Closed Cockpits agreed for 2017

[Gerhardsa]

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.

Yes. I also feel that the front part of this "canopy/window is a bit shallow if Im honest.
I was thinking something along these lines (sorry for using paint and destroying the RBR pic) if they do not like the fully closed canopy idea. Still messes around with cornering views, but if the pillars are further ahead, it might seem "thinner" and they might be able to look past it?
Ps...the red arched line right at the front is not anoter pillar, its just my "illustration" of where/how the window will extent further than the RBR one

[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 are correct, a fighter jet canopy is way to big and too heavy to be fitted to an F1 car. I am only proposing to use a similar way of getting the canopy out of the way. A "F1 canopy" will be designed to different requirements than a fighter canopy so size, strength and weight will differ.

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!

You are not following me here. The system used on aircraft is on top of the canopy and it runs around the sides where the perspex meets the canopy frame. thus the entire canopy is blown from its frame and not just the top part. The jagged edges will thus be away from the driver during extraction but they will still be there, correct.

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*

I was working with tear offs in my head as well. The only problem is that the reason for this argument is that we cannot just have a driver visor anymore. Now we have pillars or screens.

Also, canopy's can also be designed with distortion and glare reducing materials - it has been done for years. They would still be there at some angles I guess, but overall the effect should be negligible.

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.

My idea is similar to the ones floating on the net. A bubble canopy but with the explosive cords running over the driver and around the frame. only a single cord will run in front of the driver (To prevent the two pillars as you indicated). The cords are only 10 - 15mm thick so its impact will be less on driver vision than having a top frame and supporting pillar as used in the HALO.
It does not need to be in front of the driver but I think we will want to have the entire canopy blown off during an emergency rather than just the part directly over and around the driver.

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?

I doubt distortion will be much of a worry. Other racing series (LMP 1 being prime example but also F1 boats and road car based racers) use cockpits and they do not complain about distortion.

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?

I like their idea but the driver is still be exposed on top (not a big issue but if it can be closed I would do it) - something a canopy should solve. Their idea as I understand it, is MUCH safer compared to the current HALO (no space for smaller debris to fly into cockpit area from front). The current HALO protects against cars going over each other and tires. Not much else if i'm not mistaken? Their choice of two pillars baffles me though!

regards
MAMBA

[dans79]

Those do, to be frank - dans 79, appear to be fairly slow speed sections of track..

.. so yeah, it seems a tad far-fetched.. to envisage such a sudden shock-blast of dagger-like hostile projectiles..
.. slicing relentlessly through the softly yielding blood-spurting bodies of the haplessly mass-assembled sports-fans..
..akin to a wave of viciously flensing talons - wielded by enraged raptors.. ripping through the air, cruelly flechette-like.. ..unerringly cutting down all & sundry..

Never watched the Canadian grandprix ?

Last year they entered the braking zone before the hairpin doing 300 km/h, and I'm sure kubica would tell you it's not a slow speed section.

[Shrieker]

On a side note, are you guys concerned that drivers may be taking more risks thinking there's more protection ? It's a known phenomenon in motorcycle riders wearing full protection assuming they have somehow become impervious to harm, especially inexperienced ones.

[Just_a_fan]

Kubica was a lucky lad that day. Any faster or at a slightly different angle and he'd have been losing his feet. There is a photo of his feet visible in the ragged front of the tub. Much more damage and...

[bdr529]

Never watched the Canadian grandprix ?
Last year they entered the braking zone before the hairpin doing 300 km/h, and I'm sure kubica would tell you it's not a slow speed section.

You never know what can happen at that hairpin, especially since they paved over the gravel trap,
don't get me wrong I think it's pretty safe considering the tight confines down at the hairpin.
You just never know what can happen in Montreal, I'v seen some crazy s**t in 30 years

Besides, the last section of that grandstand on the left is for the handicap, wheelchair accessible
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... airpin.jpg

[SR71]

Interesting that so many people seem to think a fighter jet style canopy release is going to work or even necessary...

Linear explosions happening at a drivers neck, arms, and hands. SMART!! These systems also eject material as many forum members have pointed out.

With all this explosion talk, I feel a bit awkward that I'm the first to bring up the solution Mercedes employed in the SLS.



