The "Shield" cockpit protection device - 2017 evolution

[Just_a_fan]

I'm not against canopies, I'm against thoughtless knee-jerk "something must be done and this something is it".

They have been doing their research on this since 2009, and still reluctant in finding a solution

Exactly. They have been looking at this for 8 years and still haven't found a solution that answers all of the questions. That tells us something about how difficult it is to get this right. And let's be clear here - if it's not absolutely right it will create more problems than it solves. If it's not absolutely right it will lead to serious injury or death.

This is just another case of BE not wanting change to what he likes. He went great lengths to dismiss the turbo engines because it did not sound right.
Brought in wider tyres coz he thought it would make the cars faster.

What's BE got to do with our discussion? I'm not BE. If I had his money I wouldn't be hanging around in here - I'd be at the races with a girl on each arm and a beer in each hand!

[Edax]

I'm not against canopies, I'm against thoughtless knee-jerk "something must be done and this something is it".

What knee jerk??

They have been doing their research on this since 2009, and still reluctant in finding a solution

This is just another case of BE not wanting change to what he likes. He went great lengths to dismiss the turbo engines because it did not sound right.
Brought in wider tyres coz he thought it would make the cars faster.

Agree. If you want to see rush you should look at Indycar. They completely rebuilt the back of the car after one accident and the debate is still ongoing whether it actually prevents cars from flying. Meanwhile I and quite a few others have problems adjusting to the new look.

I think F1 has generally been quite thorough and considering in making safety changes. And usually they are able to balance aestetics with safety (Hans, side impact protection, anti roll bar, rear impact). Maybe not at first with the low nose, but cars look OK now.

[Andres125sx]

I´m asking for posible problems constantly, but none of you could provide any yet.

Fire is far from a problem nowadays, as deformation of cockpits wich would trap the driver inside, because carbon fiber does not deform, but break

The single biggest issue is that the canopy absolutely must never fail. It must never come loose when the car is being driven. It must never fall off when being driven. It must never come loose in an accident. It must never impact a driver or a marshall during an accident. It must never jam or otherwise prevent immediate escape or emergency medical access. If it fails in anyway then it will cause an accident. In some cases a failure will result in serious injury or death.

We also have the issue of the driver. He will need to be cooled because he will dangerously (potentially fatally) overheat in an enclosed box. That is probably going to need to be a mechanical system. Failure of such a system is going to have to be a black flag issue, particularly at the really hot events. A driver being macho to the point of severe hyperthermia is a death waiting to happen.

The screen is going to have to be shaped / treated to ensure water and/or oil and track debris can't impede a driver's vision. This is different to a driver's visor which has tear offs. All other windscreen racing series have wipers as well as screen tear offs on the screen. So F1 will need wipers. Failure of the wiper in a wet race will have to be a black flag for that driver.

All mechanical systems are prone to failure. The canopy mechanism will have failures. One or more of those failures may (perhaps even will) result in serious injury or death to a driver or marshall.

All of this is before you start looking at how to package a canopy that is large enough to be safe for the driver inside, light enough to be easily removed yet strong enough to be effective. Look at WEC for the space requirements - the cockpit must allow removal of a driver's helmet without movement of his neck, for example.

I'm not against canopies, I'm against thoughtless knee-jerk "something must be done and this something is it".

True, all those are potential problems about closed cockpits. Now take a look at WEC and you´ll realize all that is far from a problem in the real world

Knee-jerk reaction is negating reality like this: closed cockpits are used in motorsport for decades and they´ve not caused any problem. At least since fuel tanks are made of kevlar or whatever resistant material they´re made

[Just_a_fan]

True, all those are potential problems about closed cockpits. Now take a look at WEC and you´ll realize all that is far from a problem in the real world

Knee-jerk reaction is negating reality like this: closed cockpits are used in motorsport for decades and they´ve not caused any problem. At least since fuel tanks are made of kevlar or whatever resistant material they´re made

Yes, closed cars have been used for decades. But, as has been repeatedly stated, they are not just little glass bubbles plonked on an existing car. WEC cockpits are huge compared to the glass bubbles people are proposing for F1. This size makes a huge difference to the safety of the cockpit.

There's no point carrying on with this discussion: you don't argue specific points, you just say "WEC is ok so F1 will be ok".

[Andres125sx]

I think that´s better to your point: I´m going to assume they put a glass bubble plonked on an exiting car without proper thinking, so I can say that will be problematic

[Jolle]

Just today two crashes that ended well: Wehrlein at Monaco and a car spinning and airborne at Indy, where a shield wouldn't add to much safety wise but a halo would be very helpful

[Steven]

Just today two crashes that ended well: Wehrlein at Monaco and a car spinning and airborne at Indy, where a shield wouldn't add to much safety wise but a halo would be very helpful

Both incidents would have been helped with a forward extension of the roll hoop as well (even if that was just a few cm), without the need for the vertical support ahead of a driver's helmet.

Agreed a shield wouldn't have added much (although I'm not fully aware of the strength of such a shield).

