[Tech Issue] Closed cockpits- Closer to reality then we might think?

[Adam43]

I am now totally sold on the idea.

And if people don't like the idea the FIA should tie them to a chair and play catch the pigeon music in a loop at them.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Adam43

I am now totally sold on the idea.

And if people don't like the idea the FIA should tie them to a chair and play catch the pigeon music in a loop at them.

I'm about to totally mess up your childhood. Its stop the pigeon. Google it and you still won't believe it after watching the intro again for hours.

[Adam43]

OMG, Nooooooooooooooooo!

[S griffin]

Dick Dastardly, the one who never quit while he was ahead. Some people never learn

[ScotsBrutesFan]

Hang on that's a 2 seater !

Of course if they rename the monkey seat the Muttley seat.....

[F1Guy]

F1 2025? No more halo! Yes please!








https://www.motorsportweek.com/news/id/15564

[Kempi]

You can always tell the age of the designers of such "study" images when they use the late 80s/early 90s liveries to showcase their work.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Kempi

You can always tell the age of the designers of such "study" images when they use the late 80s/early 90s liveries to showcase their work.

Given the designer's background of those images - is this not an attempt to get Phillip Morris brands in the face of modern F1 audiences, rather than a serious attempt to design a safety solution?
If they were serious about the engineering aspect, the design would be on a blank canvas?

[S griffin]

I do wish they'd get rid of those ugly winglets on the car, come on they add nothing to F1

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by F1Guy

F1 2025? No more halo! Yes please!

Opinions may vary, but this (and other similar renderings in this thread) does show that a visually pleasing solution can be implemented. But IMHO, there really was no doubt that could be done.

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

If they were serious about the engineering aspect, the design would be on a blank canvas?

Originally Posted by S griffin

I do wish they'd get rid of those ugly winglets on the car, come on they add nothing to F1

I have mixed feelings about these types of art projects. They are completely unbounded and can optionally adhere to important things such as technical regulations and even physics. They are nothing more than the vision of the creator. So they are typically not serious engineering exercises and depending upon the creator may include a large amount of nostalgic elements to get an emotional response. They typically have little to do with reality (current or future). But someone has to provide the "what if" visions.

Richard

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Kempi

You can always tell the age of the designers of such "study" images when they use the late 80s/early 90s liveries to showcase their work.

If they were watching during the 80s and 90s, probably 30-40. Seems like an ideal age.

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I have mixed feelings about these types of art projects. They are completely unbounded and can optionally adhere to important things such as technical regulations and even physics. They are nothing more than the vision of the creator. So they are typically not serious engineering exercises and depending upon the creator may include a large amount of nostalgic elements to get an emotional response. They typically have little to do with reality (current or future). But someone has to provide the "what if" visions.

Richard

I agree, but you can embrace the "what if" visions. The 2018 IndyCar started off as just a "what if" 3D render by Chris Beatty, who had no connection to the series at all. IndyCar brought him onboard as a styling consultant and he worked with Dallara and the IndyCar aero team, bouncing ideas back and forward, and the result is a massively improved look for 2018. If we started embracing these "whats ifs" then we could mold and adapt them into something good.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Kempi

You can always tell the age of the designers of such "study" images when they use the late 80s/early 90s liveries to showcase their work.

That's because the schemes of that era looked the best.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

I agree, but you can embrace the "what if" visions. The 2018 IndyCar started off as just a "what if" 3D render by Chris Beatty, who had no connection to the series at all. IndyCar brought him onboard as a styling consultant and he worked with Dallara and the IndyCar aero team, bouncing ideas back and forward, and the result is a massively improved look for 2018. If we started embracing these "whats ifs" then we could mold and adapt them into something good.

For series that use spec hardware you can use a designer to create a particular look. The result can be whatever they want it to be. The performance may be good, or bad, but everyone is in the same boat. But for non-spec series like F1 that are driven by technical specifications, then IMHO, they are generally pointless. It just gets fans riled up and say "Yeah! That is what F1 should look like". But, the cars look like whatever comes out of the other end of the "go fast" design process. All "function" and little in the way of "form" other than livery.

Sometimes form and function happen to intersect when engineering a solution...




Richard

[Akrapovic]

I'm not sure I agree that these concepts are useless in an open formula. We already have regulations which were designed to get rid of dildo noses, stepped noses, and ugly wing attachments. Even for 2018, the wider cars, wider tyres are to try and give a more aggressive look to the vehicles, after we went through a phase of stupid toy looking cars. We already use regulations to try and define a certain aesthetic to the cars, it's just a bit harder to achieve in an open regulation series.

A vehicle will never ever come out looking like an artists impression (the spec IndyCar does not look identical to the original concept), but you can influence them with regulations. Some will argue that that's a bad thing and we shouldn't do that, but it's been happening for decades now anyway.

People already complain that the cars are too similar because the boxes they have to build the cars in are too defined. Well engineers can't unlearn things, so you can't get rid of those boxes. All I'm suggesting here is move the boxes about to a more visually pleasing position (which is what they did for 2018 - it just can go further). That's no different to what we have now, just the parameters moved.

Of course this topic is originally about head protection, which IS a spec part, so can be made to look good. But F1 isn't interested in bringing in a design consultant or even an engineering team to find a good solution - it's interested in being different so it doesn't have to copy anyone else. It's about making a certain solution work, rather than finding the best solution. Basic engineering processes wouldn't allow you to throw away concepts after 2 minutes of field testing, which is what they have done.

[chillibowl]

along the lines of engineers cant unlearn things...a question, which may or may not be missing the point on my part, comes to mind.

how much does the Halo weigh?

with drivers already struggling to shed weight, does a halo mean that there will be more pressure on the drivers to drop weight in order to achieve a better balance in the cars?

