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

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by gttouring

There are not too many solutions for the same question, and Adrian did keep the wing width narrow per rules that existed I recall reading, Indy car has a better platform to mandate this and carry it out as a real field test in much worse conditions- traffic filled ovals, than f1.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

IndyCar have implemented a freeze on aero-kits for this season and next season a standard aero-kit is being mandated. Here are some preliminary renderings.

[gttouring]

Man they are blowing it again

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by gttouring

Man they are blowing it again

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Not wanting to derail the thread, as we can discuss this on the IndyCar section but it's been met with a favourable response. It's more in keeping, with the CART/Champ Car cars, which a lot of fans were hoping IndyCar was going to go with when the ICONIC committee met in 2010 to discuss the new car. Instead, we got the DW12 and aero-kits.

[gttouring]

True enough. It looks good, but they have a chance to do cockpits, and have a platform to mandate it. Back to F1 - does a canopy include having covered wheels, this would move the design into LMP territory

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by gttouring

True enough. It looks good, but they have a chance to do cockpits, and have a platform to mandate it. Back to F1 - does a canopy include having covered wheels, this would move the design into LMP territory

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Do IndyCar have a mandate for cockpits? There hasn't been the testing, like we've seen with F1 last season, with Halo being tried out during practice sessions.

[gttouring]

No mandate, but it is a capture spec better than f1 to do so, use fighter canopies, whatever, F1 and closed cockpits or a tighter enclosure doesn't seem to be taken too seriously the halo?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by gttouring

No mandate, but it is a capture spec better than f1 to do so, use fighter canopies, whatever, F1 and closed cockpits or a tighter enclosure doesn't seem to be taken too seriously the halo?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

The cockpit and safety cell of the DW 12 is standard, so there won't be the problem of car manufacturers worrying about their design being compromised. As from next year the airbox goes, with just the roll hoop remaining, which should facilitate a fighter style canopy.

[bjohnsonsmith]

F1 are dropping the Halo in favour of the Shield. I think that's a good move. The Halo seemed to everything but make the cockpit safer.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f...oncept-897962/

[ASCII Man]

Oh, thank god.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

They are still talking about front mounted deflector, only as shield or screen. Not all debris flies horizontally, if anything it tends to be licked up into an arc, which means top protection is required as well, or what about debris on the corner area it could come from a direction that the car is not pointing in, so a front mounted shield would be as useful as a chocolate fire-guard.
I still maintain if F1 is to introduce debris protection it has to cover the whole of the driver, and that means a full canopy.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by ScotsBrutesFan

so a front mounted shield would be as useful as a chocolate fire-guard.

I disagree. A front mounted shield would've stopped a spring hitting Massa for example. No solution is perfect, however it is not useless.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

A front mounted shield "may" indeed have prevented the spring from hitting Massa.

However if you use the full sentence rather than a partial quote,

Originally Posted by ScotsBrutesFan

Not all debris flies horizontally, if anything it tends to be licked up into an arc, which means top protection is required as well, or what about debris on the corner area it could come from a direction that the car is not pointing in, so a front mounted shield would be as useful as a chocolate fire-guard.

The point I was making is that debris doesn't always come from the direction the car is pointing, In a first corner incident what protection does a front shield give if you are behind and offset to the incident by a cars width to the left or right. Or if what if the incident is immediately in front, and the driver has to turn to avoid hitting a car.

In both of this scenarios debris debris could be coming at the driver from 30-60 degrees, missing the shield.

And again a shield does nothing to prevent debris coming down from a height.

Only a canopy can protect in most scenarios, though I accept there are issues with this, but they are not insurmountable.

[ASCII Man]

Agreed, a full canopy would prevent an accident such as the one with Henry Surtees where a stray bouncing tire dropped on top of his head.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by ScotsBrutesFan

A front mounted shield "may" indeed have prevented the spring from hitting Massa.

However if you use the full sentence rather than a partial quote,


The point I was making is that debris doesn't always come from the direction the car is pointing, In a first corner incident what protection does a front shield give if you are behind and offset to the incident by a cars width to the left or right. Or if what if the incident is immediately in front, and the driver has to turn to avoid hitting a car.

In both of this scenarios debris debris could be coming at the driver from 30-60 degrees, missing the shield.

And again a shield does nothing to prevent debris coming down from a height.

Only a canopy can protect in most scenarios, though I accept there are issues with this, but they are not insurmountable.

