You're entitled to your opinion of course.[...]no one, including you, is building aircraft with Formula 1 spec baked carbon fibre monocoques that have had millions spent on development inclusive of crash testing. Their builds include strict regulations as to where thicknesses and weights are applied - the weight and style of build is simply out of the question for an aircraft period.
Unfortunately for you, most LSA's and microlights use exactly the same materials they use in F1. T700/T1000 are common in both. Same for resins. Same for prepregs and manufacturing methods. Same for test labs even.
An F1 monocoque is roughly the same mass as a sailplanes ahead-of-wing fuselage mass or me. Both work fine. Pretty sure that safety cockpit design and test expenses are pretty similar.F1 is 700kgs with a 150kg power/drive unit, so that's 550kgs/1200lbs for a small single seat airframe, empty, no engine, etc - not going to happen.
Fortunately for us, much of those test reports are more or less public (many via the Idaflieg) and thus we don't have to do anywhere near as much testing ourselves.
Sure, there's the myth of incredible complexity in making such "high-tech" parts. Having witnessed several such parts being designed and built, I could build every single one of those within tolerance in my shed, except for the lack of an autoclave. Even that is changing with a major shift to OOA, notably infusion.
Back to the real topic; I'd simply copy the structural layout of the Lange Antares or the ASW27. As good as it gets and calculating the required lamina thicknesses is pretty straightforward since the loads are too.
For crushing, alternating layers of foam with thin layers of glass is pretty light and very simple to tailor to your specific loads. It's also very easy to implement in the rest of the design, which is the biggest difference with almost every other approach (alu foam, collapsable seat supports and so on)