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

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Casper

We'll make you the test pilot on a 40+ deg day in Oz and see your reaction. Your point may be valid in a colder climate but even then I have my doubts.

It gets hot only in Australia?

Richard

[Richard C]

I expect drivers in modern open cockpit cars are impacted by a few key factors when it comes to heat. One is that they wear head to toe coverings. Some being multiple layers. So it is hard to reject heat via perspiration. Another is thermal radiation. They basically bake in the sun. It could be argued that a covered cockpit with a sun shade would help. And its obviously clear that adequate ventilation can be achieved via properly designed ventilation. As others point out, that has existed for decades. Now that only works when the car is at speed. If you want a solution for all situations then that is an active A/C system as is used in top level closed cockpit sports and prototype racing.

Richard

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Casper

I thought the discussion was all about closed cockpits not shields which Indy Cars have. The ventilated hoods are a response to shields and not closed cokpits or have I missed something? Have you ever sat in a race car for a couple of hours, Hamilton has and with no canopy he now loses about 4kg in a race. I suspect that a canopy would make the weight loss and dehydration even worse but I might be wrong of course.

The thread title is: [Tech Issue] Closed cockpits- Closer to reality then we might think? The IndyCar Aeroscreen and the Halo, to a lesser extent, are the closest to closed cockpits becoming a reality in open-wheel racing.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I expect drivers in modern open cockpit cars are impacted by a few key factors when it comes to heat. One is that they wear head to toe coverings. Some being multiple layers. So it is hard to reject heat via perspiration. Another is thermal radiation. They basically bake in the sun. It could be argued that a covered cockpit with a sun shade would help. And its obviously clear that adequate ventilation can be achieved via properly designed ventilation. As others point out, that has existed for decades. Now that only works when the car is at speed. If you want a solution for all situations then that is an active A/C system as is used in top level closed cockpit sports and prototype racing.

Richard

A/C (refrigerated SUIT cooling) is not the only answer, some systems use dry ice and pump water cooled through the suit. Anyone who thinks a closed cockpit can be ventilated adequetly should try it and report back on the experience. Drive a modern car on a summer's day without AC and all windows closed and just relying on ventilated air and you will see how uncomfortable it is and a car does have a covered cockpit.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Casper

We'll make you the test pilot on a 40+ deg day in Oz and see your reaction. Your point may be valid in a colder climate but even then I have my doubts.

LMPs have been in 35 deg heat at Le Mans and COTA. The maximum cockpit temperature in an LMP is 32C when the air temp is 25C or less. When the airtemp is above 25C, the maximum cockpit temp is the airtemp +7.

Cockpit temperatures have never been an issue since this rule was introduced and I don't recall a car ever having an issue with it during the race. The temperatures are measured live.

We have "test pilots" for this. They've been doing it for years.

[bjohnsonsmith]

At the first race, of the double-header at the IMS road course, it was 90° F, 32.22° C, outside and at least 120° F, 48.88° C, inside the cockpit.

The other issue they have been having regarding cockpit temperature, is with the drinks system. The 1.5-liter bag is usually located above a radiator inlet and cooling duct. When the driver takes a drink, the liquid enters the tube in the cockpit. However, in the time between drinks the liquid can heat up, to over the 100° F mark, 37.77° C.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Casper

A/C (refrigerated SUIT cooling) is not the only answer, some systems use dry ice and pump water cooled through the suit. Anyone who thinks a closed cockpit can be ventilated adequetly should try it and report back on the experience. Drive a modern car on a summer's day without AC and all windows closed and just relying on ventilated air and you will see how uncomfortable it is and a car does have a covered cockpit.

First, I didn't say cool suit, I said air conditioning. I meant exactly what I said. Similar setup in your road car. The air around the driver is cooled.You are arguing a point that goes against many years of evidence that this works in other top level series. I think this has been in place in LMP/GTE racing since around 2007 for the reasons you call out (drivers in high temp cockpits). As it is regulated via the rules, the air temp at head level is monitored for compliance via temp sensors. Please read up on this before arguing that it can't work.