The point you were making does not fit with your summary of it being as useful as a chocolate fire guard. Your point is perfectly valid - debris comes from different angles. However it is certainly not as useless as you claim it to be, because it will stop debris from the front. I simply don't see how you can claim it being useless. So I'll quote the entire post if you want, but it doesn't really make much sense tbh.

Why is it that when a solution is not a 100% perfect solution to every potential problem in the first go, that it is criticised and called useless? This will stop certain incidents, and doesn't take much effort to implement, or stop extraction of drivers. So why shouldn't it be done until a better solution can be found?

[bjohnsonsmith]

This is the 'aeroscreen' that RBR tried out last season.


The Shield now favoured over the Halo will be at a shallower angle than the 'aeroscreen'. Testing is to be carried out. However, the Halo will be used if the Shield is not ready in time for 2018.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/39713765

[wnut]

Originally Posted by ScotsBrutesFan

A front mounted shield "may" indeed have prevented the spring from hitting Massa.

However if you use the full sentence rather than a partial quote,

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScotsBrutesFan
Not all debris flies horizontally, if anything it tends to be licked up into an arc, which means top protection is required as well, or what about debris on the corner area it could come from a direction that the car is not pointing in, so a front mounted shield would be as useful as a chocolate fire-guard.


The point I was making is that debris doesn't always come from the direction the car is pointing, In a first corner incident what protection does a front shield give if you are behind and offset to the incident by a cars width to the left or right. Or if what if the incident is immediately in front, and the driver has to turn to avoid hitting a car.

In both of this scenarios debris debris could be coming at the driver from 30-60 degrees, missing the shield.

And again a shield does nothing to prevent debris coming down from a height.

Only a canopy can protect in most scenarios, though I accept there are issues with this, but they are not insurmountable.

With you 100% ScotsBrutesFan, this canopy would not have helped Henry Surtees or Justin Wilson, I am also doubtful if the artist sketch would have helped Massa with a glancing blow, marginal.

"... about as useful as a chocolate fire-guard." seems wholly appropriate.

Why can't they just do a proper job and put the canopy in place!?

[Greem]

I thought there might be something in the regs, wnut, which defines F1 as an open cockpit series.

There isn't.

For comparison, the LMP1H technical regulations open with a definition that the car is:

Originally Posted by FIA WEC Technical Regulations, Art. 1.1

This is a racing closed car with no production minimum required.

Aside from the spec of the cockpit opening and definitions around that, there's no corresponding clear clause in the F1 tech regs.

Now that might sound like that would make it easier to change, but I don't think it would - that lack of clarity means there's an implicit reliance on the detail in the regs, which make it clear that F1 is an open cockpit series. To have a canopy would change that implicit reliance completely.

Interesting times for the rule makers and their lawyers, I'd say.

[wnut]

HI Greem, weren't the LMP regulations changed to closed cars on safety grounds following Michele Alboreto's fatal crash?

As far as the similarity between LMP1s and F1 cars was concerned this was not a problem before, the real difference between F1 and sports prototypes is that the sports cars should be able to accommodate two people sitting side by side and this appears to have gone missing fairly recently.

See your point about the interesting times for the rule makers and their lawyers though. Everything in F1 always seems to head there.

[S griffin]

I have to say the Halo needed more work and wasn't the best looking. Hopefully the aero screen will be the way to go

[Matt]

Originally Posted by wnut

With you 100% ScotsBrutesFan, this canopy would not have helped Henry Surtees or Justin Wilson, I am also doubtful if the artist sketch would have helped Massa with a glancing blow, marginal.

"... about as useful as a chocolate fire-guard." seems wholly appropriate.

Why can't they just do a proper job and put the canopy in place!?

They both got hit in the top of the front of the helmet, above the visor. Not square on the top.

It would have helped both of them.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

Without seeing what exactly the FIA propose, this is conjecture at best.

What can be said for certain as I've said before, not without it's own issues but a full canopy would provide the best protection from all angles.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Adrian Newey is backing the Shield, rather than the Halo and says time is running out for teams to incorporate it into 2018's cars.

http://classic.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/129970

[S griffin]

I think the new shield solution looks the best compromise ATM

[hondafan37]

The F1 set for test at British GP the Shield, this is the first image revealed.
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f...actice-927240/

What do you think of the new F1 look?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by hondafan37

The F1 set for test at British GP the Shield, this is the first image revealed.
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f...actice-927240/

What do you think of the new F1 look?

Without the driver in the cockpit, it's hard to tell how much the top of the driver's helmet is exposed.