Closed Cockpits agreed for 2017

[ChrisDanger]

Not sure who made it but Here is a great windshield concept found on imgur:

http://m.imgur.com/a/tKKvb

If someone could share this picture, that would be cool

http://image.noelshack.com/fichiers/201 ... ection.jpg

The main difference I see between these and the halo (other than the screen, obviously) is that with the central halo support you have far greater structural rigidity so you can support a much greater force with a lighter beam. I see the windshield frames as being very flimsy in comparison, even if made to be much thicker than the halo unit. I don't think the screen will offer much support, and if this is the case the non-halo concepts are liable to break like a wishbone. It's like trying to snap a "V" in half vs trying to break a triangle (if something lands more-or-less in the middle, more-or-less from above).

Of course I'd be interested in seeing an FEA comparison of the concepts, without which I don't think anyone is going to take these suggestions too seriously.

[GM7]

PlatinumZealot wrote:
Not sure who made it but Here is a great windshield concept found on imgur:

http://m.imgur.com/a/tKKvb



GM7 wrote:
If someone could share this picture, that would be cool

http://image.noelshack.com/fichiers/201 ... ection.jpg



The main difference I see between these and the halo (other than the screen, obviously) is that with the central halo support you have far greater structural rigidity so you can support a much greater force with a lighter beam. I see the windshield frames as being very flimsy in comparison, even if made to be much thicker than the halo unit. I don't think the screen will offer much support, and if this is the case the non-halo concepts are liable to break like a wishbone. It's like trying to snap a "V" in half vs trying to break a triangle (if something lands more-or-less in the middle, more-or-less from above).

Of course I'd be interested in seeing an FEA comparison of the concepts, without which I don't think anyone is going to take these suggestions too seriously.

Look at the test :



Look at the test of the semi canopy ( 0.50 to 1.10), it's working quite good whereas there's no carbon hoop at the top of the canopy. In addition, the two vertical hoops (number 2 in my picture) and the helmet protection (number 1) aren't there. In your opinion, what kind of thing could give us more credibility if we share this concept ?

[cmF1]

I don't know if it's been covered in the thread or not. But my concern of the proposed halo is side impact. If you use Spa 2012 as an example. When Grosjean mounted onto Alonso, his car was literally inches from his helmet.
If the halo is being made of steel, that is still going to deform if hit by a car and potentialy strike the driver along with the car.
It's just doesn't bare thinking.

[ChrisDanger]

Look at the test of the semi canopy ( 0.50 to 1.10), it's working quite good whereas there's no carbon hoop at the top of the canopy. In addition, the two vertical hoops (number 2 in my picture) and the helmet protection (number 1) aren't there.

Those are different conditions to what I was proposing. Maybe it's less likely for something to come from "above" (or the car to get airborne and impact with something at a weird angle) but this is where I see the main weakness compared with the halo.

In your opinion, what kind of thing could give us more credibility if we share this concept ?

Well, I'd think some kind of feasibility study would have to be done. If I were submitting an idea to the FIA now, I'd look at recent fatal, near-fatal and common motorsports accidents, simulate the conditions using the halo and my proposed concept to show relative performance, and otherwise compare performance parameters like weight and visibilty of my system vs the halo.

That's quite a bit of work though. But good luck. Maybe Red Bull will propose something similar, or the FIA (or someone) will like your rough idea enough to do some kind of feasibility study for you.

[AnthonyG]

I don't know if it's been covered in the thread or not. But my concern of the proposed halo is side impact. If you use Spa 2012 as an example. When Grosjean mounted onto Alonso, his car was literally inches from his helmet.
If the halo is being made of steel, that is still going to deform if hit by a car and potentialy strike the driver along with the car.
It's just doesn't bare thinking.

I don't think it'll deform, but what if it guides a part sticking out toward the drivers head?

[SiLo]

I still think a full canopy would be the best way to go. But really extend it down the nose of the car so it increases the deflection angle, increasing safety for the driver.