[turbof1]

Just today two crashes that ended well: Wehrlein at Monaco and a car spinning and airborne at Indy, where a shield wouldn't add to much safety wise but a halo would be very helpful

A shield is only there to protect against a certain set of accidents, just like a halo is. Regarding Dixon's accident at indy: this is a proper example where the survival cell has done its job: it kept him save while he was flung and spun around, with the rest of the car ditching energy at a good rate by breaking up. The roll hoop was also extremely vital.

I don't fully understand how Wehrlein's head got hit. Perhaps the barrier bend around the the roll hoop and hit his head that way.

Anyhow, halo's and shield screens are there to keep the driver save from debris tossed around as projectiles. It's not there to increase safety during a crash. A halo might have crumbled enough/ripped off the car in the cases of Dixon or Wehrlein.

[Jolle]

Just today two crashes that ended well: Wehrlein at Monaco and a car spinning and airborne at Indy, where a shield wouldn't add to much safety wise but a halo would be very helpful

A shield is only there to protect against a certain set of accidents, just like a halo is. Regarding Dixon's accident at indy: this is a proper example where the survival cell has done its job: it kept him save while he was flung and spun around, with the rest of the car ditching energy at a good rate by breaking up. The roll hoop was also extremely vital.

I don't fully understand how Wehrlein's head got hit. Perhaps the barrier bend around the the roll hoop and hit his head that way.

Anyhow, halo's and shield screens are there to keep the driver save from debris tossed around as projectiles. It's not there to increase safety during a crash. A halo might have crumbled enough/ripped off the car in the cases of Dixon or Wehrlein.

Wehrlein's crash was a potential very dangerous one. Compression of the head from the top, even at low speed by a "soft" tire barrier can result in a broke neck. If Jenson had hit him a bit faster....

The shield is indeed for protection from debris on track, like tires, nosecones or springs. The halo is a extension of the survival cell and should be as strong as the rest of the cell. So when it fails, so would/does the rest of the cell. The test halo's that we've seen so far only were dummies.

For any crash where a car comes loose from the tarmac, the normal barriers won't work because they can be on the wrong hight of the head or be a very painful crash if you go top-head first. Not just a crash like Wehrlein but also (if anybody remembers) the last corner crash in the first Formula E race where Heidfelt had a potential very very nasty coming together with the barrier (which would be less scary with a Halo)

[turbof1]

Just today two crashes that ended well: Wehrlein at Monaco and a car spinning and airborne at Indy, where a shield wouldn't add to much safety wise but a halo would be very helpful

A shield is only there to protect against a certain set of accidents, just like a halo is. Regarding Dixon's accident at indy: this is a proper example where the survival cell has done its job: it kept him save while he was flung and spun around, with the rest of the car ditching energy at a good rate by breaking up. The roll hoop was also extremely vital.

I don't fully understand how Wehrlein's head got hit. Perhaps the barrier bend around the the roll hoop and hit his head that way.

Anyhow, halo's and shield screens are there to keep the driver save from debris tossed around as projectiles. It's not there to increase safety during a crash. A halo might have crumbled enough/ripped off the car in the cases of Dixon or Wehrlein.

Wehrlein's crash was a potential very dangerous one. Compression of the head from the top, even at low speed by a "soft" tire barrier can result in a broke neck. If Jenson had hit him a bit faster....

The shield is indeed for protection from debris on track, like tires, nosecones or springs. The halo is a extension of the survival cell and should be as strong as the rest of the cell. So when it fails, so would/does the rest of the cell. The test halo's that we've seen so far only were dummies.

For any crash where a car comes loose from the tarmac, the normal barriers won't work because they can be on the wrong hight of the head or be a very painful crash if you go top-head first. Not just a crash like Wehrlein but also (if anybody remembers) the last corner crash in the first Formula E race where Heidfelt had a potential very very nasty coming together with the barrier (which would be less scary with a Halo)

I agree, but I don't think you should look at a halo to protect the topside of the head. Rather, you'd have to look at the rollhoop or near that for solutions. A halo is primarily a thing to deflect heavy and large debris coming from the front. A windscreen is to deflect lighter and smaller debris also from the front. Protecting the top of the head will require an other solution entirely.

In my opinion, they should canopy it. Enclose the whole head from the outside. That's the only way to keep the head save for all situations. But a windscreen, or any other solution that protects a vulnerable part of the driver, will do for now.

[Jolle]

A shield is only there to protect against a certain set of accidents, just like a halo is. Regarding Dixon's accident at indy: this is a proper example where the survival cell has done its job: it kept him save while he was flung and spun around, with the rest of the car ditching energy at a good rate by breaking up. The roll hoop was also extremely vital.

I don't fully understand how Wehrlein's head got hit. Perhaps the barrier bend around the the roll hoop and hit his head that way.

Anyhow, halo's and shield screens are there to keep the driver save from debris tossed around as projectiles. It's not there to increase safety during a crash. A halo might have crumbled enough/ripped off the car in the cases of Dixon or Wehrlein.

