Overbeeke Closed canopy f1 concept

[machin]

"Fighter jet with wheels"?!

Sounds awesome, where do I sign up?!

I can assure you that F1 cars could achieve the same lap times without wings... Using a fan for instance... So Wings aren't a NECESSITY for an F1 car, just like many other features that we now "take for granted".

Of course, its OK simply to say "I don't like the look of them"... But saying "it's not F1" is just... Well, I said it before... Prejudiced....

And as to the safety aspect, it took me about 2 minutes to think of a solution to the "upside down car" scenario that only needs the canopy to be lifted 20mm or so before it can be removed by a marshall or the driver...

[Emmcee]

"Fighter jet with wheels"?!

Sounds awesome, where do I sign up?!

I can assure you that F1 cars could achieve the same lap times without wings... Using a fan for instance... So Wings aren't a NECESSITY for an F1 car, just like many other features that we now "take for granted".

Of course, its OK simply to say "I don't like the look of them"... But saying "it's not F1" is just... Well, I said it before... Prejudiced....

And as to the safety aspect, it took me about 2 minutes to think of a solution to the "upside down car" scenario that only needs the canopy to be lifted 20mm or so before it can be removed by a marshall or the driver...

I don't think it's prejudice, more of an opinion and IMO, f1 is open cockpit and open wheels, simple as that. As for not needing wings I also have to disagree as even the Brabham fan car had wings, you would need them for stability in high speed corners eapecially,more so than downforce if you had a fan.

[Andres125sx]

"Fighter jet with wheels"?!

Sounds awesome, where do I sign up?!

I can assure you that F1 cars could achieve the same lap times without wings... Using a fan for instance... So Wings aren't a NECESSITY for an F1 car, just like many other features that we now "take for granted".

Of course, its OK simply to say "I don't like the look of them"... But saying "it's not F1" is just... Well, I said it before... Prejudiced....

And as to the safety aspect, it took me about 2 minutes to think of a solution to the "upside down car" scenario that only needs the canopy to be lifted 20mm or so before it can be removed by a marshall or the driver...

I don't think it's prejudice, more of an opinion and IMO, f1 is open cockpit and open wheels, simple as that. As for not needing wings I also have to disagree as even the Brabham fan car had wings, you would need them for stability in high speed corners eapecially,more so than downforce if you had a fan.

Sorry buy no, wings are not needed. And you can´t say even Brabham had wings as a proof. Even Brabham had wings because they were allowed, and since fan+wings is faster than fan alone, they used wings. But wings could be banned perfectly....

And probably many people would complain saying F1 without wings is not F1, the same as some decades back they said exactly the contrary when wings were introduced


People is opposed to changes, it´s part of human nature, but if you yield to that, then we (and/or F1) will never evolve

[Andres125sx]

BTW, it´s interesting how you guys keep discussion about opinions, but nobody said anything about some facts I posted earlier...


In last 3 seasons one test driver died, another driver went to the hospital where he still is 8 months after, and there have been two close calls more, all of them realted to open/closed canopies. Those are facts, not opinions. With a closed canopy De Villota would still be with us for sure as her accidente would have been a simple anecdote, but he died because his head was exposed. Bianchi, at least, would have suffered less injuries since the canopy would have absorved part of the impact, and Kimi and Alonso wouldn´t have had those two close calls


I´m still waiting to read some serious reason to not introduce closed canopies that can be compared to this. My question was fair, I don´t watch WEC, there have been some accident lately where a driver has suffered some injury because of a closed canopy to compare with these I´ve explained because of an open canopy?

That would be a serious reason/discusion, but discussing about how beauty/ugly or about the identity of F1 is nuts compared to drivers safety based on experience

[Emmcee]

Can you please explain how it would be possible to corner at similar speeds without the stability of wings? I know they used to be wingless but they were unstable as fvck back them, any sudden mivent of the wheel at high speeds would equal disaster. They had to be driven with incredible throttle control like an egg was under the accelerator and smooth smooth steering. IMO I couldn't see how it would be possible with the power output and sudden torque of today's cars, I mean they struggled back in the 60s with less power.

[Andres125sx]

Wings add grip, not stability. Any car with or without wings will race to the grip limit, if it has wings the limit will be much faster than if it does not have wings. Not sure how you may consider safer something wich implies if you loose control you´ll do it much faster...


anycase this is OT, open a new thread about F1 with or without wings and I´d be glad to participate, specially because I´d love if they ban wings and to compensate the lack of downforce remove the ban on some other technologies (wing cars, ground effect, active suspensions, active aero...)

[Emmcee]

Wings add grip, not stability. Any car with or without wings will race to the grip limit, if it has wings the limit will be much faster than if it does not have wings. Not sure how you may consider safer something wich implies if you loose control you´ll do it much faster...


anycase this is OT, open a new thread about F1 with or without wings and I´d be glad to participate, specially because I´d love if they ban wings and to compensate the lack of downforce remove the ban on some other technologies (wing cars, ground effect, active suspensions, active aero...)

Fair enough, sounds reasonable to me.

[machin]

I don't think it's prejudice, more of an opinion and IMO, f1 is open cockpit and open wheels, simple as that.

But with the definition of "prejudice" being "an opinion or feeling formed beforehand", then your opinion that "f1 is open cockpit", is simply nothing more than a "prejudice".

I also have a prejudice about Le Mans Prototypes: I think they should be proper 2-seaters, not the current "1.5 seaters" that we have... but to be honest there is nothing particularly wrong with the current format, and it doesn't really affect my enjoyment of watching the sport, no more than a canopy on an F1 car would affect my enjoyment of that category....

Here's a question then: presuming that the "negative safety side" of the canopy argument can be overcome (I believe it can...), and ignoring the "F1 is open cockpit" prejudice, then what would the teams do if given free-reign?

