Following the frontal helmet strike that killed IndyCar driver Justin Wilson at Pocono in August, questions regarding the need to protect the exposed portion of an open-wheel driver’s head have been raised, as have questions regarding the best method to improve cockpit safety. While answers to those questions remain elusive at this point, one of the smartest drivers in the Verizon IndyCar Series has a clear view on how cockpit safety improvements should be approached heading into 2016.

JR Hildebrand’s viewpoints are as interesting as they are informative. Hildebrand’s entrance to IndyCar came in 2010, not long after the Californian deferred his entrance to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.) on an engineering scholarship, and since he joined IndyCar, JR’s blend of driving skills and educational background have seen the Californian earn accolades for his work in and out of the cockpit.

On the hot topic of IndyCar safety, Hildebrand isn’t married to any specific solution to prevent the next helmet strike. Instead, and as one might expect from an M.I.T.-caliber mind, the 2011 Indy 500 Rookie of the Year is calling for a structured process of questions, answers, and solutions for the series to pursue.

“I should start by saying the current Indy cars are, given 99 percent of situations that happen, incredibly safe,” Hildebrand (LEFT) told RACER. “The safety of the cars has improved exponentially since the ’60s and ’70s. That’s something you lose sight of when a tragedy happens, but is important to recognize.

“Having said that, as drivers, we didn’t grow up in the ’60s and ’70s. We’re dealing with what’s happening today, not how far we’ve evolved since drivers were being lost every weekend. To us, the incremental change in safety is going from losing Dan Wheldon, Justin Wilson, Tony Renna, and Felipe Massa and Cristiano da Matta getting badly hurt.

“That’s our frame of reference, and the big evolution step we’re looking at now is doing something about drivers getting hit in the head. More than anything else, those are the types of incidents that stand out to us. This is the obvious remaining area for development, and it’s a development process.”

The need for improved cockpit safety is clear for some, but for others, the traditions of Indy car – of using open cockpits – is a core component of the sports that should remain unchanged. Knowing how far the Indy car concept has evolved since the first Indy 500 was held in 1911, Hildebrand believes that traditional mindset could hinder progress.

“I’ve long considered myself to be somebody who is very respectful and appreciative of the traditions that are in place and what it is we do,” he said. “But I think it is a ridiculous statement to make that what we do is just inherently dangerous and the drivers just need to be willing to accept it without question. We are not ignoring the fact that what we do is risky. But, given that we risk our lives every time we get inside a car, we want to see the cars continue to evolve.

“To me, that is a part of continuing with the tradition of what our sport is all about. Jim Hall’s Chaparral 2K (RIGHT) is one of the most badass racecars around. That was because it was innovative and kicked everyone’s ass. We don’t have that anymore. Innovation is gone. For us moving forward, those two things go hand-in-hand. And from the innovation, you’ll find safety improvements.”

Hildebrand’s last comment is worth delving into because it differs from many of the opinions that have been offered since Pocono. Rather than simply fixate on cockpit safety, opening the conversation into a bigger debate on reshaping the current process of Indy car development could result in any number of safety advancements.

For example, if IndyCar produces a new chassis every five or 10 years, the core technology – and safety concepts – contained within that car ages the longer it’s used. IndyCar’s current spec-chassis routine helps teams to contain costs, but it also comes with a limited ability to make safety strides between new chassis models. The current Dallara DW12 Indy car chassis featured state-of-the-art concepts when it was designed in 2011 (ABOVE: Dan Wheldon testing the first car at Indy that year) but when it comes to safety, is a five-year-old design going to offer the latest structural or material advances as a 2016 chassis would offer?

If IndyCar chooses to stick with a process where new cars are introduced and used for a half-decade or more, looking at ways to update and replace the carbon-fiber tub that houses the driver on a more frequent basis could be a safety-minded workaround to consider.

“To me, the two biggest things that stand about why I love IndyCar, and why I was engaged in racing as a kid, is they were flat out the fastest cars around, period, and there was innovation happening in the sport,” Hildebrand said. “That was part of what made it cool. You soon realize that innovation, on safety or speed, needs to be a continuing process. It’s a way of thinking. We need to constantly come up with intelligent solutions and improvements, and it can’t only happen when a new car comes out, so what can we do in between building all-new cars?

