Overbeeke Closed canopy f1 concept

[DaveKillens]

So this thread has devolved into the perpetual canopy or not canopy argument. IMO most of the objections against a closed canopy can be applied to any closed cockpit vehicle.

But generally, the car concepts depicted in Van Overbeeke's designs are lower, wider, sleeker, and more organic in their appearance. I like the low and wide aspect.

I come from the aviation world, and a good wing design does not need fences or vortex generators or notches (as in the case of the F-15, F-22, F-16) and when they appear they are a response to a design deficiency and have to be added. That is how I perceive any Formula One car when fences, strakes, and weird winglets appear. They do not add to the look of the car but detract from it's aesthetics. Purely my opinion.

And it sure would be nice when someone describes a Formula One car that in addition to stating they like it, that the word "sexy" is included.

[wesley123]

Wesley, I agree with almost all you said, but here I can´t

after a collision causing the mechanism to be stuck and immovable. do we really want that?

The same applies to the headrest.

upside down - can't get out. unconsious driver upside down, yeah, that'll be a nice job for the marshalls and doctor to reach the driver when he's upside down with a closed canopy.

The same applies without the canopy.

No, the same can´t be applied without the canopy because then there´s nothing trapping the driver

Maybe you´re talking generally, or you simply didn´t watch the concept we´re discussing in this thread, because it´s pretty obvious this concept didn´t consider drivers need to get out of the car even if it´s upside down

I´m not against closed canopies, IMO they´re a matter of time, once a driver get caught as Alonso could have been in Spa 12 or Kimi in Austria 15, they´ll stop asking for ideas and will make it mandatory. But the concept of this thread is just a marketing product, it is beauty, stilish... but simply can´t work if the car is upside down

Yeah i took the cockpit discussion in the general theme of cockpits, not specifically this concept, because that's exactly what this is; a concept. I don't think any thought went to it other than "it has to looks good and somewhat related to current days cars". The canopy in this case wouldn't work at all, and so would any of the aero involved etc. etc.

[Manoah2u]

after a collision causing the mechanism to be stuck and immovable. do we really want that?

The same applies to the headrest.

with an answer like that, really, can't take you serious. for real.

upside down - can't get out. unconsious driver upside down, yeah, that'll be a nice job for the marshalls and doctor to reach the driver when he's upside down with a closed canopy.

The same applies without the canopy.

no, a car upside down is still directly accesible by a marshall that can easily find the seat belt switches to remove an unconscious driver from a vehicle.

quite incorrect unfounded and mostly thoughtless answer.

what do you think rain will do to these canopies?

The same as visors

no, it doesnt. i wrote about the effects on visors and why it's effect are different.

Have you seen how many times the F1 helmet visor layers needs to be teared off?

At LM they got these tear offs for the windscreens, so the same applies.

at LM they have windscreen wipers.

What's next, windshield wipers?

Yes, that does sound like a good idea if you want to apply a canopy.

you're really sinking into being completely rediculous now.

Instead of spending all this money and time on research and work in some 'canopy' idea, this time would be much better invested spending into making sure the REAL cause of the accident is taken away;

So, taking away the cause if these accidents, I assume you are talking about robots?

are you high? or did you just get out with your 'get rediculous and provoke the response i want-leg'?

the fact that the Japan 2014 race should and must have had been either cancelled or at the very least ended at least 10 laps before the (reasonably fatal) accident of Bianchi occured.

No, but that's a matter of opinion. Afaik Fuji 2007 was way, way wetter(for example). Bianchi went off track because he drove too quick in the corner. To stop a race because a driver can make an error is a bit over-the-top if you ask me.

you know nothing. seriously. and you can't read too, it seems. silly me, thinking you were trying to be serious for half a second.

it's like demanding motorcycles to have 4 wheels and a cage around them because there are huge holes in the asphalt. the problem is not the motorcycle, the problem are the holes in the asphalt. fix the asphalt.

