is why F1 engineers are employed: to find the loopholes or grey areas. Competition is tough and the headrest interpretations that Adrian and I came up with were very different from each other.
I remember sitting in the Technical Working Group meeting and when the change of regulation came up for discussion, I rubbed my hands together and immediately thought of what we could do.
I still think it was a lot better than the 'skip' style design that Ferrari came up with. Can you imagine, with that design, a spring coming at your head as happened to Massa in Hungary? You would have no way of trying to move your head out of the way.
I remember Eddie Irvine and Michael Schumacher having to hold their heads to the side to try to get a better performance out of the air box intake. Was that safer than our design at Jordan?
Ross Brawn was very vocal in Australia with regard to our design and I believe he stepped over the line when he said to the British press that I was jeopardising Martin Brundle's life. Actually, he was just pissed off that Jordan, a nobody team, had found a better solution. Just look at the following year: who copied who?
As I said to him at the time, those who live in glass houses should be very careful when throwing stones...
Do you think Max Verstappen will be regretting the decision to move into F1 at 17 following Jules Bianchi's accident?
Ellie Bartley, via Twitter
No, I don't think so. He has total belief in himself and it will be his level of talent that will make or break him, not his age. He has been driving competitively since he was six so that's eleven years of experience. Takuma Sato didn't start driving until he was 20, so when he arrived in F1 he had a lot less experience than Max.
If you look at Bianchi's accident it was a set of circumstances that led to his injury; Max and those around him will know that.
With all the normal safety criteria in place, Adrian Sutil crashed at that corner, hit the barrier and stepped out of the car completely uninjured. A lap later, Jules crashed and suffered very serious injuries.
The difference between these two accidents was the introduction of a completely unprotected tractor at the scene of the accident.
Crash-barrier protection has come on leaps and bounds during the past 30 years. But tractors have stayed the same. That, in reality, is why Jules Bianchi is fighting for his life.
