Closed Cockpits agreed for 2017

[bdr529]

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

We don't tackle in hockey, we check

[Mamba]

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

No, I do not have a scientific study. I can however present you with decades of examples where the pilots in high speed fighter aircraft were saved because the canopy breaking part of the ejection sequance worked perfectly.

That is what I meant. The HALO is unproven and yes, so is a canopy on a F1 car but there are plenty of real world examples that show very effective and proven ways of getting a canopy out of the way. There might even be easier ways than the ones I mentioned, but I still feel that a canopy will be safer and easier to get out of if the car is inverted or when the driver in real danger if he does not get out and away from his car quickly (for instance if there is a serious fire).

MAMBA

[FW17]

For guys who have access to FIA safety procedures............


What is the procedure for extraction of a unconscious driver from a flipped race car.

Does FIA have one?

All I have seen is for a car with the right side up where a 6 man crew lift the driver out with the seat.


Or is this one of the situations where there is no procedure as it has not happened?

[adrianjordan]

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.

Sadly nothing can stop the injuries that killed Bianchi. Those were caused by the brain colliding with the skull due to the sudden deceleration

[SR71]

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

No, I do not have a scientific study. I can however present you with decades of examples where the pilots in high speed fighter aircraft were saved because the canopy breaking part of the ejection sequance worked perfectly.

That is what I meant. The HALO is unproven and yes, so is a canopy on a F1 car but there are plenty of real world examples that show very effective and proven ways of getting a canopy out of the way. There might even be easier ways than the ones I mentioned, but I still feel that a canopy will be safer and easier to get out of if the car is inverted or when the driver in real danger if he does not get out and away from his car quickly (for instance if there is a serious fire).

MAMBA

Thanks for verifying your speculation.

I'm curious, why a canopy can be fitted with a detonation based release system yet a HALO system couldnt include similar features?

How much weight do you think an additional explosive system would add? What type of permanent damage could these systems do to a chassis? We all know the drivers are worth more than all the cars combined, but still, a car can roll over these days and be re-used. If your proposal adds too much stress to the chassis it could end up being unusable.

A jet being re-used after pilot ejection is not something they designed for... you considered that right?

Although, I'm just speculating

Cheers.

[Mamba]

Thanks for verifying your speculation.

I'm curious, why a canopy can be fitted with a detonation based release system yet a HALO system couldnt include similar features?

How much weight do you think an additional explosive system would add? What type of permanent damage could these systems do to a chassis? We all know the drivers are worth more than all the cars combined, but still, a car can roll over these days and be re-used. If your proposal adds too much stress to the chassis it could end up being unusable.

A jet being re-used after pilot ejection is not something they designed for... you considered that right?

Although, I'm just speculating

Cheers.

To be honest, I have no idea how much weight it will add so I will not throw random numbers. You are correct, the HALO system could be fitted with such a device that blows its hinges, but I still feel that the canopy's visibility is a big plus in its favour.

I doubt it will cause massive stress. The system can be used by pilots when they eject while still on the ground and after a service and most likely a refit of the electronics the aircraft can be used again - but most damage is done by the ejection seat rocket anyway. Most fighter aircraft are designed to be able to blow the canopy without ejecting the pilot (aircraft static on the ground although a pilot can eject while static on the ground) which will only need a new canopy. Thus I would say that the system would probably not cause that much damage. The modern cars are so strong the chassis would be reusable.


That is how the canopy shatters to pieces - see pieces of Perspex flying

The white lines are the explosive cords inside the canopy.
To conclude, I have no idea how much weight a explosive device will add, but the combination with a F1 canopy will weight wise not be much different to the HALO. The chassis should be reusable as the explosive device I am suggesting is aimed at small controlled explosions to break a canopy not destroy it and the canopy frame.

MAMBA

[SR71]

Thanks for verifying your speculation.

I'm curious, why a canopy can be fitted with a detonation based release system yet a HALO system couldnt include similar features?

How much weight do you think an additional explosive system would add? What type of permanent damage could these systems do to a chassis? We all know the drivers are worth more than all the cars combined, but still, a car can roll over these days and be re-used. If your proposal adds too much stress to the chassis it could end up being unusable.

A jet being re-used after pilot ejection is not something they designed for... you considered that right?

Although, I'm just speculating

Cheers.

To be honest, I have no idea how much weight it will add so I will not throw random numbers. You are correct, the HALO system could be fitted with such a device that blows its hinges, but I still feel that the canopy's visibility is a big plus in its favour.

