Would a covered cockpit have helped Bianchi ?

[lebesset]

since the accident there has been considerable discussion about whether or not closed cockpits should be introduced in F1
having studied the slow motion of the impact I have formed the opinion that it would not have helped
the injury he has suffered looks to have been caused not by impact but by the sudden deceleration , DAI is a typical result of this if I correctly understand what I have read

as I see the incident Bianchi's head missed the tractor or at most slid down the rear of it ; the towing bracket that his head passed under then connected with the roll hoop and brought about the rapid stop ...no doubt the condition of his helmet will prove or disprove my theory ; frankly I~ would expect the impact to be horrendous whether or not the tractor was there or not as the car would have carried on and hit something solid head on anyway

what I question is why was there a gap in the barriers service by a tarmac road from the track ? why not a continuous barrier with the usual protection and a gravel trap in front of it to produce some deceleration ?

[Daliracing]

I guess i would not have made any difference because the injury is from abrupt deceleration. This is just my point of view

[Manoah2u]

I guess i would not have made any difference because the injury is from abrupt deceleration. This is just my point of view

This. couldn't be any simpler.

And I seriously doubt there can be see-through canopies constructed that are able to withstand such insane force.
Canopies might protect a driver better to projectiles, a wheel for example - but i think the fact wheels in general have many safety rules to prevent them ever coming off a car, and there are heavy punishments for badly mounted wheels (pit error or not)....so i could only see use of a 'canopy' in the form of head protection on a car to car collision with the danger of head - to opponent vehicle contact.
I think such a case is extremely rare and there are many other options to concider.

A 'windscreen' just a couple of inches high would do a good trick as a 'ramp' to angle the car to the roll hoop imho.



wild beauty imho. This example may not be the best concidering there is few driver protection in such 70's machine,
but the point is about how a f1 car can look still gorgeous with a windscreen. imagine the top of the helmet where the 'headrest' sits. driver should still have visibility through the windscreen yet be well protected against debris, wheels and other cars, without losing too much 'aesthetic' value and still be concidered an open-wheeler open-cockpit class, something I feel F1 should never abandon.

another viewpoint where a driver is clearly protected :



The driver is almost completely 'bathed' into an encasement. Imagine this same car having just a slighter higher rollbar,
HANS installed, modern standards for racing seat, and side impact protection, and high-grade windows that can withstand a blow (there are many reinforced windows (anti-hurricane windows, bulletproof windows) available, and this might be an interesting area for F1 as a 'development platform' for street use as super strong windshields). anyway, as proven above, zero need for a canopy.

Besides, a canopy would prevent recognising a driver even more. You'd need fluorescent helmets to see through the windows as a spectator, not good.

A point of concern would be the danger of getting 'trapped'. Imagine a canopy needing to resist the forces of heavy wheel impact or even car impact, yet still be easily removable for a driver to exit after impact, the car being on fire, or upside down - or worse; the car having had a blow to the canopy, tumbling over upside down, and catching fire.....

it may be worst case scenario, but how is a driver ever gonna exit the car upside down with a canopy it's perhaps even resting upon? and i dunno you, but have you ever had the experience of trying to open a buldged door? i had, i've been in a serious motoring accident and my driver door got quite a hefty hit and couldn't open anymore.

so i'm having serious doubts about the actual thoughtfullness about a canopy in F1 when it's simply not a neccesity.

it's solely under discussion because people who don't think enough are the assumption that it would have protected bianchi's head from hitting a 7-ton recovery vehicle, when the matter actually is instant decelration, and not impact, which possibly didn't even occur.

and since a canopy won't make any change to rapid deceleration, why is this option being seriously discussed in F1?

[Edax]

I guess i would not have made any difference because the injury is from abrupt deceleration. This is just my point of view

This. couldn't be any simpler.

Do realise that by not making it a fully enclosed canopy you sacrifice a tremendous amount of strenght. A canopy is a self supporting structure. Think of an arc in the bridge. But that also would not have stopped a JCB.

It would help in Massa type accident though.

what I question is why was there a gap in the barriers service by a tarmac road from the track ?

Gaps are needed to access the circuit quickly, but I do get the impression that the car is aimed to go though the gap. If that is true than it doesn't really matter that the JCB was on the track, because if it was in the prepping area, it would still have been standing in the path of the Marussia.

