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

[Casper]

Originally Posted by ScotsBrutesFan

And that's where the discussions with the Aerospace companies come in...Cockpits aren't new to them, they know how to deal with cockpit temperature and humidity and yes they even know how to deal with rain too.

And that's an answer from someone who has a grand idea and no answers. There is no space in an F1 car to put the systems in so the aero industry can't put in what won't fit. Yes, the cars could be re-designed but then we have sports cars or WEC already. Have you got any idea of what is needed, have you ever sat in a full blown race car for fifty laps? How did the aero industry get involved, the last time I looked it was a car.

All this for what, everyone having a knee jerk reaction to something they have little or no information about and if the circumstances are purely de-acceleration a closed cockpit does not stop a driver's head or body from going from high speed to nothing as NASCAR will tell you after their experience with that problem. The only way to deal with that issue is to make sure the cars can't hit anything.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

Jeremy: Your right that cockpit Canopies aren't the answer to every problem, we now know the Jules suffered a massive deceleration injury, but this topic predates what happened to him.
My understanding is that in Massa's case the big accident was because he had been hit, a cockpit canopy would likely have deflected the object away, or worst case have become embedded in the canopy. The shock of that happening may have cause Massa to the crash off, but it wouldn't have been in the unabated way that he did.

We have seen too many near misses from the on board cameras of debris whizzing past at helmet height, or cars going over one another within inches of the cockpit opening.

It's only by the racing Gods that none of those incidents were worse than they were. Why keep tempting fate. There is a risk reduction measure out there, it atleast has to be looked at seriously.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

Casper: redesigning the cockpit area of an F1 car doesn't make it a WEC coupe. You only have to look at Adrian Newey's video game Red Bull X1, sure it was a mock up, ignore the covered tyres....take a close look at the cockpit section. Narrow nose, exposed suspension and steering arms, doesn't look like a WEC at all.

If that's just for a mock up, putting the full weight of the best designers together to do it properly you can be sure it wouldn't look like a WEC car unless they wanted it to.

No I'm not a race driver but I have worked on avionics in the defence sector, so I know just how tight the cockpit is around a pilot, their survival cell is only longer due to the size of their ejector seat, and width isn't that much more. All the cockpit cooling and dehumidifying equipment is all with the pilots survival cell.

Why aerospace companies, well you pretty much answered that one yourself, in comparison to WEC, they are coupes and have a proper windscreen and a roof above the drivers head.
F1 one cars are single seaters and the discussion here is about fitting or redesigning them to have a cockpit canopy.
Who better to speak to about cockpit canopies than aerospace companies such as Lockheed, Boeing, BAE, Dasault or their suppliers, that design and implement their usage day in day out.
And of course not only do the aerospace companies design cockpits, they also know about getting them off in a hurry as well.

As I said in my reply to Jeremy, this isn't a knee jerk reaction, look at the date of the opening post, this thread is over 3 years old.

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by ScotsBrutesFan

Jeremy: Your right that cockpit Canopies aren't the answer to every problem, we now know the Jules suffered a massive deceleration injury, but this topic predates what happened to him.
My understanding is that in Massa's case the big accident was because he had been hit, a cockpit canopy would likely have deflected the object away, or worst case have become embedded in the canopy. The shock of that happening may have cause Massa to the crash off, but it wouldn't have been in the unabated way that he did.

We have seen too many near misses from the on board cameras of debris whizzing past at helmet height, or cars going over one another within inches of the cockpit opening.

It's only by the racing Gods that none of those incidents were worse than they were. Why keep tempting fate. There is a risk reduction measure out there, it atleast has to be looked at seriously.

Your such an intelligent chap.. I have read this post four times and I can not disagree with one word of it...

[Sodemo]

But where does it end though? Formula ford with cockpits? Formula 3 with cockpits, cockpits for karts?

[ScotsBrutesFan]

Where does it it end, is that really what you feel about safety.

What I suggested above was exactly that, a suggestion based on where I believe F1 should go on safety.

In terms of lesser formulae, perhaps levels of safety equipment and head protection for open wheelers should be mandated in a similar way to that circuits have grading.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by ScotsBrutesFan

Where does it it end, is that really what you feel about safety.

What I suggested above was exactly that, a suggestion based on where I believe F1 should go on safety.

In terms of lesser formulae, perhaps levels of safety equipment and head protection for open wheelers should be mandated in a similar way to that circuits have grading.

You know, drivers get injured, even killed in all forms of motorsport, yet it's only the F1 incidents that garner any kind of traction for moving safety forwards, why is that? Why was nothing done about the mini driver who died at silverstone in 2005? Why was nothing done when Neil Shannahan died at Oulton Park in 1999?

F1 has a rather hypocritical approach to safety, they claim to be at the forefront of motorsport safety, yet proceed to race on a track covered in debris. F1 promotes tyres that fall apart and cover the race track in marbles, creating a often very narrow racing line, straying from that can result in cars losing control. They incist on making sweeping changes to classic race tracks, yet they freely pass many street tracks as safe to race on, despite many corners having no run off, it's like it's one rule for Silverstone and another for Monaco, if a corner is dangerous it's dangerous no matter what the location.

[bella]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Why was nothing done when Neil Shannahan died at Oulton Park in 1999?

sorry just had to say... it was. quietly. iirc neil's fatal injury can no longer happen with the hans device, and the style of helmet is no longer around.

just because you don't hear about it doesn't mean that changes aren't made.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by bella

sorry just had to say... it was. quietly. iirc neil's fatal injury can no longer happen with the hans device, and the style of helmet is no longer around.

just because you don't hear about it doesn't mean that changes aren't made.