Having a HALO or 'canopy' or hybrid subframe held to the cars chassis by, let's say 4 bolts, that could have micro explosions to destroy the bolts makes a lot more sense than suggesting fighter jet style systems. This system is even tested for use in passenger vehicles.

That said, I still dont think we need explosions at all. With zero evidence of support in the F1 community I think many arm chair engineers are 'rat-holing' on this terrible idea just for trolling purposes at this point.

[bdr529]

What I don't understand with the exploding canopy idea, what do you do if the car is upside down
Can you use the exploding canopy without the forces and debris being directed back into the cockpit ??
Has any Air Force or plane mfg. tested this with the plane laying upside down on the tarmac or embedded in gravel ?

[SR71]

What I don't understand with the exploding canopy idea, what do you do if the car is upside down
Can you use the exploding canopy without the forces and debris coming back in to the cockpit ??
Has Air Force tested this with the plane laying upside down on the tarmac or embedded in gravel ?

I wouldn't try to understand it... It's a false low hanging fruit solution. It 'feels' like it should work but in reality has more problems than it solves. In fact, it actually doesn't solve any problems.

Merc's doors had hinges that destroyed themselves allowing the doors to be pulled away. This is much more in tune with the system needed for an F1 car. We need to remove much more than just the "halo" or canopy to extract a driver, we need a large section of the cockpit to be removable in a VERY short period of time.

We should focus on simple, fail safe, redundant ideas when it comes to driver extraction. Think along the lines of the removable (1 button push) cockpit liner that locks the drivers in place until removed.

We need ideas that simple.

[Mamba]

What I don't understand with the exploding canopy idea, what do you do if the car is upside down
Can you use the exploding canopy without the forces and debris coming back in to the cockpit ??
Has Air Force tested this with the plane laying upside down on the tarmac or embedded in gravel ?

I wouldn't try to understand it... It's a false low hanging fruit solution. It 'feels' like it should work but in reality has more problems than it solves. In fact, it actually doesn't solve any problems.

Merc's doors had hinges that destroyed themselves allowing the doors to be pulled away. This is much more in tune with the system needed for an F1 car. We need to remove much more than just the "halo" or canopy to extract a driver, we need a large section of the cockpit to be removable in a VERY short period of time.

We should focus on simple, fail safe, redundant ideas when it comes to driver extraction. Think along the lines of the removable (1 button push) cockpit liner that locks the drivers in place until removed.

We need ideas that simple.

It is a good idea, but would it not compromise the tub strength to have a part of it removeable for a bigger extraction space? Such doors would have to be on both sides of the tub I assume to cater for whichever direction the car is laying (slightly to the left or right)?

Is that in the end not a modified LMP1 cockpit with the doors opening upwards? I'm just asking because I got the idea, correct me if I'm wrong, that LMP 1 cockpits were not the prefered option.

Regards
MAMBA

[J.A.W.]

Those do, to be frank - dans 79, appear to be fairly slow speed sections of track..

.. so yeah, it seems a tad far-fetched.. to envisage such a sudden shock-blast of dagger-like hostile projectiles..
.. slicing relentlessly through the softly yielding blood-spurting bodies of the haplessly mass-assembled sports-fans..
..akin to a wave of viciously flensing talons - wielded by enraged raptors.. ripping through the air, cruelly flechette-like.. ..unerringly cutting down all & sundry..

Never watched the Canadian grandprix ?

Last year they entered the braking zone before the hairpin doing 300 km/h, and I'm sure kubica would tell you it's not a slow speed section.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtrzvwayniM

That Kubica crash was a nasty one, true.. but even so, how many serious/fatal injuries resulted from debris flung into the crowd?

Seems somewhat implausible that the same light plastic material used for helmets/visors/Moto G.P. windscreens & etc..
..would really be any kind of meaningful additional risk factor for F1 usage..

[SR71]

What I don't understand with the exploding canopy idea, what do you do if the car is upside down
Can you use the exploding canopy without the forces and debris coming back in to the cockpit ??
Has Air Force tested this with the plane laying upside down on the tarmac or embedded in gravel ?

I wouldn't try to understand it... It's a false low hanging fruit solution. It 'feels' like it should work but in reality has more problems than it solves. In fact, it actually doesn't solve any problems.