Richard

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

First, I didn't say cool suit, I said air conditioning. I meant exactly what I said. Similar setup in your road car. The air around the driver is cooled.You are arguing a point that goes against many years of evidence that this works in other top level series. I think this has been in place in LMP/GTE racing since around 2007 for the reasons you call out (drivers in high temp cockpits). As it is regulated via the rules, the air temp at head level is monitored for compliance via temp sensors. Please read up on this before arguing that it can't work.

Richard

A/C requires a big installation of pump, hoses and a condensor all which is possible in a sports/GT car/LMP car and it will work because the car has the capacity within the body to accept the installation of the components. Let me know where they can fit in an F1 car. There is nothing wrong with AC if it can be installed but the F1 car as a rule has no spare space in it and they are marginal on cooling at any time. You have to get the heat out of the car somewhere with another "radiator" called a condensor.

[ASCII Man]

Why should it fit a current F1 car? Why not change the F1 car to fit the A/C? Nothing ever changes with that backwards way of thinking.

[S griffin]

I doubt the teams would want the extra weight of an Air con. At the end of the day the drivers manage fine without it. Let's just keep it how it is

[ScotsBrutesFan]

Originally Posted by ASCII Man

Why should it fit a current F1 car? Why not change the F1 car to fit the A/C? Nothing ever changes with that backwards way of thinking.

This is exactly right, the design of the whole car would have to change in order to accommodate a full canopy...a bulkier and probably wider tub/safety cell. This in turn allows more space in the cockpit for A/C systems.

[Richard C]

In the end a canopy system could work. It would have to be part of an overall new tech spec and the entire solution designed to be part of the car and not tacked on. And yes it would weigh more. I have no idea what the canopy solution would add. I have read the A/C units are 25kg or less (including one that is 11kg, but I am unsure if that is the entire system or just the cockpit components, but that might be a total solution)

While a closed cockpit would bring extra safety (and unique challenges) i am more and more impressed with something like the Indy Aeroscreen solution. I expect it solves the key issues, but via a less complex solution.

I don't expect F1 to switch anytime soon. I believe the next iteration of F1 tech regulations are expected to run through 2025 at a minimum. I expect the next iteration of the Indycar chassis well include an integrated (designed in from the start). I have no clue how long Indycar plans to run their current chassis. F1 may switch depending upon how well received a future Indycar iteration is received.

Richard

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by S griffin

I doubt the teams would want the extra weight of an Air con. At the end of the day the drivers manage fine without it. Let's just keep it how it is

The drivers are managing fine without it because the cockpits are open.

If the cockpits were closed, which the thread title discusses as a potential reality, it might be a different story.

I guess another factor to look at is whether the increased temperature comes from solar radiation alone, or through the lack of convection for ambient temperatures.

If the former, then solving the problem may originate in tackling the solar aspect. If the latter, a/c may be a necessity.

[Richard C]

While the thread title is "closed cockpit", I will say this thread has generally been the home for discussion on improved cockpit safety regardless of closed, open or some other variant (i.e. halo). If you watch the video of FIA tests in the very first post, it shows them testing both a closed canopy and an open top shield style. So I see no reason to expect restriction of topic to just "closed cockpit" (not directed at crmalcom, but a few recent posts imply "closed cockpit" only discussion).

Richard

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

The drivers are managing fine without it because the cockpits are open.

If the cockpits were closed, which the thread title discusses as a potential reality, it might be a different story.

I guess another factor to look at is whether the increased temperature comes from solar radiation alone, or through the lack of convection for ambient temperatures.

If the former, then solving the problem may originate in tackling the solar aspect. If the latter, a/c may be a necessity.

The Aeroscreen is the nearest thing to a closed cockpit and the drivers have mentioned the air being stagnant.

https://racer.com/2020/07/17/first-r...cooling-scoop/

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

The Aeroscreen is the nearest thing to a closed cockpit and the drivers have mentioned the air being stagnant.

https://racer.com/2020/07/17/first-r...cooling-scoop/

Going back to the history of this in prototype and sports car racing, you probably had a situation in which frankly driver comfort was somewhat secondary. So cooling was targeted at things like engine, transmission, brakes, electronics. All of those would have had specific targets that would have had to have been met to ensure expected reliability and performance. Humans on the other can can be more flexible. Up until the point they pass out and have to be pulled unconscious from the car!

