Closed Cockpits agreed for 2017

[SR71]

LMP 1 monocoques are nearly big enough for two drivers. There is plenty of room to shrink them down. In F1 we don't need the ability to race in the car for periods much longer than 2 hours. LMP 1 cars have aircons, water gizmos and a bunch of other stuff beside the driver. I'm pretty sure that F1 designers will be ably to shrink a LMP 1 monocoque to nearly F1 width.

For fast extraction, why does nobody mention that all fighter aircraft have detonation cord (not too sure what the correct name is) down the middle and around the sides of the canopy. If they go off the shatter the entire canopy. If fighter pilots - who more of their body exposed during ejection (when the canopy blows) are safe when the canopy blows, then I am pretty sure that a F1 driver would be more than safe.

There could even be an small explosive device fitted (as already used in fighter aircraft) that explodes at a very high frequency that shatters the canopy in that way.

Canopies are much safer than the HALO idea and there are many PROVEN ways for getting someone out of them fast.

MAMBA

Do you have a scientific study that proves this? I would love to read your source.

[Cannonballer]

I don't recall (did not think) the halo being "advertised" as preventing injury in that situation, the focus seemed to be on pieces of cars - not a whole car. I will defer to the explanation of others about the deficiency of the halo in preventing injury in that situation. My biggest problem is that the halo is a bandaid fix that doesn't go far enough. If the drivers require more protection they should be given something that will actually protect them, regardless of aesthetics.

The Halo protection is also meant to stop driver's head against a another car. The Halo will provide some degree of deflection to the object.

While I would argue for a polycarbonate windshield between the chassis and a Halo, and for a gusset to be altered for better vision, I think it is a great start, something that should have been done 5 years back.

It is a band aid but it is set to improve over the years with batter material and fabrication. I quoted some time back that the cockpit side protection in 1995 (specially on the Ferrari) looked very ugly.

I will defer to Just_a_fan's explanation of the halo shortcomings again. Not only does he replies faster than I do, he is more articulate. I am glad we can both agree more protection is better and a windshield is probably ideal. However, I do not have faith in F1, as things are currently run/going/exist, to evolve the halo past the bandaid stage. It will just remain a half assed and poorly thought out solution.

[Gerhardsa]

Seriously?

As long as the canopy is lower than the roll hoop and tapers off to just in front of the cockpit, it will be pretty easy to get rid of it in any situation, so long as it is designed as a 3 piece cockpit.
I recon the top part of the canopy should just come loose upon "ejection, (unlike a fighter jet canopy) and the side should fall off. that takes care of any situation, be the car on its roof or whatever.

Its pretty common sense that it will be safer than the Halo so long as its the same type of material as fighter jet canopies.

[livinglikethathuh]

^this.

A small detonation cord inside the "glass" may also be used, a la Harrier and F-35 canopies.

[Gerhardsa]

A detonation point can be outside the car as well, in case of a driver being unconscious, so it can be opened. something that should be closed off like the fuel tank flap or the neutral selection point on the front of the tub

[FW17]

I don't see the need for a explosive device. The canopy can be made to slide forward connected to a small pneumatic jack with its own small co2 cylinder.

The jack being strong enough to force the canopy open in case driver or track marshal is not able to do the regular procedure.

[FW17]

Seriously?

As long as the canopy is lower than the roll hoop and tapers off to just in front of the cockpit, it will be pretty easy to get rid of it in any situation, so long as it is designed as a 3 piece cockpit.
I recon the top part of the canopy should just come loose upon "ejection, (unlike a fighter jet canopy) and the side should fall off. that takes care of any situation, be the car on its roof or whatever.
http://s24.postimg.org/ta5avsbp1/F1_Canopy.jpg
Its pretty common sense that it will be safer than the Halo so long as its the same type of material as fighter jet canopies.

.

Great drawing

But always felt that the polycarbonate canopy needs to be a single piece as part of the strength comes from its dome shape. If you break it to sections then heavy reinforcements like the current halo may be needed.

[Gerhardsa]

Seriously?

As long as the canopy is lower than the roll hoop and tapers off to just in front of the cockpit, it will be pretty easy to get rid of it in any situation, so long as it is designed as a 3 piece cockpit.
I recon the top part of the canopy should just come loose upon "ejection, (unlike a fighter jet canopy) and the side should fall off. that takes care of any situation, be the car on its roof or whatever.
http://s24.postimg.org/ta5avsbp1/F1_Canopy.jpg
Its pretty common sense that it will be safer than the Halo so long as its the same type of material as fighter jet canopies.

.

Great drawing

But always felt that the polycarbonate canopy needs to be a single piece as part of the strength comes from its dome shape. If you break it to sections then heavy reinforcements like the current halo may be needed.

Think of it as a A-10 Warthog type cockpit (with better visibility) rather than something like an F-16/F-15.
Its still going to be better than the halo imho

[Gerhardsa]

Seriously?

As long as the canopy is lower than the roll hoop and tapers off to just in front of the cockpit, it will be pretty easy to get rid of it in any situation, so long as it is designed as a 3 piece cockpit.
I recon the top part of the canopy should just come loose upon "ejection, (unlike a fighter jet canopy) and the side should fall off. that takes care of any situation, be the car on its roof or whatever.
http://s24.postimg.org/ta5avsbp1/F1_Canopy.jpg
Its pretty common sense that it will be safer than the Halo so long as its the same type of material as fighter jet canopies.

