Closed Cockpits agreed for 2017

[godlameroso]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CcthDm8XEAAzdzS.jpg:medium This is why.

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-vo ... 17-803083/

[ChrisDanger]

[bauc]

Okey so we have one more year to develop halo or aerosrceen..good news!

As for the radio....Kimi is the only guy who is funny to listen

[Thunder]

Wow, common sense ..... i'm impressed. Now develop a badass Canopy for 2018 and everything is fine.

[scuderiafan]

Wow, common sense ..... i'm impressed. Now develop a badass Canopy for 2018 and everything is fine.

What are the odds of an "aeroscreen" device actually being developed and put into place, though? It sounds like IndyCar might pioneer such a device for 2018, which would be interesting to say the least.

[Manoah2u]

id say right now investing in stockmarket regarding high resistant polymers is the best time to do so............

[FW17]

I did not understand the issues stated by the FIA on the aero screen

1) They said the helmet hit the framework of the aero screen in case of a frontal impact or side impact.

............................. wont that be an issue with the halo too??

2) Performed poorly - not sure what that meant. It passed an impact with the tyre, passed an impact with the weight, still a generalized statement was made by FIA

It was almost as if they did not want the aero screen as there own polycarbonate windshield (30mm thick ) without a top frame shattered.

[turbof1]

............................. wont that be an issue with the halo too??

No. The way the Halo is constructed, it has a lot of frontal stiffness due the central pillar giving a lot of structural support. The aeroscreen has 2 supporting pillars, one at each side. It'll mean the central section is given less structural support and will either break or flex quicker.

(Though if this ultimately is more dangerous is something I doubt, given you don't have a central pillar undeniably blocking view close up, and when the framework hits the head of the driver a lot of the energy from the impact will have been absorbed.)

[domh245]

2) Performed poorly - not sure what that meant. It passed an impact with the tyre, passed an impact with the weight, still a generalized statement was made by FIA

From what I heard, during the test the aeroscreen came into contact with the helmet.

[Jolle]

2) Performed poorly - not sure what that meant. It passed an impact with the tyre, passed an impact with the weight, still a generalized statement was made by FIA

From what I heard, during the test the aeroscreen came into contact with the helmet.

Plus, come on... 3cm thick curved plastics to look trough. Nah

[J.A.W.]

I still reckon a C21st version of this:
http://www.bluebird-electric.net/bluebi ... napier.jpg
..ought to be feasible. It does the job, while allowing a good view of, & by, the driver..

[FW17]

............................. wont that be an issue with the halo too??

No. The way the Halo is constructed, it has a lot of frontal stiffness due the central pillar giving a lot of structural support. The aeroscreen has 2 supporting pillars, one at each side. It'll mean the central section is given less structural support and will either break or flex quicker.

(Though if this ultimately is more dangerous is something I doubt, given you don't have a central pillar undeniably blocking view close up, and when the framework hits the head of the driver a lot of the energy from the impact will have been absorbed.)

From what I understand is that the helmet impacts the frame when the car hits a wall, not when a wheel hits the screen

Flexing of the aeroscreen frame was not cited, in any case the redbull frame is a arch and it will perform better in an impact than the arbitrarily shaped halo

This probably is down to the dimensions considered by Red Bull which did not allow for adequate head movement, data which is privy only to the FIA

2) Performed poorly - not sure what that meant. It passed an impact with the tyre, passed an impact with the weight, still a generalized statement was made by FIA

From what I heard, during the test the aeroscreen came into contact with the helmet.

Plus, come on... 3cm thick curved plastics to look trough. Nah

Red Bull screen did not have a 3 cm plexiglass, the FIA windshield few years back had a 3 cm plexiglass. Red Bull managed to reduce the required thickness by providing the carbon frame. From the images it looks more like 1 cm

[domh245]

Fair enough FW17, although, that video from Red Bull does show the helmet getting hit by the tyre and leaving very visible evidence of it.