[nevill3]

But as has been mentioned elsewhere a fully closed canopy would fill with smoke/carbon monoxide quite quickly in the event of a fire

[Tim.Wright]

But as has been mentioned elsewhere a fully closed canopy would fill with smoke/carbon monoxide quite quickly in the event of a fire

I think you'd find it would more likely keep smoke and carbon monoxide OUT of the canopy. Given the onboard oxygen system they have been running for years, it would actually be the perfect fireproof environment especially in the event the driver is unconscious in a burning car. Marshalls could take the time to put the fire out properly knowing the driver is pretty well protected.

Also, take into account that practically every moving vehicle in the world has a closed cockpit and it is not seen as a net hazard. There might be some isolated cases where it impedes extradition but on the whole it's safer and not to mention much better aerodynamically.

I'd be all for the canopy if it meant they could replace all the tarmac run-off with barriers right up against the edges of the tracks so we could see which drivers had the biggest balls again...

[erlik]

In case of full canopy maybe kind of emergency exit should exist benith the driver. So when the car is upside down, resting on the canopy itself, driver or someone from outside may open the car on the oposite side. It would require complete car redisign ... this is partly joke and partly serious thinking

[bhall II]

Explosive cord...



Modified for F1, of course.

[Jolle]

I still think a full canopy would be the best way to go. But really extend it down the nose of the car so it increases the deflection angle, increasing safety for the driver.

A full canopy would mean adding extra systems like a quick release meganism, some kind of cooling system for especially hot weekends, a anti rain system, tear offs, etc etc. just look at the LMP cars.

Looking at all the accidents from the last decades, it does look like that "getting out of the cockpit in 5 seconds" rule is a bit old fashioned. The last two major fires were Jos Verstappen's pit fire and Bergers crash. The Benetton fire was a foolish breaking the rules and done while refueling (what doesn't happen anymore) and Berger was knocked out cold.

But, every safety feature comes with a new risk. I guess the risk of a halo system would if you overturn the car and its on fire. But the chance of that happening is so much smaller (and manageable with good fire protection systems/marshals) then an impact from a rather large object (like a tire, bodywork, bottle, fire extinguisher or bird) that it would be illogical not to go with some sort of head-bar system.

As for the Spa start accident, it wouldn't have bent or whatever. The car itself would move or deflect before a iron bar crumbles.

And like I said before, this is mk1, just like the headrests, they will be looking good quite soon (just look at the 1996 Ferrari compared to the 1996 Williams, same rules, same protection and one is a looker while the other one looks like a wind tunnel disaster)

[PlatinumZealot]

Not sure who made it but Here is a great windshield concept found on imgur:

http://m.imgur.com/a/tKKvb

If someone could share this picture, that would be cool

http://image.noelshack.com/fichiers/201 ... ection.jpg

The main difference I see between these and the halo (other than the screen, obviously) is that with the central halo support you have far greater structural rigidity so you can support a much greater force with a lighter beam. I see the windshield frames as being very flimsy in comparison, even if made to be much thicker than the halo unit. I don't think the screen will offer much support, and if this is the case the non-halo concepts are liable to break like a wishbone. It's like trying to snap a "V" in half vs trying to break a triangle (if something lands more-or-less in the middle, more-or-less from above).

Of course I'd be interested in seeing an FEA comparison of the concepts, without which I don't think anyone is going to take these suggestions too seriously.

Not necessarily. The windshield can be stronger depending on the design.

[Shrieker]

Andrew and GM's versions are beautiful as well as offering the drivers the benefits of a full open cockpit in terms of exiting the car in a complicated situation, whereas the halo and the other official recommendations in this thread may even prevent the driver from doing so...

[ringo]

Here is what i think can work....

Pneumatic bollards with radar/echolocation proximity sensors that pop up out of the chassis to deflect flying objects.







Formula1 surely can install the optical or echo sensors on the car to detect a flying object and release the bollards from around the cockpit. In fact the bollards can lie donw flat flush with the top of the chassis then pop up 90 degrees when needed.
If bollards are too bulky, then a windsheild can pop up instead.

This would surely improve safety.

[hpras]

Just saying'....