So when you are fighting for tenths or hundredths in a top level series and your cockpit is enclosed (or nearly so), the engineers are going to focus on speed vs. comfort. I think the right thing to do was done and that was the rule makers defined expectations around maximum temp in the cockpits.

Indycar is in a unique position in which they can mandate all teams to use a single device to ensure airflow into the cockpit. The more you close it off, the more the air will be stagnant. So instead of saying "cockpit temps must not be above X", Indycar can just put in place a standard solution (assuming that solution gets the desired results).

In a series such as F1, they would likely need to define rules similar to what was done in sportcar/prototype racing. Even if not fully closed, they would have to find some type of specification that defines airflow through the cockpit. It could be easily done. Probably a minimum volume of ambient air (not heated ambient) that moves from the foot position and out through the open top. At speed this could be done without any extra energy. When stopped, maybe a fan? It's all speculation as its not yet a problem in F1. Or is it?

F1 cockpits are pretty open, but you can see that teams will try to adjust the flow to prevent or at least control any turbulent flow. The clear plastic vortex generators are easily visible on the leading edges of the current F1 cockpits. My point is that even now, I expect F1 cockpits are somewhat stagnant (not as stagnant as with an aero screen solution). It would be interesting to know the temperature differential in the air from the toes to the head of a F1 drivers.

Richard

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Going back to the history of this in prototype and sports car racing, you probably had a situation in which frankly driver comfort was somewhat secondary. So cooling was targeted at things like engine, transmission, brakes, electronics. All of those would have had specific targets that would have had to have been met to ensure expected reliability and performance. Humans on the other can can be more flexible. Up until the point they pass out and have to be pulled unconscious from the car!

So when you are fighting for tenths or hundredths in a top level series and your cockpit is enclosed (or nearly so), the engineers are going to focus on speed vs. comfort. I think the right thing to do was done and that was the rule makers defined expectations around maximum temp in the cockpits.

Indycar is in a unique position in which they can mandate all teams to use a single device to ensure airflow into the cockpit. The more you close it off, the more the air will be stagnant. So instead of saying "cockpit temps must not be above X", Indycar can just put in place a standard solution (assuming that solution gets the desired results).

In a series such as F1, they would likely need to define rules similar to what was done in sportcar/prototype racing. Even if not fully closed, they would have to find some type of specification that defines airflow through the cockpit. It could be easily done. Probably a minimum volume of ambient air (not heated ambient) that moves from the foot position and out through the open top. At speed this could be done without any extra energy. When stopped, maybe a fan? It's all speculation as its not yet a problem in F1. Or is it?

F1 cockpits are pretty open, but you can see that teams will try to adjust the flow to prevent or at least control any turbulent flow. The clear plastic vortex generators are easily visible on the leading edges of the current F1 cockpits. My point is that even now, I expect F1 cockpits are somewhat stagnant (not as stagnant as with an aero screen solution). It would be interesting to know the temperature differential in the air from the toes to the head of a F1 drivers.

Richard

IndyCar can mandate all teams use a single device to ensure airflow into the cockpit because the Aeroscreen itself is a single device. The Halo is also a single device, so why would F1 likely need to define rules similar to that in sporstcar/prototype racing? Why would they have to find some type of specification that defines airflow through the cockpit? You say it could be easily done but it sounds overly complicated.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

IndyCar can mandate all teams use a single device to ensure airflow into the cockpit because the Aeroscreen itself is a single device. The Halo is also a single device, so why would F1 likely need to define rules similar to that in sporstcar/prototype racing? Why would they have to find some type of specification that defines airflow through the cockpit? You say it could be easily done but it sounds overly complicated.

My thought is that what is specified by F1 for halo is the underlying structure but that they leave room for some aero treatments. So something like a homologated "scoop" that a redirects air in to the cockpit may not work equally, or maybe it would. F1 could go that path, but the history would show that teams would prefer to implement their own solution vs. having one mandated. In short, each team thinks they can accomplish the goals, but do it in a less compromising way than everyone else. But I could be wrong.