“We want to be in a position where we can elevate speeds, and chase after what the combination of man and machine are capable of doing. We have the technical resources to do that. But we need to continue to advance the safety of the cars to make it something that’s reasonable for us to do. You’re going to learn more when you’re pushing boundaries. If what you’re doing is all about building cars to a really strict budget, are you really going to have innovation as your highest priority? Innovation drives everything else that follows.”

Hildebrand is also in favor of widening the IndyCar safety discussion to involve those outside of the industry. As safety solutions are sought, expanding the knowledge base to include those who aren’t tied to motorsports could also be a smart move by the series.

“We can normally rely on a small group of trusted people to sort problems out in IndyCar, but in this case, is that the most efficient strategy?” he asked. “Personally, I don’t think so. With communication technology as good as it is these days, it’s easier than ever for IndyCar to work with large companies remotely and to have their knowledge trickle down. It should be universities, aerospace companies, to individuals with expertise in driver safety. There’s an ability here to generate information that we’ve just never had before. And I’m betting all they’re waiting for is to be asked.”

“In situations like these, creating a process whereby a series like IndyCar can engage with as many outside resources as possible to achieve big gains in one area is definitely possible,” Hildebrand continued. “Think of it almost in the same way you of crowd sourcing an idea. The more ideas that you can sort through, and the more resources that have the ability to come up with intelligent design concepts you can have access to and engage with, I think the more likely it is you will find the right solution. If you engage more people, you should be able to get to the right solutions a lot faster. If this is something we try to do all on our own, I don’t see how we get there.”

By removing driver safety from the insular world of auto racing, Hildebrand also sees a way for IndyCar to benefit from financial and staffing resources they do not possess. As one of the series’ most active ambassadors and facilitators of science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) initiatives, Hildebrand routinely works with colleges and major corporations that could participate in a search for safety improvements.

“If we’re talking about driver protection, and we’ll even stay away from that ‘canopy’ word – people are freaking out about the cars having canopies – and just try to make the cockpit area more protected, I’ve come across so many people who would be able to help,” he said.

“I’ve been working in STEM now for a couple of years, and personally, I have been absolutely blown away at the resourcefulness and outside-the-box thinking that high-level engineering students have on a lot of these types of concepts. And then picture a Boeing, or some other giant technology company teaming up with IndyCar. First, it would be great PR for Boeing, but it would also accelerate the process. All IndyCar needs to do is decide it wants help.”

Hildebrand, like most with a technical or engineering background, is driven by process. It’s the reason why he isn’t proclaiming a need for canopies or any other specific cockpit safety device. Defining a process to find the best solutions is where he urges IndyCar to start.

“That’s the big thing for me; this is all about process, not going into things with preconceptions that this is the solution, or that is the solution,” Hildebrand noted. “There’s a process of figuring these things out, rather than getting into the situations where we have an immediate problem that needs to be fixed and rush to find the fastest solution instead of the best one. I think in those types of scenarios your hand ends up being forced, and then you go look for someone you’ve worked with before that we can it done ASAP.

“I think that the right engineering process is to look at an issue that needs to be addressed and go through this exploratory methodology to figure out what the right solution is. You don’t start with a hypothesized solution and work out how to make that work. That’s not really how it goes. I think it is easy to get caught up in either loving or hating the idea of a car having a fighter jet-style canopy. Loving or hating the renders of the Mercedes halo thing in F1. That’s the wrong approach. Let the scientific method lead you to the answer.”

Tempers have flared in the debate on how to improve IndyCar driver safety, and while that’s more than understandable when lives are at risk, Hildebrand closed the conversation with a reminder of how this topic should be approached from the series.

“The emotional part of this process is totally irrelevant; it shouldn’t really have anything to do with this,” he said. “This part is cold. And it’s also about ideas. How can we break down the types of issues we need to address, and what are the types of solutions that can address those different issues? And where do those solutions start to intersect? That is where you start finding out some real significant answers.

“If we go about this the same old way, I don’t really see anything happening in a particularly effective or efficient way across the board. This is an opportunity to generate a more 21st century way of being able to make really good decisions about the direction that things go from a technical and engineering perspective. My only hope is that’s the direction IndyCar takes.”