Except motorcycles are by definition 2-wheeled. But to use your analogy, the asphalt in your analogy is the canopy. the problem that is called is that a drivers head is deemed to be "too exposed", thus, the solution is to remove that exposure by ie. a canopy. You said it yourself; you fix the problem, not run around it.

are you deliberately being delusional?

So earlier you said that people should fix the problem, instead of turning around it giving an alternate solution to the individual problem, yet, here it suddenly is okay? In every case here the problem was the head was too exposed, thus, the solution would be to stop that exposure. That's exactly what you pointed out with your analogy.

no it wasn't. you twist words and turn it into your own bent theory for some reason. something you like to do repetitevely. and trying to scoop around everything written around it. go ahead and live in your own bubble.

remind me again why on earths'name this stupid canopy idea still has life in it while it's a 50 year old dead horse that keeps getting poked again and again?

Because the drivers head is exposed, and recent events have pointed out that that still is a problem.

you just read that for 50 years it has been proven it is not a problem.

have fun in your own world.

[Manoah2u]

I like this pic

https://m2.behance.net/rendition/pm/271 ... 67d5bd.jpg

Le Mans




F1

[Manoah2u]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Sim ... _driver%29

Just ten minutes into the race, Simonsen spun off the kerbs and into to the Armco barrier on the exit of Tertre Rouge where it joins RD 338 (Mulsanne straight). The force of the impact crushed part of the roof and supporting rollcage. Simonsen was treated on the scene by recovery crews and was transferred to the circuit's medical centre, where he later died of his injuries.

A large tree behind the Armco has been considered to be an integral part of the impact, causing an aortal separation in the drivers chest.[36] Tertre Rouge will be moved in about 200m and new tyre barriers are to be installed at the exit in 2014.

therefore, a 'closed cockpit' did not protect a driver enough. was the closed cockpit any help to the driver? no it wasnt.
cause of death? a tree [doesn't give an inch] behind an armco barrier.
would the driver have survived if there was more room between the barrier and the immovable object? it would be safe to say it would magnify the chances far enough.

we should be happy F1 safety boards improve track safety so we dont have to have bumpers and bullet proof windshields on an F1 car.

[skoop]

i think we have to accept that there always will be freaky accidents which lead to i juries or deaths.
without a canopy a drivers head is exposed. with a canopy other dangers might come. getting stuck in a burning car, or something. if canopys get introduced there will be a freaky accident that could have been avoided if there were no canopys.
you just can't make this sport 100% safe.

[j2004p]

This canopy nonsense needs to stop.

Best post I've read on here in a long while!

[Manoah2u]

i think we have to accept that there always will be freaky accidents which lead to i juries or deaths.
without a canopy a drivers head is exposed. with a canopy other dangers might come. getting stuck in a burning car, or something. if canopys get introduced there will be a freaky accident that could have been avoided if there were no canopys.
you just can't make this sport 100% safe.

this.

[Andres125sx]

Not sure about that, fire is not a common problem today with kevlar tanks, and even if a car get fire that doesn´t mean the driver can´t go out of a closed canopy

But I´ve seen two close calls and two serious accidents lately where a closed canopy would have helped. Grosjean-Alonso crash in Spa 12 and Kimi-Alonso crash in Austria 15 have been two close calls. We´ll never know if Bianchi could be driving today if he´d have driven into a closed canopy. And Maria de Villota would be alive for sure if F1 had adopted closed canopies

I´m not sure what else do they need to implement closed canopies


Also, I don´t see any advantage of an open canopy nor I see the necessity to imply F1 must be with open canopies. How many drivers have suffer some sort of injury in WEC series because of driving into a closed canopy?

[wesley123]

after a collision causing the mechanism to be stuck and immovable. do we really want that?

The same applies to the headrest.

with an answer like that, really, can't take you serious. for real.

Why not? You are stuck with the headrest as well. so therefore, the same applies.

upside down - can't get out. unconsious driver upside down, yeah, that'll be a nice job for the marshalls and doctor to reach the driver when he's upside down with a closed canopy.

