Would a covered cockpit have helped Bianchi ?

[mep]

I was wondering if there would be a design which allows the driver to slide completely into the chassis, so that all sides of the head (apart from the top) are completely surrounded with carbon. This would pretty much solve the problems, however might be difficult to achieve with the way how the driver is fixed with the safety belts to the seat.

[noel]

there's also the cooling issue with the canopy. imagine what it'd be like in singapore or hungary. i was scared for magnussen and kvyat's lives a few weeks ago.

there is no foolproof solution. freak accidents happen, we just had an extremely lucky 20 years. the more you fly the more you risk your life. simple as that.

[bhall II]

[...]

But I want to ask you guys, how do they manage fire in LMP1 closed cockpit cars?

Fire suppression systems. They're also used in F1.

14.1 Fire extinguishers:
14.1.1 All cars must be fitted with a fire extinguishing system which will discharge into the cockpit and into the engine compartment.
14.1.2 Any extinguishant listed in the Appendix to the regulations is permitted.
14.1.3 The quantity of extinguishant may vary according to the type of extinguishant used, a list of quantities may be found in the Appendix to these regulations.
14.1.4 When operated, the fire extinguishing system must discharge 95% of its contents at a constant pressure in no less than 10 seconds and no more than 30 seconds.
If more than one container with extinguishant is fitted, they must be released simultaneously.
14.1.5 Each pressure vessel must be equipped with a means of checking its pressure which may vary according to the type of extinguishant used. A list of pressures may be found in the Appendix to the regulations.
14.1.6 The following information must be visible on each container with extinguishant:
a) Type of extinguishant
b) Weight or volume of the extinguishant
c) Date the container must be checked which must be no more than two years after the date of filling.
14.1.7 All parts of the extinguishing system must be situated within the survival cell and all extinguishing equipment must withstand fire.
14.1.8 Any triggering system having its own source of energy is permitted, provided it is possible to operate all extinguishers should the main electrical circuits of the car fail.
The driver must be able to trigger the extinguishing system manually when seated normally with his safety belts fastened and the steering wheel in place.
Furthermore, a means of triggering from the outside must be combined with the circuit breaker switch described in Article 14.2.1. They must be marked with a letter "E" in red at least 80mm tall, with a line thickness of at least 8mm, inside a white circle of at least 100mm diameter with a red edge with a line thickness of at least 4mm.
14.1.9 The system must work in any position, even when the car is inverted.
14.1.10 All extinguisher nozzles must be suitable for the extinguishant and be installed in such a way that they are not directly pointed at the driver.

[uk marshal 83]

I can't help but feel that we're asking the wrong question here, we should be asking lmp1 cars have canopies, what problems have these caused with respect to injuring or getting to injured drivers? not being a keen follower of endurance racing I can't say i'm overly well versed in their drawbacks.

with respect to the suggestion of using detonation cord (mdc) to blow apart the canopy I can tell you from my experience as a former raf aircraft technician that mdc is very very dangerous stuff when operated, if there is any damage to the canopy when it fires the occupant can suffer severe injuries as can anyone in the vicinity when it goes off. put it simply if it was around you neck it would decapitate you.

[Manoah2u]

there's also the cooling issue with the canopy. imagine what it'd be like in singapore or hungary. i was scared for magnussen and kvyat's lives a few weeks ago.

there is no foolproof solution. freak accidents happen, we just had an extremely lucky 20 years. the more you fly the more you risk your life. simple as that.

Skysport's article by Martin Brundle on the matter summed up what was mentioned here already; namely that there is no use for it.

Impractical and unsafe in case of a fire, driver can't exit correctly upside down, condensing inside, dirt on the screen (tear-down visors get dirty but you just rip one off and there you go. good luck on that canopy, essentially thus immediately rendered completley useless even dangerous (obscured vision). Heat was also mentioned. And it would have made zero change in the JB crash (Sky's words too).
they may be strong enough to deflect a loose wheel at 230 in a perfect test, yes.

Now since the loose cannon arguments were put in the air about alonso nearly getting facehammered by a grosjean projectile, let's just remind ourselves that a completely loose F1 wheel with 230 kmph versus a +700kg complete F1 car coming down full speed into the canopy are 2 completely uncomparable situations, and the latter one of which i have seen zero evidence that there is any technology available as a canopy or whatever high-grade military nasa or any class material is able to resist such a direct force onto the canopy to protect the driver's head.

Let's just compare that of a figher jet canopy hitting a falcon or goose in the air or slamming into a cape buffalo or a horse.

[Andres125sx]

Now since the loose cannon arguments were put in the air about alonso nearly getting facehammered by a grosjean projectile, let's just remind ourselves that a completely loose F1 wheel with 230 kmph versus a +700kg complete F1 car coming down full speed into the canopy are 2 completely uncomparable situations, and the latter one of which i have seen zero evidence that there is any technology available as a canopy or whatever high-grade military nasa or any class material is able to resist such a direct force onto the canopy to protect the driver's head.