Wehrlein's crash was a potential very dangerous one. Compression of the head from the top, even at low speed by a "soft" tire barrier can result in a broke neck. If Jenson had hit him a bit faster....

The shield is indeed for protection from debris on track, like tires, nosecones or springs. The halo is a extension of the survival cell and should be as strong as the rest of the cell. So when it fails, so would/does the rest of the cell. The test halo's that we've seen so far only were dummies.

For any crash where a car comes loose from the tarmac, the normal barriers won't work because they can be on the wrong hight of the head or be a very painful crash if you go top-head first. Not just a crash like Wehrlein but also (if anybody remembers) the last corner crash in the first Formula E race where Heidfelt had a potential very very nasty coming together with the barrier (which would be less scary with a Halo)

I agree, but I don't think you should look at a halo to protect the topside of the head. Rather, you'd have to look at the rollhoop or near that for solutions. A halo is primarily a thing to deflect heavy and large debris coming from the front. A windscreen is to deflect lighter and smaller debris also from the front. Protecting the top of the head will require an other solution entirely.

In my opinion, they should canopy it. Enclose the whole head from the outside. That's the only way to keep the head save for all situations. But a windscreen, or any other solution that protects a vulnerable part of the driver, will do for now.

The halo is a roll hoop. The roll hoop in use now could become just an air intake. Look at the halo as a roll cage like a LMP car without bodywork. A canopy is the other side, a quite strong bit of bodywork, not made to carry a impact more then a bird or a small object. A canopy is never a part of the survival cell.

if you strip a LMP car from all its bodywork, you'll get a formula car with a halo.

[turbof1]

I'm not sure that it is a roll hoop or intended as a roll hoop. It is designed to take frontal impacts, not to carry the weight and momentum of a rolling car.

You can design it as such though. But I think you'd need to reinforce its attachment points at the top of the sidepods.

[Jolle]

I'm not sure that it is a roll hoop or intended as a roll hoop. It is designed to take frontal impacts, not to carry the weight and momentum of a rolling car.

You can design it as such though. But I think you'd need to reinforce its attachment points at the top of the sidepods.

The halo is build of two carbon fiber (maybe steel reinforced? Or all steel in lower classes) running from the front bulkhead to the point where the side impact structure is attached to the survival cell, plus it reaches above the drivers head. It's pretty clear to me what (apart from deflecting an object) is.... it's an extension of the survival cell, to include the whole driver.

[rscsr]

I'm not sure that it is a roll hoop or intended as a roll hoop. It is designed to take frontal impacts, not to carry the weight and momentum of a rolling car.

You can design it as such though. But I think you'd need to reinforce its attachment points at the top of the sidepods.

The halo is build of two carbon fiber (maybe steel reinforced? Or all steel in lower classes) running from the front bulkhead to the point where the side impact structure is attached to the survival cell, plus it reaches above the drivers head. It's pretty clear to me what (apart from deflecting an object) is.... it's an extension of the survival cell, to include the whole driver.

I thought that the halo device is intended to be titanium.

[wrcsti]

Massa, spring, Hungary...

Henry Surtees, Justin Wilson, Dan Weldon.

The biggest cause of deaths in Single Seater racing these days is drivers being truck in the head with Debris and Track furniture. It's only right that something is being looked into. If we had the attitude of 'what we have is fine' the drivers would still be wearing leather hats and not being strapped in.

sorry im late to the party but i can tell ill get my whole point out just with this post.
1- Dan wheldon would not have been saved by any device anyone has proposed so far. He went head first at 180+mph into a catchfence built to be strong enough to take that hit. It ripped the entire rollhoop clean off the car.

2- Wilson had a large piece of ballast in the nosecone fall to the top of his head, but unless it was a roof with good support he would have still died. It fell almost perfectly on the top of his head, so it would have cleared both the RB and ferrari versions.

3- surtees had a wheel and spindle assembly bounce in front of him. Lets call it 25lb at 130mph (though it was likely more), I think the Halo could have saved him, but i doubt any clear windshield will ever be strong enough to take that hit. No, airplane windows dont take that sort of hit. Any windshield in an open top simply wont be strong enough due to the lack of support all around. It could have avoided massas accident or at worst softenned the hit. Though that spring would have blown clean into the halo

I fully support any measures to make racing safer, but people have to be realistic in what theyre trying to accomplish. Most of fatal accidents since the 2000s would still be fatal without major change. Look at the effort nascar went to, redesigned the entire car to be safer, mandated hans device (and closed faced helmets), and redesigned every aspect of safety on the tracks themselves. The tracks were quickly required to have SAFER barriers on corners, now a days most are covered the whole way around. Indy car also benefited from the hans and safer barriers big time. LMS prototypes were recently mandated to be fully closed cockpit cars. It would be very hard to have a safe single seater open wheel car. Anything you add past shoulders will hurt exiting a car thats upside down. And any doors you add would either also majorly slow you down exiting and upside down car, or give up safety from lateral hits, like getting T boned.

IMHO short of just having open wheel LMP cars it would be very hard to come up with a solution that is overall safer than what we have currently.