Adding the canopy may require the use of windscreen wipers, a de-mister and maybe additional cooling or an AC system which would add some complexity but adding the canopy would also lead to improved aerodynamics, the possibility of using a Heads-Up-Display... and..... anything else?

[Emmcee]

I don't think it's prejudice, more of an opinion and IMO, f1 is open cockpit and open wheels, simple as that.

But with the definition of "prejudice" being "an opinion or feeling formed beforehand", then your opinion that "f1 is open cockpit", is simply nothing more than a "prejudice".

I also have a prejudice about Le Mans Prototypes: I think they should be proper 2-seaters, not the current "1.5 seaters" that we have... but to be honest there is nothing particularly wrong with the current format, and it doesn't really affect my enjoyment of watching the sport, no more than a canopy on an F1 car would affect my enjoyment of that category....

Here's a question then: presuming that the "negative safety side" of the canopy argument can be overcome (I believe it can...), and ignoring the "F1 is open cockpit" prejudice, then what would the teams do if given free-reign?

Adding the canopy may require the use of windscreen wipers, a de-mister and maybe additional cooling or an AC system which would add some complexity but adding the canopy would also lead to improved aerodynamics, the possibility of using a Heads-Up-Display... and..... anything else?

Yeah, you made some good points.

[chip engineer]

How about this Pikes Peak car:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/06 ... rimac.html
A real electric race car.

[Andres125sx]

Here's a question then: presuming that the "negative safety side" of the canopy argument can be overcome (I believe it can...), and ignoring the "F1 is open cockpit" prejudice, then what would the teams do if given free-reign?

Closed canopy, period. Aerodynamics are the most important part of F1 cars, and open cockpits add a lot of drag.


So here you have an excuse, all of you who consider any change must be perfomance related

[Illustrated Tech]

Here's a question then: presuming that the "negative safety side" of the canopy argument can be overcome (I believe it can...), and ignoring the "F1 is open cockpit" prejudice, then what would the teams do if given free-reign?

Closed canopy, period. Aerodynamics are the most important part of F1 cars, and open cockpits add a lot of drag.
So here you have an excuse, all of you who consider any change must be perfomance related

I agree - a closed canopy would be desirable aero-wise. I just wonder whether the mass penalty might also be a factor, which would favour a non-canopy solution?

[wesley123]

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

That's always a difficult thing to say? If your definition of F1 is a certain shape, then F1 has been gone since the 50s already.

it's watching prototype class races. Just without the wheel covers.

So cars like the Morgan isn't a prototype anymore? It's a open-top car with holes in it's fenders.

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.

And I'd be a fan of that. They already lowered noses for exactly that.

guess what result you then have; yes, a LM prototype / WEC prototype racecar.

Imagine a canopy. Doesn't remotely look like a prototype

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.

An F1 car is an f1 car because it's defined as it's class. If it ran in WRC it would be defined as a WRC car. in PWC it would be a GT/GT3, etc. etc.

An F1 car is only an F1 car because it follows the ruleset for the class it is ran in.

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

I'd agree with this one on the sporting side. Injuries are a part of the sport, it is an effect on the human body as it gets pushed to, and beyond the limit.

However, on the billion-dollar business side, any injury that puts a driver on the sideline is bad for business, and thus, it needs to be prevented.

Also, FIA is really pushing the roadside safety, and constant injuries would jeopardize this campaign.

[Emmcee]

Here's a question then: presuming that the "negative safety side" of the canopy argument can be overcome (I believe it can...), and ignoring the "F1 is open cockpit" prejudice, then what would the teams do if given free-reign?

Closed canopy, period. Aerodynamics are the most important part of F1 cars, and open cockpits add a lot of drag.
So here you have an excuse, all of you who consider any change must be perfomance related

I agree - a closed canopy would be desirable aero-wise. I just wonder whether the mass penalty might also be a factor, which would favour a non-canopy solution?

Yeah added weight is all I can think about from it being applied, unless they make it mandatory, I don't think we will see it.

[FW17]

Drivers want cockpit protection for 2017

F1 drivers have agreed that the sport should implement better cockpit protection for 2017.

Alex Wurz, president of the safety-oriented Grand Prix Drivers' Association (GPDA), told the BBC: "The research the FIA experts have done is very thorough and the process has brought forward a clear solution.

"Now the drivers feel it's time to implement the extra protection at the latest in 2017."

Calls for better head protection - such as canopies, cages or a Mercedes-devised 'halo' solution - have grown stronger since the death of Jules Bianchi.

Wurz said drivers now unanimously want a "swift implementation" of a solution.

"Obviously structural changes are required to the chassis but, with almost a one-year lead time, I don't see any technical person speaking against such substantial safety improvements, especially given the last big accidents in open-wheel racing involved head injuries," he added.

At the same time, Wurz said drivers are also pushing F1 to make changes to the tyres, arguing that the current Pirelli era does not equate to "maximum-attack racing".

"The drivers want to underline very clearly that they would love Pirelli to produce a tyre which goes faster around corners as well as being safe," he said.

"That's what we want and, according to the fan survey we did last year, what all the fans expect."

However, it might be argued that the drivers' push for better safety as well as much higher cornering speeds are contradictory.

But Wurz argues: "We know that car and circuit safety was designed for higher speeds.

"We have seen higher cornering speeds in F1 already, back in 2009, cars went more than 30mph faster around corners," he explained.

"While we drivers want to minimise the dangers, by using modern technologies and the amazing safety know-how F1 developed over the years, drivers accept the underlying risks of racing to a certain extent.

"But first and foremost race drivers want to go fast."

Merc solution is nice but i would like to see a wind shield in front of the driver rather than that center support




But still would have loved a full cockpit cover.