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

[wnut]

Paddy Lowe - Head Protection.

http://www.f1reader.com/news/lowe-he...squs_container

[midgetman]

The big difference between F1 and WEC that everyone seems to have ignored is that WEC has doors! That fundamentally makes driver extraction easier. Also because of the doors, the car is held together by A posts and a spine down the roof.

This is why blithely saying "why can't F1 cars have canopies because WEC do" is an over simplification. Likewise the comparison with dragsters which only go in a straight line.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by midgetman

Likewise the comparison with dragsters which only go in a straight line.

That is only the case if nothing goes wrong, is it not?
The canopy is there to protect the driver in case something does go wrong.

[midgetman]

Well yes but broadly speaking they are then unable to do anything. There's not enough steering lock to catch a sideways movement so you don't need to look out sideways. A circuit racer looks through the corner, moves his head to spot an apex etc.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by midgetman

The big difference between F1 and WEC that everyone seems to have ignored is that WEC has doors! That fundamentally makes driver extraction easier. Also because of the doors, the car is held together by A posts and a spine down the roof.

This is why blithely saying "why can't F1 cars have canopies because WEC do" is an over simplification. Likewise the comparison with dragsters which only go in a straight line.

They also hit higher speeds than F1 cars, going from 0 to north of 300mph in just over 3 seconds and in less than 1000 feet....

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by wnut

Brabham test circa 1967, when F1 was still innovative?

Why can't the modern F1 canopy be like this? Moved forward to offer a large extraction area, but still covering the front of the driver?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by midgetman

The big difference between F1 and WEC that everyone seems to have ignored is that WEC has doors! That fundamentally makes driver extraction easier. Also because of the doors, the car is held together by A posts and a spine down the roof.

This is why blithely saying "why can't F1 cars have canopies because WEC do" is an over simplification. Likewise the comparison with dragsters which only go in a straight line.

Sure, everyone understands that egress is something to be solved. It has been talked about for pages with any number of potential solutions. Not to mention the egress issues that exist with the existing solution. That doesn't mean WEC and other types that use a canopy or closed cockpit are not eminently comparable if you look at this from a technical and driver perspective.

Originally Posted by midgetman

Well yes but broadly speaking they are then unable to do anything. There's not enough steering lock to catch a sideways movement so you don't need to look out sideways. A circuit racer looks through the corner, moves his head to spot an apex etc.

So its not about you might not need one in a dragster (I was going to ask you to explain that to Richard Hammond who if I remember correctly had cockpit intrusion (earth and sod) in his crash). But it is about vision?

Did I miss something? When did continuous canopies somehow automatically prevent side views? If the peripheral vision doesn't exist in the dragster version, it is because they designed it out of the solution due to a lack of need. I believe even without a canopy, they sit deep back in the cockpit. WEC drivers (prototype and GT) have more side view because they need it. If you want to take it to extremes, combat aircraft have continuous canopies that terminate behind the pilot with excellent visibility.

A continuous and seamless canopy is a very real option for F1. While someone may decide that an "A" pillar design is the right thing, understand that today they have nothing ahead of them for rollover protection. It is just the front of the crash structure and the roll hoop with the assurance that the top of the helmet is far below the plane of those two things . Why couldn't that continue along with a strong canopy? Canopy distortion is another potential issue, but I think that can be addressed.

Frankly being able to "see an apex" is the wrong argument. You are positioning your car a good bit in advance of a corner. Sometimes you can't even "see" the apex. If you are looking out the "side" of your car to "see an apex" you are doing something wrong as you are seeing it about the time you go past it. The right argument is the ability to see other cars near you (overtaking, battling for a corner, etc.). But again, the vision stuff can be addressed.

And as always... Somehow all of those other circuit racers in closed cockpits somehow manage to find those apexes, etc.! See my comments further up about the quantity of overtaking and traffic that WEC drivers have to deal with. Potentially orders of magnitude more overtakes when compared to F1. They make it work.

Richard

[chillibowl]

this might have been a questions already asked and answered, but given the recent death of Justin Wilson, what ideas/solutions about closed cockpits are coming from the Indy/Dallara camps?

[MrBloodmuffins]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

this might have been a questions already asked and answered, but given the recent death of Justin Wilson, what ideas/solutions about closed cockpits are coming from the Indy/Dallara camps?

This article was released yesterday and should help answer your question.

My guess is that it will be a transparent windscreen in front of the driver.
They say that they can have them mounted on the cars by the 2017 season.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by MrBloodmuffins

This article was released yesterday and should help answer your question.

My guess is that it will be a transparent windscreen in front of the driver.
They say that they can have them mounted on the cars by the 2017 season.

Interesting because there is absolutely nothing about this on the IndyCar website.

[MrBloodmuffins]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Interesting because there is absolutely nothing about this on the IndyCar website.

I'm sure it will be when they get a price and distribution deal set up.