The same applies without the canopy.

no, a car upside down is still directly accesible by a marshall that can easily find the seat belt switches to remove an unconscious driver from a vehicle.

Hardly. Plus, they don't really access drivers that way. Apparently bending such a weird curve puts a strain on their back, which apparently is a bad thing after a crash(who knew?)

Have you seen how many times the F1 helmet visor layers needs to be teared off?

At LM they got these tear offs for the windscreens, so the same applies.

at LM they have windscreen wipers.

Indeed, which is exactly why canopies in F1 would need one as well

What's next, windshield wipers?

Yes, that does sound like a good idea if you want to apply a canopy.

you're really sinking into being completely rediculous now.

How so? So you think it is a good idea to leave a windscreen covered with rain and dirt and whatnot? Windscreen wipers are there for a reason, and for that same reason, F1 would need one.

Instead of spending all this money and time on research and work in some 'canopy' idea, this time would be much better invested spending into making sure the REAL cause of the accident is taken away;

So, taking away the cause if these accidents, I assume you are talking about robots?

are you high? or did you just get out with your 'get rediculous and provoke the response i want-leg'?

the fact that the Japan 2014 race should and must have had been either cancelled or at the very least ended at least 10 laps before the (reasonably fatal) accident of Bianchi occured.

No, but that's a matter of opinion. Afaik Fuji 2007 was way, way wetter(for example). Bianchi went off track because he drove too quick in the corner. To stop a race because a driver can make an error is a bit over-the-top if you ask me.

you know nothing. seriously. and you can't read too, it seems. silly me, thinking you were trying to be serious for half a second.[/quote]

It would be nice if you could discuss in a normal point instead of talking down anyone that disagrees with you.

it's like demanding motorcycles to have 4 wheels and a cage around them because there are huge holes in the asphalt. the problem is not the motorcycle, the problem are the holes in the asphalt. fix the asphalt.

Except motorcycles are by definition 2-wheeled. But to use your analogy, the asphalt in your analogy is the canopy. the problem that is called is that a drivers head is deemed to be "too exposed", thus, the solution is to remove that exposure by ie. a canopy. You said it yourself; you fix the problem, not run around it.

are you deliberately being delusional?

I'm sorry, but why would i be delusional? I applied exactly what you said. You said;
"it's like demanding motorcycles to have 4 wheels and a cage around them because there are huge holes in the asphalt. the problem is not the motorcycle, the problem are the holes in the asphalt. fix the asphalt."

I'll translate it to you. What you said was; "Instead of applying bandaids to unique problems you fix the cause."

That is exactly what the problem is here; The problem in every situation you named was that the head was exposed, so instead of strengthening a visor, you prevent the head from being exposed.

That is exactly what you said.

So earlier you said that people should fix the problem, instead of turning around it giving an alternate solution to the individual problem, yet, here it suddenly is okay? In every case here the problem was the head was too exposed, thus, the solution would be to stop that exposure. That's exactly what you pointed out with your analogy.

no it wasn't. you twist words and turn it into your own bent theory for some reason. something you like to do repetitevely. and trying to scoop around everything written around it. go ahead and live in your own bubble.

Ah well, at least I actually go in on the content, instead of turning around it making accusations(oh, see what I did there?). You know, instead of just making accusations here and there because i don't agree with you, how about you actually point out flaws? It'll make the discussion a whole lot nicer for everyone.

remind me again why on earths'name this stupid canopy idea still has life in it while it's a 50 year old dead horse that keeps getting poked again and again?

Because the drivers head is exposed, and recent events have pointed out that that still is a problem.

you just read that for 50 years it has been proven it is not a problem.

Really, because all those collisions with debris and heads and near-misses shows otherwise.

Now please, instead of calling me whatever for disagreeing with you, how about you actually discuss what is being said?

Like a famous saying goes; Attack the post, not the poster.

[flynfrog]

Let keep it civil guys.