How is that possible?

[KingHamilton01]

Surely a strong roll hoop would have helped in this case also? I mean enclosing the cockpit is an extreme option, but if it had the strength of the jet fighter canopy can we assume he would have bounced off the jcb? I don't know how the physics would have changed and if a canopy would have taken that force without breaking?

[langwadt]

I guess i would not have made any difference because the injury is from abrupt deceleration. This is just my point of view

This. couldn't be any simpler.

Do realise that by not making it a fully enclosed canopy you sacrifice a tremendous amount of strenght. A canopy is a self supporting structure. Think of an arc in the bridge. But that also would not have stopped a JCB.

It would help in Massa type accident though.

what I question is why was there a gap in the barriers service by a tarmac road from the track ?

Gaps are needed to access the circuit quickly, but I do get the impression that the car is aimed to go though the gap. If that is true than it doesn't really matter that the JCB was on the track, because if it was in the prepping area, it would still have been standing in the path of the Marussia.

How is that possible?

I'm quite sure they would have put it the space between the two barriers same place the JCB would be parked

https://www.google.dk/maps/@34.8452273, ... a=!3m1!1e3

[Daliracing]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upqcj296l6w

The video shows a test of a canopy also a higher visor.

[Manoah2u]

Surely a strong roll hoop would have helped in this case also? I mean enclosing the cockpit is an extreme option, but if it had the strength of the jet fighter canopy can we assume he would have bounced off the jcb? I don't know how the physics would have changed and if a canopy would have taken that force without breaking?

'bumpercarting' the vehicle away would have helped prevent rapid deceleration, yes. The rapid deceleration occured becuase the 'roll hoop' essentialy functioned as a 'brake' when it hit the 7-ton caterpillar, thus causing rapid deceleration. Offcourse a part of the energy was dispatched through various parts of the car completely getting destroyed and the CAT getting sidehammered, but the havoc still was caused through rapid deceleration. you might reason a 'less strong' roll hoop upon impact would have absorbed impact but if not strong enough to 'decelerate' like it did now, might have resulted in the vehicle continuing atleast partially into the barriers - still, the sidepods took the shunt too upon impacting the CAT rear and wheel(s).

i furthermore have reasonable doubt any canopy that was constructed would have been able to handle the force. Might even been worse if it got 'dented' and got pushed in, onto Jules' head. Sure, if the Marussia would have been a 'solid granite car' it would have been better for jules' survival rate upon hitting a caterpillar. But you might get to think though, what would have happened to the driver and the marshalls of that CAT if the recovery vehicle was slammed to its side or violently. We might have had a 'injured' Jules and 2 dead marshalls, one that was on the right side of the recovery vehicle and the driver himself (no seatbelt).......anyway can fantasize endless about it, what happened happened. Only it shouldn't ever have been able to happen, so, there you have it.

I don't believe a fully closed canopy is essential in rigidity, either. all it needs to do is 'scoop' up a possible rear part, wing, wheel of another vehicle to prevent it from making contact to the driver; in the meanwhile it acts perfectly as a 'deflector' for rare occasions of a vehicle part coming loose and penetrating a driver's head (massa).

Since Massa's accident there have been improvements in race driver helmet protection, specifically the visor. Combined with a 'windshield' i can't see why a fully enclosed canopy's 'rigidity' is either neccesary or preferably over a windshield. They actually have windshields (or did) as tiny as they may be.

canopies remind me of LMP1, this is F1, not LMP1. And as much as i enjoy the Newy RedBull supercar, it's not a F1 car. It's a LMP1 car which is trying to be an F1 car. That's not where F1 should be. F1 is F1, Le Mans is Le Mans.

Which makes me wonder the way accidents in other racing classes are handled like in Le Mans, GP racing, Touringcar, etc. Is a recovery vehicle used, too? and in extreme rain?

[SectorOne]

I guess i would not have made any difference because the injury is from abrupt deceleration. This is just my point of view

Any link to this? I must have missed that.

[Manoah2u]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upqcj296l6w

The video shows a test of a canopy also a higher visor.