.

Great drawing

But always felt that the polycarbonate canopy needs to be a single piece as part of the strength comes from its dome shape. If you break it to sections then heavy reinforcements like the current halo may be needed.

Think of it as a A-10 Warthog type canopy (with better visibility) rather than something like an F-16/F-15.
Its still going to be better than the halo imho.

[Gerhardsa]

shoot... double post!

[theblackangus]

So maybe I missed this earlier in the thread, but since there are alot of good ideas flying around I am going to lay down a list of things a canopy need to protect against (Ideally) because we need to really scope out what are we trying to achieve.
We can then detail out how and what each idea that gets posted protects against these demands, what additional risk it brings, and how does it impact the "Fan" factor.

Protection Needs: (In order of importance and difficulty of implementation based on accident type and IMHO)(Please suggest others)
1. Henry Surtee's type accident - Tire sized (Large) object directly on top or forward position at the drivers helmet.
2. Justin Wilson type accident - Medium sized object from a top or forward position.
3. Felipe Massa type accident - Small very hard debris from a top or forward position
4. Aryton Senna type accident - Intrusion of medium sized items into the Helmet area of the cockpit
5. Dan Weldon type accident - Car canopy is grinding against the ground, cement wall barrier, or other surface that could impact a helmet. (Fence in this case but ground could cause the same)
6. Jules Bianchi/María de Villota type accident - Sudden deceleration of the vehicle from high speed submarineing under another very heavy object that is mostly immobile with potentially sharp edge.

Possible safety implications of covering the driver that should be addressed by solutions:
1. Heat of cockpit area becoming too extreme
2. Driver getting into and out of the cockpit on his own
3. Visibility from withing the cockpit
4. How to handle pilot evac when car is on fire
5. How to handle pilot evac when pilot is injured/un-responsive
6. How to handle pilot evac when car is upside down
7. How to handle environmental visibility in rain/oil/mud

Other goals: (Desires rather than must haves)
1. Allows viability of the driver to the fans
2. Is not ugly
3. Doesn't make F1 cars look like other series

From there solutions can be judged by various cases. The idea is to keep the solutions to a low complexity, while covering as many safety tick boxes as possible. (Complexity Example: Adding many cameras and electronic HUDS are a considerable complexity change to the solution, as are adding explosives)

Viable:
1. Solution covers 40% or more of these issues while creating no further safety issues.
2. Solution covers 40% or more of these issues while creating another safety problem which is solvable by a low tech lightweight solution.
3. Solution covers 60% or more of these issues while creating another safety problem which is solvable by high tech lightweight solution but only if the costs are not crazy.

Research/Design more:
1. Solution covers two or more of these issues while creating another problem not easily solvable with current technology.

Non Starters:
1. Solutions that require substantial R&D to bring new tech to market to solve problems created by solution

Please help with suggestions to help fine tune the focus of this post, as it is appreciated.

[theblackangus]

Seriously?

As long as the canopy is lower than the roll hoop and tapers off to just in front of the cockpit, it will be pretty easy to get rid of it in any situation, so long as it is designed as a 3 piece cockpit.
I recon the top part of the canopy should just come loose upon "ejection, (unlike a fighter jet canopy) and the side should fall off. that takes care of any situation, be the car on its roof or whatever.
http://s24.postimg.org/ta5avsbp1/F1_Canopy.jpg
Its pretty common sense that it will be safer than the Halo so long as its the same type of material as fighter jet canopies.

Example:
This solution evaluation:
Protects Against:
Safety items 1-4 (Possibly 5, not likely 6) - Stops a variety of potential safety concerns.

Protection Concerns:
For safety item 1 this may not be strong enough to deflect a large heavy item. Possible assistance in this would be to make the "glass frames" from a high strength carbon fiber to enable better deflection characteristics.

Safety Concerns:
1. Creates more heat in cockpit - Mitigated by small aircon or piping air into the cockpit from external to the vehicle
2. Creates potential driver evac issues when the vehicle is upside down - Mitigated by 3 piece design as long as easy manual removal can happen.
3. Since it is entirely removable can it be made to attach strongly enough to keep its protective advantages?
4. Creates visibility concerns when liquids are introduced - Various low tech mitigation strategies need to be tested. Tear offs, wipers, hydrophobic coatings.
5. Can it be made w/o warping drivers view of the world?

Over all Rating:
Promising - Deeper design/testing warranted.

[Sniffit]

Rumours has that MotoGP will follow F1:



Not really, but if you are neutering the pinnacle of car motor sport why not motorbike as well?
Next up we will have them drive RC cars to make sure they don't get carsick.

Also NFL and Hockey will remove tackles and alpine skiing will only use the childres slope.

[ringo]

It's kinda looking like things should just stay as they are.
I feel a more attractive halo should be sufficient. A halo with a windscreen and call it a day.

Otherwise, we may be looking at completely new chassis regs with a bigger chassis.

[aleks_ader]

It's kinda looking like things should just stay as they are.
I feel a more attractive halo should be sufficient. A halo with a windscreen and call it a day.

Otherwise, we may be looking at completely new chassis regs with a bigger chassis.

Great compromise. F1 roadster championship. So Ferrari would use "Spider" in model name (Sf16T Spider)