[machin]

This is almost better than Power vs Flywheel Torque.. except there is a right and wrong answer where Power and Flywheel Torque is concerned!

In my opinion (for what little it is worth); there are plus and minus points about having a canopy, just as there are of not having a canopy....

I always like to think of problems from the opposite starting point and wonder whether my opinion would be different in that instance... lets say that Grand Prix racing had continued to allow canopies to be fitted... and we did have an incident in which someone got stuck inside... would we now be having the debate about whether it was safe to remove the canopy or not? I suspect we would, and I think a lot of people currently in the "No Canopy" camp would be arguing the opposite case in that alternate reality... and possibly vice versa....


One question worth considering is why canopies were banned in the first place? Was it simply along with the other rules which defined what a "single seater" should look like to differentiate them from sports cars of that era? I suspect it was.



It is also worth noting that a lot of other racing series take the view that a roll cage/canopy is definitely a good idea...

[Manoah2u]

When all F1 cars have a canopy on them, it's no longer watching F1,

it's watching prototype class races. Just without the wheel covers. Which probably will become the next safety issue, becuase wheels touching will cause webber-esque flying through the air. can't have that. so, let's ban that too.
guess what result you then have; yes, a LM prototype / WEC prototype racecar.
Amazing cars and superb nonetheless, but it's another class and it's not F1. period.
Showing an old siblerpfeil with a canopy only shows you had LM prototype classes as far as back then.
It's not a F1 car.

F1 doesn't need these extreme patronizing.

While the classic F1 cars were 'sigar' shaped monsters with narrow open-wheels, you had other classes similar but with covered wheels and aerodynamic 'cockpits'. It's been like that forever. It were 2 different classes (at least).

F1 cars in its' basic construction are safe enough. It's the other departments that shown lacking in the past.

what more must happen to F1 to make F1 less F1 as it is already? isn't all the fake stuff enough? DRS? artificial tire wear?

[machin]

When all F1 cars have a canopy on them, it's no longer watching F1

For me F1 is all about the fastest purpose built single seater racecars on the planet driven by the best drivers around relatively "twisty" circuits as fast as possible at the same time as 20+ similar cars trying to be in first position.

Whether those cars have a canopy or not, wings, active downforce, wheel fairings, etc etc is irrelevent to my enjoyment of "F1".

If you argue that F1 cars aren't f1 cars because "they haven't had canopies before now" would you have also resisted the introduction of wings, disc brakes, slick tyres, carbon fibre, venturi tunnels, race harnesses, wheel tethers, etc etc just because the original F1 cars didn't have these features?

I'm not saying I'm for or against canopies in F1... I just find some of the arguments AGAINST them a little... Prejudiced...

[Emmcee]

When all F1 cars have a canopy on them, it's no longer watching F1

For me F1 is all about the fastest purpose built single seater racecars on the planet driven by the best drivers around relatively "twisty" circuits as fast as possible at the same time as 20+ similar cars trying to be in first position.

Whether those cars have a canopy or not, wings, active downforce, wheel fairings, etc etc is irrelevent to my enjoyment of "F1".

If you argue that F1 cars aren't f1 cars because "they haven't had canopies before now" would you have also resisted the introduction of wings, disc brakes, slick tyres, carbon fibre, venturi tunnels, race harnesses, wheel tethers, etc etc just because the original F1 cars didn't have these features?

I'm not saying I'm for or against canopies in F1... I just find some of the arguments AGAINST them a little... Prejudiced...

That's totally different, your talking about an open cockpit to a closed cockpit, wings are different, that comes with technology and speed upgrades, it's a neccesity, canopies arnt. With canopies we would require wipers or they just don't race in the wet anymore like NASCAR, they red flag races now when it's barely wet anyway so that wouldn't matter but they still have to have the ability to get in and out the car in the required time which I think is 5 seconds or unless ejector seats are fitted So in all honesty it would change an f1 car to an open wheeler prototype basically or a fighter jet with wheels lol.