Save the Open Cockpit Racecars

So I was on the internet the other day, and I found this.  (Yes, I know that’s not how the Top Gear joke goes, but I’m lazy).  I also found an article in Race Car Engineering (a magazine that takes its motorsport commentary a lot more seriously than I do) on the subject of closed cockpit F1 cars.  To boil the argument down to its essence, F1 and Indy Car drivers are racing at 200 plus miles an hour, with their heads sticking out of the cars like a Golden Retriever riding in a convertible, which puts the driver’s at additional risk.  This is what happened in Jules Bianchi’s crash at last year’s Japanese Grand Prix, and was responsible for Dan Wheldon’s tragic death in 2011.

I’m a firm believer that for the good of racing, racing needs to be as safe as possible.  The day racing becomes a blood sport is the day we lose racing.  But I still want to keep the roofs off of the cars and keep the drivers acting like Labradors having the time of their lives.  Simply put, open cockpit racecars adds excitement to the race by letting you see the driver at work.

Take a look at two pictures I took at this year’s Rolex 24 to see what I’m talking about.  The first picture is of a prototype challenge car, the only open cockpit left in top tier American sports car racing.  The second picture is of A GTLM Aston Martin. 

An open cockpit prototype challenge car.  Believe it or not, this Sponge Bob Square Paints painted car took pole in PC class.  Shortly after qualifying, all the other PC drivers committed ritual suicide.

A GTLM Aston Martin.

I’ve never been a huge fan of prototype challenge.  It’s a pro-am class, which means it must be shunned and hated by the auto-racing master race, but sitting in the stands, I couldn’t take my eyes off these cars, and it was because I could see the driver, not because one was sporting a Sponge Bob Square Paints livery.  You could see the drivers heads tilting to side under cornering forces.  It added an element of drama to the watching cars, while the closed cockpit cars might as well have been driven by Skynet.

Racing has a long tradition of open cockpit cars, and if the open cockpit car dies, racing will have lost something special, but tradition alone isn't enough of a reason to keep the roofs off the cars, I think there's a good marketing reason for open cockpit cars.  Some of us, the target audience of this blog, are fascinated with the technical aspect of racing.  While people like us have our favorite drivers, we also love the cars.  In my case, I'm more interested in the cars, and the design of the cars, then the people driving them, but I think I'm in the minority.  I think that most people, especially more casual fans that we need in order to grow the sport, are more fascinated by the drivers, and an open cockpit car puts the drivers closer to the fans.  It adds an extra level of excitement and drama to the racing, and excitement helps sell the product, especially among people who don't really understand the difference between out breaking and out breaking yourself.

I could keep rambling on, but I don't feel like I'm really making a good case for the survival of the open cockpit car, so let me boil the argument down to it's most basic element.  Open cockpit cars are cool, don't get rid of them.

Let's Hear it for Spec Racing!

Hello dear reader (as in singular, because I'm pretty sure there is only one of you).  As you've probably figured out by now, I read a lot of racing media, because, let's be honest, RACER isn't going to plagiarize their content for me.  And speaking of RACER, I've been enjoying their ongoing "IndyCar 2018" series of interviews and editorials.  If you haven't read this series yet, it is the opinions of various people in the American Open Wheel racing scene commenting on what IndyCar needs to do to be successful when they introduce their 2018 car, but this article really isn't about IndyCar 2018, instead it is about something I see in the comments sections of articles about IndyCar, F1, WEC, IMSA, and probably lawnmower racing if I bothered to read about that.  What I'm talking about is car development.

A lot of the commenter' I see claim that IndyCar's problem is that it's basically a spec series these days, and if IndyCar would simply let the teams develop jet powered super cars with frickin' laser beams attached to their head everything would be better.  If only IndyCar would embrace the idea of open development, then people who have no idea what month the Indy 500 is held would suddenly flock to IndyCar like people racing for the last servings of soylent green.  And that thinking is all wrong.

I'm focused a lot on IndyCar so far, but these same arguments apply to F1 and sports cars as well, as well as any other series where internet armchair race directors are screaming for more development.  Here's the basic flaws that thinking open development means race car popularity.  First, and most importantly, the people who are interested in race car engineering are already watching car racing.  Casual race fans (the people who we're trying to get interested in tuning into the Iowa Corn 250) don't understand why the Penske Ilmor pushrod engine for the 1994 Indy 500 was such a big deal.  I'm not saying these people are stupid, and can't understand, they just don't care.  Open development won't bring in more fans because new fans don't know this is something to get excited about, assuming they care about the technical side racing to begin with.

Not only is increased development not going to make new fans, it's going to make the racing product worse.  Say what you want about NASCAR and IndyCar, but the racing is wheel to wheel and you never know whose going to win a given race.  Even a back marker team can win on the right day in those series, and that makes the races exciting to watch.  In Formula 1, the poster boy series for technological development, the winner is going to be either that one Mercedes, or that other Mercedes.  Speed costs money, and in a series that places heavy emphasis on development the winners are the guys willing to throw the most money at the problem, while everyone else is holding on for dear financial life.  Don't believe me?  Ask Caterham and Marrusia.  It's a simple formula really.  Increased developments means more engineering talent is required, more research and development is required, and as a result more money is required, and as costs go up, grid sizes go down.  Car count isn't everything in racing, but an empty paddock is a sad paddock.

And while we're in that sad paddock of eight cars that can actually afford to design a new differential between practice and qualifying, the cars don't actually "race" anymore, they just kind of drive around in ranked order.  When rules governing technical development are tight, it's hard to build a car that's across the board slower then everyone else's.  When development is open, building a movable chicane becomes real easy, real fast.  I love the technical side of racing, but ultimately, I want to see tight, wheel to wheel racing, not a movable demonstration of who has the best engineering squad.  The results of a race should ultimately be determined by what happens on track, but when one car is head an shoulders superior then the others, the significance of the racing itself is minimized.

An argument I've seen advanced a couple of time's online (particularly with regards to F1) boils down to "throw out the rule book and let the engineers go wild."  No technical regulations, build whatever you want.  And I can't think of a worse idea.  The challenge of race car engineering is to build a car within a certain set specifications, and bend those regulations in such a way that you're faster then everyone else.  Or, if you're really clever, break those rules in such a way that the tech inspectors don't notice (looking at you Red Bull).  Because every racing series has some set of technical regulations (at least ever good racing series) there will be some limitations on development, and we shouldn't be afraid of this.  Limitations on technical development aren't strangling competition, they create a challenge.  The teams have a limited amount of development options, and the good teams will make the most of those options, which is the real fun, not whose willing to spend the most money to win.

Should all series become spec series then?  Of course not.  A world that doesn't allow bat guano crazy ideas like the Nissan LMP1 GT-R or the Delta Wing is a world I don't want to live in, but I don't think we should complain when a IndyCar doesn't allow the use of afterburners and plasma drives.  While arguing about the design choices of the Mercedes W06 versus the Ferrari SF15-T is fun for racing nerds, it doesn't put butts in the grandstands, or eyes on TV's.  The ultimate fate of any racing series depends on what happens on the track, not back in the shop.