I don't think the comparison between the windshield and the canopy is really fair,
i'm dubious whether the windshield is made of the same material as the canopy is, since the windshield gets
labeled as 'just a windshield' and 'shatters' 'even though it does deflect (which was the main concern, so it does the job),
and the canopy as 'aero-space spec polycarbonate'.

the size of the canopy is much much larger then that of the windshield - so obviously, it can take more force. however,
i remain pointing out that this windshield is rigidly mounted to a far larger contact area 'on the bottom'. how is the
driver going to exit (& enter) the vehicle without affecting the 'ground' to which it is connected? That's impossible, so
first of all, the test itself is not completely fair. Next, how do you make an escape from the vehicle, as mentioned before.
to maintain the same 'rigidity', the entire canopy must remain intact - thus the entire canopy must be moveable > forward or 'tiltable'.

here the canopy idea becomes impossible; if it needs to be tilted, it won't pass safety grounds when the F1 car gets upside down (with Pastor Maldonado in the field, these chances are high it will). Try and lift that canopy up like a hood, when you're upside down. yeah, fail.

so it needs to 'slide'. ah, fail again, or the F1 car nose needs to be a couple of meters longer. now what if the F1 car has hit a tire wall/barrier and the nosecone took the beating and the caused damage or the barrier is obstructing the canopy to be pushed forwards? ah, the driver is trapped.

so in both cases, there canopies fail incredibly.

So the only way for a canopy to be 'accepted' is if it is a 2-part system; a front windshield, and a cockpit section which is removable to the sides or top still. but wait, that means we won't have the rigidty of a complete canopy.

so either way, the only solution becomes a windshield - though i don't believe in the entire neccesity of the windshield or canopy at all.

[Manoah2u]

I guess i would not have made any difference because the injury is from abrupt deceleration. This is just my point of view

Any link to this? I must have missed that.

the nature of the damage caused to Jules' brain is evidence enough (see the Bianchi recovery thread).

[strad]

in a word .... NO
.
Manoah2u;
It's very much like shaken baby syndrome

[Moose]

the size of the canopy is much much larger then that of the windshield - so obviously, it can take more force.

That doesn't sound obvious to me at all. In fact, large surface area items generally can withstand less force before they break.

the entire canopy must remain intact - thus the entire canopy must be moveable > forward or 'tiltable'.

Or bolted down in the pits/on the grid, and attached with explosive bolts to remove it in an emergency.

So the only way for a canopy to be 'accepted' is if it is a 2-part system; a front windshield, and a cockpit section which is removable to the sides or top still. but wait, that means we won't have the rigidty of a complete canopy.

Actually, jet fighter canopies commonly use exactly this design, the key difference between it and the windshield shown here is that there's a reinforcing metal hoop behind the windshield onto which the canopy seals.

so either way, the only solution becomes a windshield - though i don't believe in the entire neccesity of the windshield or canopy at all.

I don't buy that the only solution is a windshield at all. Fighter jets have solved the problem of quickly getting rid of a canopy already. I don't see why it's magically harder in this case.

[Manoah2u]

Or bolted down in the pits/on the grid, and attached with explosive bolts to remove it in an emergency.

I don't buy that the only solution is a windshield at all. Fighter jets have solved the problem of quickly getting rid of a canopy already. I don't see why it's magically harder in this case.

you must be joking.

do fighterjets have ejector seats? yes. would that work on F1 cars? no. when a fighter jet is crashed upside down, is the pilot still alive? no. is he able to get out? would be difficult. you want to mount explosives on a F1?

bolted down? essentially locking your driver inside?

yeah you must be joking.

[Moose]

Or bolted down in the pits/on the grid, and attached with explosive bolts to remove it in an emergency.

I don't buy that the only solution is a windshield at all. Fighter jets have solved the problem of quickly getting rid of a canopy already. I don't see why it's magically harder in this case.

you must be joking.

do fighterjets have ejector seats? yes.

Who said anything about ejector seats?

would that work on F1 cars? no. when a fighter jet is crashed upside down, is the pilot still alive? no. is he able to get out? would be difficult. you want to mount explosives on a F1?

Yes, they already mount plenty of explosives on F1 car - notably the big tank of liquid that the driver sits just in front of. Explosive bolts are a well tested method of breaking this kind of thing apart that work very reliably. Said bolts can be made to separate the cockpit into various sections, and allow it to fall apart, and a driver to climb out just like they would in a current f1 car were it to end up upside down. The idea that this isn't a solved problem is ridiculous.