Ok, point taken, but nothing specific was done relating to that incident in question, ie the track wasn't changed and the cars remained the same for the 2000 season. The hans introduction was a general movement towards lessening neck / spinal injuries and nothing specific to Neil's death, though granted it would have likely helped, had he been wearing one.

[bella]

this is so far off topic i've given myself an official warn, but it wasn't the track layout that caused his injury, and it wasn't the car either. like it wasn't the track layout or the car that caused jules'.

it's the only one i can think of off the top of my head but didn't kelvin burt's big old shunt in the btcc bring about a few changes at uk circuits? other than that i agree a bit with your general point - my big issue is the frequency of spinal injuries in single seaters and prototype racing and the lack of effort and research into seat materials and so on. until a driver ruins his back in f1 we're not going to see anything done.

[wnut]

Mercedes promises halo for cockpit safety


http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns30037.html

"The issue then returned to the top of the agenda late last year, when the now stricken Jules Bianchi's helmeted head hit the underside of a trackside vehicle during the Japanese grand prix."

[wnut]

[ScotsBrutesFan]

And that would prevent a Massa type accident in what way?

There are lots of design concepts going around at the moment I'd love to know whether any of the design teams have a cockpit concept saved on their hard drive.

More to the point it would be good to see what the F1 designers think could work practically.

[Greem]

I thought the Bianchi incident was cut and dried in that his head did *not* make contact with the tractor. It was the sudden deceleration that did the damage, not contact.

I'm in no way against safety improvements but that bit was pretty definitive.

[JABWOA]

From the FIA report - "9. Bianchi’s helmet struck the sloping underside of the crane. The magnitude of the blow and the glancing nature of it caused massive head deceleration and angular acceleration, leading to his severe injuries."

http://www.fia.com/news/accident-panel

But agree, don't see how this proposal helps with Jules' or Massa's accidents.

[wnut]

This bit of the Bianchi accident was of concern:

7. During the 2 seconds Bianchi’s car was leaving the track and traversing the run-off area, he applied both throttle and brake together, using both feet. The FailSafe algorithm is designed to over-ride the throttle and cut the engine, but was inhibited by the Torque Coordinator, which controls the rear Brake-by-Wire system. Bianchi’s Marussia has a unique design of BBW, which proved to be incompatible with the FailSafe settings.

It looks like the BBW system contributed significantly to this accident.

8. The fact that the FailSafe did not disqualify the engine torque requested by the driver may have affected the impact velocity; it has not been possible to reliably quantify this. However, it may be that Bianchi was distracted by what was happening and the fact that his front wheels had locked, and been unable to steer the car such that it missed the crane.

[Greem]

Thanks, JABWOA. Obviously I missed that.

[GORDON STREETER]

As most have observed regards the Bianchi incident it wouldn't matter if it was completely enclosed, going under a dead weight at that speed would still result in the same outcome.
As it was it visibly moved the crane by going under the counterweight so even if had stopped dead the result would be similar.
Of course this is only speculation by me and an "anorak" will shoot me down in flames, however F1 is certainly safer now than it's ever been and a lesson has been learned, and hopefully a similar situation won't arise in the future.

[chillibowl]

seems like this 'halo' solution would work against a rogue tire though.

short of a full canopy (which has its own problems) is one solution ever going to be enough to prevent all types of accidents?

[ScotsBrutesFan]

It would depend on the size of the diameter of the Halo.

It would benefit a Surtees type accident where the bouncing wheel came from one side.
but if the tyre and wheel were coming in on a more vertical angle and with force, how much of the tyre would protrude below the ring of the Halo into the drivers Helmet space. Possibly wedging there, possibly bouncing back out.

If it wedged there, presumably the driver would be stuck in the car ?

One solution will never prevent accidents, but finding a solution that when assessed provides a safe solution for most instances would be better than further procrastination.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by ScotsBrutesFan

One solution will never prevent accidents, but finding a solution that when assessed provides a safe solution for most instances would be better than further procrastination.

Agree. Nothing will work in all situations short of not getting into the car.

I can understand why a halo approach was selected (easiest solution to egress and cost issue), but I was expecting it to be more of a low windshield (which has it's own problems such a visibility when dirty). The illustration on the prior page is pretty bad. It will be interesting to see what a real design would look like. I also am wondering what aero tricks might "inadvertently" be included in what is to be a safety feature.

Richard

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Agree. Nothing will work in all situations short of not getting into the car.

I can understand why a halo approach was selected (easiest solution to egress and cost issue), but I was expecting it to be more of a low windshield (which has it's own problems such a visibility when dirty). The illustration on the prior page is pretty bad. It will be interesting to see what a real design would look like. I also am wondering what aero tricks might "inadvertently" be included in what is to be a safety feature.

Richard

A windshield could be incorporated as well as aero tricks.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

A windshield if any height would require to wipers in wet, which will get the "it's F1 not WEC" crowd agitated again

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by ScotsBrutesFan

A windshield if any height would require to wipers in wet, which will get the "it's F1 not WEC" crowd agitated again

Windshields have been used before in F1, they've just not been particularly large or encompassing.

[Richard C]

With a halo, I am assuming it has to be far enough forward that there is no chance of the helmet hitting it on a forward impact (restriction of movement via harness and HANS device) but on the sides there will likely have to be padding? Or maybe expand upwards the existing removable padding that loops around the driver now?

Richard