Because you´re thinking about canopies, when the solution already exist and is used in lmp cars, closed cockpits, survival cell with a roof and A-pillars, that would have resisted Grosjean impact, or at least deflected the car from driver´s helmet




But looks like we enjoy reinventing the wheel

[siskue2005]

Exactly like I pointed out previously a solid roof is essential ....like the lmp1 cars, probably a smaller version
The heat situation is easily fixable, u don't need air condition ...we can have openings and ducts etc
Fire inside cockpit? Fire extingushers inside cockpit (which they already have in f1 and lmp1 like Bhall II pointed out early)
Upside down ? That is why we should opt a side entrance like lmp1 cars

[lebesset]

Exactly like I pointed out previously a solid roof is essential ....like the lmp1 cars, probably a smaller version
The heat situation is easily fixable, u don't need air condition ...we can have openings and ducts etc
Fire inside cockpit? Fire extingushers inside cockpit (which they already have in f1 and lmp1 like Bhall II pointed out early)
Upside down ? That is why we should opt a side entrance like lmp1 cars

so why not just use just use lmp1 cars with the F1 engines and call it F1 ?

[siskue2005]

i was just talking about cockpit area

[mrluke]

Exactly like I pointed out previously a solid roof is essential ....like the lmp1 cars, probably a smaller version
The heat situation is easily fixable, u don't need air condition ...we can have openings and ducts etc
Fire inside cockpit? Fire extingushers inside cockpit (which they already have in f1 and lmp1 like Bhall II pointed out early)
Upside down ? That is why we should opt a side entrance like lmp1 cars

so why not just use just use lmp1 cars with the F1 engines and call it F1 ?

Part of the new engine regs is to make them similar to lmp1 rules so that a manufacturer could use the same power unit for each series.

Personally if porsche, audi and toyota could enter the races then I think that would be a good thing.

[jmfdvm]

http://www.racecar-engineering.com/arti ... its-to-f1/
Good article.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned re canopies is that airplane canopies only need to work in one direction. An f1 canopy would have to be designed with side impact in mind not just frontal. I suspect that would make an already hard task much harder.

[Andres125sx]

so why not just use just use lmp1 cars with the F1 engines and call it F1 ?

So taking a good idea from a different series is losing your identity?

There´s a common problem, so looking for a different solution is anything but wise. Or you think lmp engineers are all stupid and his solution is far from best posible?


If problem is the same, solution should be the same too. This is safety, ingenuity is secondary here

[noel]

Now since the loose cannon arguments were put in the air about alonso nearly getting facehammered by a grosjean projectile, let's just remind ourselves that a completely loose F1 wheel with 230 kmph versus a +700kg complete F1 car coming down full speed into the canopy are 2 completely uncomparable situations, and the latter one of which i have seen zero evidence that there is any technology available as a canopy or whatever high-grade military nasa or any class material is able to resist such a direct force onto the canopy to protect the driver's head.

Because you´re thinking about canopies, when the solution already exist and is used in lmp cars, closed cockpits, survival cell with a roof and A-pillars, that would have resisted Grosjean impact, or at least deflected the car from driver´s helmet

http://www.fiawec.com/wpphpFichiers/1/1 ... que691.jpg
http://img.speedweek.com/img/29c743379b ... 367JPG.JPG

But looks like we enjoy reinventing the wheel

or, you know, the nose cone could've just gone in behind the pillar, pinning down fernando.

[Cold Fussion]

Let's just compare that of a figher jet canopy hitting a falcon or goose in the air or slamming into a cape buffalo or a horse.

The kinetic energy of a goose at mach 2 is similar to the energy of an f1 car at 200 km/h. The mach 2 bird strike is a much more focused impact as well.

[Edax]

Let's just compare that of a figher jet canopy hitting a falcon or goose in the air or slamming into a cape buffalo or a horse.

The kinetic energy of a goose at mach 2 is similar to the energy of an f1 car at 200 km/h. The mach 2 bird strike is a much more focused impact as well.

A canopy will struggle with a goose at mach 2.

so why not just use just use lmp1 cars with the F1 engines and call it F1 ?

So taking a good idea from a different series is losing your identity?

There´s a common problem, so looking for a different solution is anything but wise. Or you think lmp engineers are all stupid and his solution is far from best posible?

If problem is the same, solution should be the same too. This is safety, ingenuity is secondary here

These guys stick their head in the wind at considerable speed, so I'd say they have the same problem. If they start incorporating canopies one might argue about loosing identity .



Perhaps it would be better to copy their solution, which is not to have solid objects anywhere close to where a driver might crash.