[ScotsBrutesFan]

You won't have seen on Sky's coverage before Hungary they had the Williams one that was trialled, I think they stated a weight, but on lifting it, (it was awkward but) it didn't seem that heavy relatively speaking, as it's titanium. They did mention about the challenge to the designers of that extra weight being higher up on the car and how it would effect the handling.

I'm hoping that as with the wider cars this season that the min weight will be increased accordingly.

[hondafan37]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Opinions may vary, but this (and other similar renderings in this thread) does show that a visually pleasing solution can be implemented. But IMHO, there really was no doubt that could be done.



I have mixed feelings about these types of art projects. They are completely unbounded and can optionally adhere to important things such as technical regulations and even physics. They are nothing more than the vision of the creator. So they are typically not serious engineering exercises and depending upon the creator may include a large amount of nostalgic elements to get an emotional response. They typically have little to do with reality (current or future). But someone has to provide the "what if" visions.

Richard

Perhaps the concept presented by Renault in Shanghai, the RS 2027 Vision, can give us a better idea of ​​the F1 of the future.
https://www.engadget.com/2017/04/19/...ula-1-concept/
http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/car-new...future-f1-car/
http://images.car.bauercdn.com/pagef...aultrs2027.jpg
http://www.motorward.com/wp-content/...-Concept-4.jpg
https://www.google.com.ar/search?q=r...KDmzxa_uti_CM:

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

I'm not sure I agree that these concepts are useless in an open formula. We already have regulations which were designed to get rid of dildo noses, stepped noses, and ugly wing attachments. Even for 2018, the wider cars, wider tyres are to try and give a more aggressive look to the vehicles, after we went through a phase of stupid toy looking cars. We already use regulations to try and define a certain aesthetic to the cars, it's just a bit harder to achieve in an open regulation series.

A vehicle will never ever come out looking like an artists impression (the spec IndyCar does not look identical to the original concept), but you can influence them with regulations. Some will argue that that's a bad thing and we shouldn't do that, but it's been happening for decades now anyway.

People already complain that the cars are too similar because the boxes they have to build the cars in are too defined. Well engineers can't unlearn things, so you can't get rid of those boxes. All I'm suggesting here is move the boxes about to a more visually pleasing position (which is what they did for 2018 - it just can go further). That's no different to what we have now, just the parameters moved.

Of course this topic is originally about head protection, which IS a spec part, so can be made to look good. But F1 isn't interested in bringing in a design consultant or even an engineering team to find a good solution - it's interested in being different so it doesn't have to copy anyone else. It's about making a certain solution work, rather than finding the best solution. Basic engineering processes wouldn't allow you to throw away concepts after 2 minutes of field testing, which is what they have done.

Those are all good points and I don't particularly disagree with any of it. The thread through your post is that F1 is not an open spec. And that is true. But it likes to pretend it is. It usually doesn't explicitly say "do X", but instead, it tends to say "don't do Y". The tweaks to the regulations tend to try to stamp out "ugly" (such as your examples), but it's always hard to regulate in "beauty" unless you have full control. If a canopy solution was defined as a spec solution, then it could be designed with aesthetics in mind as well as safety. Without full control it's hard to erase the potential for unintended consequences (such as the nose you mention and this years "T wing" that rides behind the shark fin, and you could even include the shark fin itself).

Originally Posted by hondafan37

Perhaps the concept presented by Renault in Shanghai, the RS 2027 Vision, can give us a better idea of ​​the F1 of the future.

To be honest, that is even more fanciful if you look at the illustration. And because it comes from Renault (a current participant in the sport), I give it no extra consideration than anything anyone could create as a visual concept.

However, if you ignore the visual and read the text (using the first article as my source) and focus on ideas and not visual concepts (which illustrate solutions without defining the problem), then I can consider what is being said (because it is Renault and they have influence). Ideas such as...

* Closed cockpit for safety reasons
* All wheel drive
* Dynamic aero
* Telemetry that is accessible to fans
* Active suspension

Richard

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

For series that use spec hardware you can use a designer to create a particular look. The result can be whatever they want it to be. The performance may be good, or bad, but everyone is in the same boat. But for non-spec series like F1 that are driven by technical specifications, then IMHO, they are generally pointless. It just gets fans riled up and say "Yeah! That is what F1 should look like". But, the cars look like whatever comes out of the other end of the "go fast" design process. All "function" and little in the way of "form" other than livery.

Sometimes form and function happen to intersect when engineering a solution...




Richard

Richard, even the new fighters are pretty to look at, not so much ...

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by wnut

Richard, even the new fighters are pretty to look at, not so much ...

Ha!, well I love the look of the F16 as well, but it might be "newer" than the F86, but it is far from "new". It's a 1970's aircraft!

Richard

[ScotsBrutesFan]

Yeah then just like the F1 when the the engineers then try to maximise the basic design, things get ugly...

[wnut]

I guess if you are going to play that card Richard we can have a look at the F?A XX




Still pretty, but I am not sure that the logic holds up.

Interesting and short piece here:

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the...stealthy-12193

and then there is the F=22

[wnut]

Originally Posted by ScotsBrutesFan

Yeah then just like the F1 when the the engineers then try to maximise the basic design, things get ugly...

Attachment 50255

Don't worry, all goes away at the push of a button!

[ScotsBrutesFan]

Originally Posted by wnut

Don't worry, all goes away at the push of a button!

Those hideously bulky CFTs over the wings don't. It's those that ruin it's classic looks.

[sizzle]

And here I was hoping they would find a way to make them invisible!

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/13...-yellow-jersey