Merc's doors had hinges that destroyed themselves allowing the doors to be pulled away. This is much more in tune with the system needed for an F1 car. We need to remove much more than just the "halo" or canopy to extract a driver, we need a large section of the cockpit to be removable in a VERY short period of time.

We should focus on simple, fail safe, redundant ideas when it comes to driver extraction. Think along the lines of the removable (1 button push) cockpit liner that locks the drivers in place until removed.

We need ideas that simple.

It is a good idea, but would it not compromise the tub strength to have a part of it removeable for a bigger extraction space? Such doors would have to be on both sides of the tub I assume to cater for whichever direction the car is laying (slightly to the left or right)?

Is that in the end not a modified LMP1 cockpit with the doors opening upwards? I'm just asking because I got the idea, correct me if I'm wrong, that LMP 1 cockpits were the a prefered option.

Regards
MAMBA

I never said doors, so I won't respond to that.

Nice try though.

Have you never seen how large the cockpit opening is with shoulder barriers removed? Do you think the tub is compromised? Clearly it's not since they pass crash tests with openings that size.

As I clearly stated above, we need solutions along the lines of this.

Next.

Cheers!

[SR71]

What I don't understand with the exploding canopy idea, what do you do if the car is upside down
Can you use the exploding canopy without the forces and debris coming back in to the cockpit ??
Has Air Force tested this with the plane laying upside down on the tarmac or embedded in gravel ?

I wouldn't try to understand it... It's a false low hanging fruit solution. It 'feels' like it should work but in reality has more problems than it solves. In fact, it actually doesn't solve any problems.

Merc's doors had hinges that destroyed themselves allowing the doors to be pulled away. This is much more in tune with the system needed for an F1 car. We need to remove much more than just the "halo" or canopy to extract a driver, we need a large section of the cockpit to be removable in a VERY short period of time.

We should focus on simple, fail safe, redundant ideas when it comes to driver extraction. Think along the lines of the removable (1 button push) cockpit liner that locks the drivers in place until removed.

We need ideas that simple.

It is a good idea, but would it not compromise the tub strength to have a part of it removeable for a bigger extraction space? Such doors would have to be on both sides of the tub I assume to cater for whichever direction the car is laying (slightly to the left or right)?

Is that in the end not a modified LMP1 cockpit with the doors opening upwards? I'm just asking because I got the idea, correct me if I'm wrong, that LMP 1 cockpits were the a prefered option.

Regards
MAMBA

Just to be clear- I never said doors like the SLS should be in F1.

I mearly shared the photo to remind readers of the vehicle and the fact that the gull wing doors created a safety issue when the car rolled over. Mercedes solution was to have the hinges self destruct so that emergency works could simply pull the doors off and away.

Have a self destructing pin is the system that could be leveraged on an F1 car. If I wasn't clear enough before, a system like the HALO could be hard mounted to the chassis at 3-4 mount points. These points could feature a self destruct mechanism similar to mercs door hinges that allows track marshals to pull the halo out of the way easily.

I'm pretty sure that makes sense.

However i still stand by the fact that explosive or self destructing systems on an F1 car is ridiculous and unnecessary and backwards thinking.

Cheers!

[Mamba]

Just to be clear- I never said doors like the SLS should be in F1.

I mearly shared the photo to remind readers of the vehicle and the fact that the gull wing doors created a safety issue when the car rolled over. Mercedes solution was to have the hinges self destruct so that emergency works could simply pull the doors off and away.

Have a self destructing pin is the system that could be leveraged on an F1 car. If I wasn't clear enough before, a system like the HALO could be hard mounted to the chassis at 3-4 mount points. These points could feature a self destruct mechanism similar to mercs door hinges that allows track marshals to pull the halo out of the way easily.

I'm pretty sure that makes sense.

However i still stand by the fact that explosive or self destructing systems on an F1 car is ridiculous and unnecessary and backwards thinking.

Cheers!

Thanks for clarifying things up! I misunderstood your reference to the SLS.

[void]

I loved RedBull proposal, is halo but isn't so ugly! I prefer the two pillars than that ugly Y tested by Ferrari.

About fully closed cockpits. I cannot think about a closed cockpit for F1 if it don't slide to the nose of the car, is the only way to exit in a upside down car. With no needs of explosive chords. But how to integrate this with the tube?