[chillibowl]

thanks for the link

Without divulging the companies involved, IndyCar president Jay Frye told IndyStar that more than one has military contracts, and their ideas are rooted in lightweight, cost-effective devices that could be implemented in the current car design and transferred between cars. Specific costs haven’t been formulated, but it’s likely they could come in well below $25,000 per car.


no artists renderings but thats a much lower price point then i would have thought possible...im sure F1 will find a way to add a couple of zeros to the end of it though.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by MrBloodmuffins

I'm sure it will be when they get a price and distribution deal set up.

There's no mention on the IndyCar website that materials for better driver head protection are being tested on Friday and Saturday's open session.

[MrBloodmuffins]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

There's no mention on the IndyCar website that materials for better driver head protection are being tested on Friday and Saturday's open session.

We will just have to wait and see on that one.

[midgetman]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Sure, everyone understands that egress is something to be solved. It has been talked about for pages with any number of potential solutions. Not to mention the egress issues that exist with the existing solution. That doesn't mean WEC and other types that use a canopy or closed cockpit are not eminently comparable if you look at this from a technical and driver perspective.


So its not about you might not need one in a dragster (I was going to ask you to explain that to Richard Hammond who if I remember correctly had cockpit intrusion (earth and sod) in his crash). But it is about vision?

Did I miss something? When did continuous canopies somehow automatically prevent side views? If the peripheral vision doesn't exist in the dragster version, it is because they designed it out of the solution due to a lack of need. I believe even without a canopy, they sit deep back in the cockpit. WEC drivers (prototype and GT) have more side view because they need it. If you want to take it to extremes, combat aircraft have continuous canopies that terminate behind the pilot with excellent visibility.

A continuous and seamless canopy is a very real option for F1. While someone may decide that an "A" pillar design is the right thing, understand that today they have nothing ahead of them for rollover protection. It is just the front of the crash structure and the roll hoop with the assurance that the top of the helmet is far below the plane of those two things . Why couldn't that continue along with a strong canopy? Canopy distortion is another potential issue, but I think that can be addressed.

Frankly being able to "see an apex" is the wrong argument. You are positioning your car a good bit in advance of a corner. Sometimes you can't even "see" the apex. If you are looking out the "side" of your car to "see an apex" you are doing something wrong as you are seeing it about the time you go past it. The right argument is the ability to see other cars near you (overtaking, battling for a corner, etc.). But again, the vision stuff can be addressed.

And as always... Somehow all of those other circuit racers in closed cockpits somehow manage to find those apexes, etc.! See my comments further up about the quantity of overtaking and traffic that WEC drivers have to deal with. Potentially orders of magnitude more overtakes when compared to F1. They make it work.

Richard

Blimey you've read far more into my post than I put into it.

[Richard C]

FIA asked Ferrari to do some halo testing today to get feedback on visibility. Ferrari ran it for a few laps...





Richard

[chillibowl]

would be nice if they had a photo/first person view from inside the cockpit, but that certainly looks like its going to impede visibility.

these guys do have an amazingly high level of visual/spatial acuity to begin with so what would be a hindrance for us might not be so bad for the drivers.

[Matt]

[BertMk2]

Well it looks hideous.

Also - would it be a standard part supplied to the teams or would each team develop its own version within certain rules? If each team does their own thing how long until someone complains about another team using it as an aerodynamic device?

[ECW Dan Selby]

Originally Posted by BertMk2

Well it looks hideous.

Also - would it be a standard part supplied to the teams or would each team develop its own version within certain rules? If each team does their own thing how long until someone complains about another team using it as an aerodynamic device?

Standard part.

Wow. That in car view looks utterly terrible! That's surely some form of hindrance.

How long until we get an accident blamed on the obscured visibility..?

Selby

[Matt]

Still think it would be better as two separate bars that connect to the outside of the nose, with one bar running between them with a small windscreen there and a wiper...

[ScotsBrutesFan]

I think the pictures above, speak far more clearly than I could as to why I prefer a canopy design.

I understand that it fitted onto the outside of the current padded side head protection so may be slightly wider, and that it can't obstruct the climbing out of the car.

But where you see the mechanics Right hand and on the front, and left hand on the roll hoop shows how large the opening is and how big a bit of debris could be that would still hit the helmet

[Matt]

It would have to come up super low or directly from above to intrude.

The design they've got now would protect from 95% of instances.

[Mike Harte]

Two point. Firstly, it seems as though the top of Kimi's helmet is slightly higher than the rear edges of the "halo" which could be problematic if that is the case.

But more importantly, what is to stop FOD especially a wheel coming down, possibly one that is bouncing, on top of the driver; the "halo" gives no protection from above. There is also a probability that, as freak an incident as it may have been, Massa would not have been protected by this "halo".

[bella]

to me, and my non-existant racing eye, it looks a lot like those ridiculous pillars in the car on either side of the windscreen that are meant to help you in an accident, but also block around 30-40% of your vision should you look in that direction.

i bet a car spinning and rejoining would fit perfectly behind the central pillar...

on the plus side, at the mounting point in the centre of the drivers vision it does indeed look like it's no wider than the aerial point on most single seaters.