I doubt it will cause massive stress. The system can be used by pilots when they eject while still on the ground and after a service and most likely a refit of the electronics the aircraft can be used again - but most damage is done by the ejection seat rocket anyway. Most fighter aircraft are designed to be able to blow the canopy without ejecting the pilot (aircraft static on the ground although a pilot can eject while static on the ground) which will only need a new canopy. Thus I would say that the system would probably not cause that much damage. The modern cars are so strong the chassis would be reusable.

http://www.shockmansion.com/wp-content/ ... 6sled1.jpg
That is how the canopy shatters to pieces - see pieces of Perspex flying
https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/109/27520 ... z.jpg?zz=1
The white lines are the explosive cords inside the canopy.
To conclude, I have no idea how much weight a explosive device will add, but the combination with a F1 canopy will weight wise not be much different to the HALO. The chassis should be reusable as the explosive device I am suggesting is aimed at small controlled explosions to break a canopy not destroy it and the canopy frame.

MAMBA

Weight was just something I wanted to bring up since it's being ignored. One could quickly research how much a fighter jet canopy with auxiliary explosive systems weighs or we could keep pretending like that doesnt matter.

So in your conclusion, are you purposely ignoring the fact that fighter jet canopies are roughly 4-8X larger than the canopy that would be fitted to an F1 car?

You think pulling a driver out through a Halo presents a problem but somehow pulling a driver out through a hole in poly-carbonate created by an explosion is going to be easier? Smooth surfaced HALO vs. jagged edged poly-carbonate against a drivers suit? Logical thinking!

Also, you cite 'visibility' as a bonus for the driver. NO system added to an F1 car will increase visibility - a drivers helmet with distortion reducing lens will be as good as it ever gets. When you factor in bad weather - nothing could be worse than a canopy.

*EDIT* To be fair, COATINGS could be used to provide the driver with decent vision, but these cars are filthy at the end of a race... tear away visors still provide a great solution. *EDIT*

Then let's talk about support structures for a canopy... what did you have in mind? Just a bubble? "A" pillars?

Have you considered that the HALO's central beam is there because thats actually less distracting than two beams coming down on the side? "A" pillars could create incredibly dangerous blind spots.

Also, what about distortion of the image through a canopy? When cars are as close together as they are in F1 - peripheral vision is massive tool for the driver, why does this not matter to you?

One more question, since we're trying to have an informed conversation, why do you keep ignoring Red Bull's modified HALO proposition? You know, the one favored by actual engineers on many teams?

CHEERS!

[dans79]

I hate the halo, but I can't see the FIA ever letting something that generates shrapnel by design on a track. You might save the driver, but you might also kill one or more spectators.

[J.A.W.]

I hate the halo, but I can't see the FIA ever letting something that generates shrapnel by design on a track. You might save the driver, but you might also kill one or more spectators.

I doubt a few shards of acrylic plastic are going to have enough mass - to cause issues for distantly seated
spectators.. at least not by comparison - with existing potential 'missile' hazards - from large (wheel) size debris..

But, I 'd reckon a full canopy is needless, & a robust clear-vision windscreen - is better than a 'jail-bar ' halo..

[dans79]

I hate the halo, but I can't see the FIA ever letting something that generates shrapnel by design on a track. You might save the driver, but you might also kill one or more spectators.

I doubt a few shards of acrylic plastic are going to have enough mass - to cause issues for distantly seated
spectators.. at least not by comparison - with existing potential 'missile' hazards - from large (wheel) size debris..

Depending on the track and the turn, the spectators aren't that far from cars. Check out the left side of hairpin in Montreal, people within 30 feet of the racing line . A lot of tracks have turns like this.


The other thing to consider is that the catch fences are only designed to stop large projectiles. A chunk of Lexan the size of a pencil, will pass right through, and will easily penetrate the soft tissues of the neck and face.

[F1NAC]

Red Bull's version of HALO

[djos]

It's an improvement imo.

[Shrieker]

Yes please ! That's definitely better.

[Thunder]

Hmm i don't know.....

Now there are 2 Pillars just in the Way of the Drivers sight then they are going through a Corner. From a visibility standpoint i don't think that is an improvement. Aesthetics don't really look that different. You still have a Halo and now even 2 Pylons.

Still not pleased. Go full Canopy or go home i say.

[SiLo]

They just need to make it more like the front piece of a fighter jet canopy. It can flow in nicely from the nose of the car too.