[Manoah2u]

Fair enough FW17, although, that video from Red Bull does show the helmet getting hit by the tyre and leaving very visible evidence of it.

a touch mark that could come indeed from the tire, or if one looks in the slowmotion, almost looks like it was the attachment to the wheel instead of the actual tire that made that mark. besides, it was the first test, and RB learned from it. IF they actually make a 2.0 version of it, i'm sure the screen is stretched out slightly further forward and sidewards, and put a bit higher too.

personally, i think the test lacks a certain aspect, it obviously is hard to make real life simulations with static objects, but though the tire may travel at a realistic speed, the actual 'halo' isnt - which actually is a significant thing to miss in the test,
since a) a car on the move creates - even a f1 car - 'bubble' of air around it pushed forwards that also has an effect on its surroundings. b) because it's static, it can't impose a more realistic 'bump' - paired with the effects of the vehicle speeding.
i know they more or less took this by sending the wheel with 270k, which is a tad high velocity, but dont forget that this one is static and when hit, cant 'push' the object. if the car is moving, it will 'push' the object, which would see it get actual force pushing energy into it which would see it send off into another direction.

personally, im fairly confident that if they moved the halo with a contineous speed of about 60mph (perhaps lower the velocity of the wheel whilst at it) then you would see a totally different effect immediately upon impact.

for example: hitting a football to the leg of a non-moving opponent (into the goal) or hitting a football to the leg of a upcoming opponent (far away from the goal). it will have massive different results, so i think personally, though the intentions are good and its a good basic test, it is far from being actually a 'trustworthy' source and therefor i really am troubled by the conclusions of it being 'paramount' in judgement, instead of taking time to develop both the canopy aswell as the testing equipment decently.

time is of the essence, offcourse, as simply put, every upcoming race is a potential hazard. however, rushing things has proven to be one of the worst decisions in all of history.

i would applaud a system where the FIA and the Teams would gather information from real life sources like fighter jet canopies, stunt canopies, raceboat canopies, and making decent computer simulations from it from experienced enterprises, and make a decent testing rig instead of something that quite honestly, anybody with a high-pressure device can make in their own friggin backyard, and use the measured results.

[adrianjordan]

Fair enough FW17, although, that video from Red Bull does show the helmet getting hit by the tyre and leaving very visible evidence of it.

a touch mark that could come indeed from the tire, or if one looks in the slowmotion, almost looks like it was the attachment to the wheel instead of the actual tire that made that mark. besides, it was the first test, and RB learned from it. IF they actually make a 2.0 version of it, i'm sure the screen is stretched out slightly further forward and sidewards, and put a bit higher too.

personally, i think the test lacks a certain aspect, it obviously is hard to make real life simulations with static objects, but though the tire may travel at a realistic speed, the actual 'halo' isnt - which actually is a significant thing to miss in the test,
since a) a car on the move creates - even a f1 car - 'bubble' of air around it pushed forwards that also has an effect on its surroundings. b) because it's static, it can't impose a more realistic 'bump' - paired with the effects of the vehicle speeding.
i know they more or less took this by sending the wheel with 270k, which is a tad high velocity, but dont forget that this one is static and when hit, cant 'push' the object. if the car is moving, it will 'push' the object, which would see it get actual force pushing energy into it which would see it send off into another direction.

personally, im fairly confident that if they moved the halo with a contineous speed of about 60mph (perhaps lower the velocity of the wheel whilst at it) then you would see a totally different effect immediately upon impact.

for example: hitting a football to the leg of a non-moving opponent (into the goal) or hitting a football to the leg of a upcoming opponent (far away from the goal). it will have massive different results, so i think personally, though the intentions are good and its a good basic test, it is far from being actually a 'trustworthy' source and therefor i really am troubled by the conclusions of it being 'paramount' in judgement, instead of taking time to develop both the canopy aswell as the testing equipment decently.

time is of the essence, offcourse, as simply put, every upcoming race is a potential hazard. however, rushing things has proven to be one of the worst decisions in all of history.

i would applaud a system where the FIA and the Teams would gather information from real life sources like fighter jet canopies, stunt canopies, raceboat canopies, and making decent computer simulations from it from experienced enterprises, and make a decent testing rig instead of something that quite honestly, anybody with a high-pressure device can make in their own friggin backyard, and use the measured results.

You make a very good point. I hadn't thought of it that way!!