I "think" the sports car solution didn't exactly mandate A/C. (Again, I could be wrong). I think they set limits on the temperature the driver will experience. With the solution potentially being A/C, but not required? I think they also increased the min-weight to help (which I know is a trigger for many here and I understand the angst of the ever growing dimensions (weight and size) of the cars.)

Richard

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

My thought is that what is specified by F1 for halo is the underlying structure but that they leave room for some aero treatments. So something like a homologated "scoop" that a redirects air in to the cockpit may not work equally, or maybe it would. F1 could go that path, but the history would show that teams would prefer to implement their own solution vs. having one mandated. In short, each team thinks they can accomplish the goals, but do it in a less compromising way than everyone else. But I could be wrong.

I "think" the sports car solution didn't exactly mandate A/C. (Again, I could be wrong). I think they set limits on the temperature the driver will experience. With the solution potentially being A/C, but not required? I think they also increased the min-weight to help (which I know is a trigger for many here and I understand the angst of the ever growing dimensions (weight and size) of the cars.)

Richard

The Halo is a standard specification, which is defined by the Technical Regulations. Teams can obtain them homologated from three different manufacturers, though teams can develop their own fairings within tight FIA limits, to adjust the airflow. There is some room for manoeuvre but not a lot. Whether that room for manoeuvre could be applied to a scoop, which redirects air in to the cockpit is unknown.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

My thought is that what is specified by F1 for halo is the underlying structure but that they leave room for some aero treatments. So something like a homologated "scoop" that a redirects air in to the cockpit may not work equally, or maybe it would. F1 could go that path, but the history would show that teams would prefer to implement their own solution vs. having one mandated. In short, each team thinks they can accomplish the goals, but do it in a less compromising way than everyone else. But I could be wrong.

Richard

Whilst I agree that each F1 team has taken it's own view on re-inventing the wheel in the past, in the future world of F1 Cost caps etc, something like mandated air scoops specifically for cockpit cooling, (bleed air) or specifically to a generic air-con system. A system that could be powered from the hybrid battery, with the power to it controlled by the common ECU, so that teams couldn't reduce the air-con, to get more electrical power to the drive train.

There are lots of ways around the majority of issues that people bring into the closed cockpit argument. If the engineers were allowed to investigate fully.

[S griffin]

Question is, do we really need to go too much further? A bit of cooling could help, if it’s mandated by the FIA. At the moment, there’s no need for it, so we’ll just have to wait. Have to say the halo does it’s job, even if it took some getting used to

[ScotsBrutesFan]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Have to say the halo does it’s job, even if it took some getting used to

If its job is deflecting large pieces of debris, other cars, or indeed keeping tyre walls off the driver. then yes.

If it's job is to prevent all objects then there is still a lot of open space for carbon fibre, gravel stones, smaller mechanical bits, etc to get through. So in that context it's not fully doing it's job.

[Greem]

Originally Posted by ScotsBrutesFan

If its job is deflecting large pieces of debris, other cars, or indeed keeping tyre walls off the driver. then yes.

If it's job is to prevent all objects then there is still a lot of open space for carbon fibre, gravel stones, smaller mechanical bits, etc to get through. So in that context it's not fully doing it's job.

Aw c'mon, it's clearly not designed for the latter set. There's two immense holes in it.

I said 'clearly not'... there's no way it could be. Is there? Nobody would have that level of hubris, surely?

[ScotsBrutesFan]

Originally Posted by Greem

Aw c'mon, it's clearly not designed for the latter set. There's two immense holes in it.

I said 'clearly not'... there's no way it could be. Is there? Nobody would have that level of hubris, surely?

The FIA introduced it to deflect debris, the debris of choice by the FIA was a tyre and wheel assembly.

Had it been a front wind assembly or a selection of bargeboard components would the Halo have been considered good enough?

Hence my observation that it does offer protection against large debris, but not smaller stuff.

[rustyfan]

Not sure if it's been mentioned before, but just to chip in with some numbers from NASCAR it's not uncommon to see temps upwards 130-140° F/50-60° C inside the cars during hot days.

In some more extreme cases they've even seen temps around 160° F/71° C, which is effin' crazy.