Home Mobile Forum News Cookbook FaceBook Us T-Shirts etc.: Europe/Worldwide. eBay Motorsport Links Advertising Live Chat  
Site Partners: SpotterGuides  
Related Sites: Your Link Here  

Go Back   TenTenths Motorsport Forum > Single Seater Racing > Formula One


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 18 Oct 2011, 09:44 (Ref:2973156)   #151
csirl
Subscriber
Racer
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location:
Western Hemisphere
Posts: 425
csirl should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
The age of the cars has been a factor in Indycars - cars are long past their sell buy date, many have been involved in heavy accidents over the years and repaired etc. etc. Thankfully they are getting a new much safer car for 2012.

On the Wheldon incident - one of the threads on the Indycar section of this site says the following (posted on 7th Sept this year):

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yannick
It would be absolutely awesome if the #98 Herta/Curb/Agajanian/Schmidt car which already won this year's Indy 500 as a one-off team entry (this IS historical when looking at the last 30 years) would get a shot at winning this race with Dan Wheldon driving.

If you recall, Sam Schmidt (in partnership with Herta's team due to SSM's wreckage issues at Indy with Bell's incident, ran a driver in the #98 car at texas and it got wrecked there. Wheldon was in the booth on the Versus broadcast team and was rather upset about it.

That car was going to get restored and repaired, but I doubt it will ever turn another wheel, especially since it won the centenniall celebration of the Indy 500.
Does anyone know if Wheldon was driving this chasis last Sunday?
csirl is offline  
Quote
Old 18 Oct 2011, 10:37 (Ref:2973187)   #152
henners88
Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Wales
Posts: 611
henners88 should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
I would be interested to see what solution is proposed but part of the enjoyment for me is the open cockpit, open wheeled racing F1 produces. If they can find a way of producing an F1 car with an enclosed cockpit, but still keep the fundamental design of the car similar, I think its worth having.

What I don't want to see is coupe cars where drivers bump into each other in little bubbles and we lose the open wheel form that we have had almost since the sport began.
henners88 is offline  
Quote
Old 18 Oct 2011, 16:29 (Ref:2973315)   #153
Wild Dog
Rookie
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Denmark
Denmark
Posts: 89
Wild Dog should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88 View Post
I would be interested to see what solution is proposed but part of the enjoyment for me is the open cockpit, open wheeled racing F1 produces. If they can find a way of producing an F1 car with an enclosed cockpit, but still keep the fundamental design of the car similar, I think its worth having.

What I don't want to see is coupe cars where drivers bump into each other in little bubbles and we lose the open wheel form that we have had almost since the sport began.
Totally agreed. It would be sad to lose the open wheel racing. So if they could implement the shield without changing too much on the current design.
Wild Dog is offline  
Quote
Old 18 Oct 2011, 18:27 (Ref:2973385)   #154
JamesH
Veteran
 
JamesH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
United Kingdom
Christchurch, Cambs, UK
Posts: 2,092
JamesH has a real shot at the championship!JamesH has a real shot at the championship!JamesH has a real shot at the championship!JamesH has a real shot at the championship!JamesH has a real shot at the championship!
Looking at a modern F1 car, you can hardly see the drivers helmet anyway - they are almost enclosed already.
JamesH is offline  
__________________
Locost #54 Boldly Leaping where no car has gone before. And then being T-boned. Damn.
Survivor of the 2008 2CV 24h!! 2 engines, one accident, 76mph and rain.
Quote
Old 18 Oct 2011, 19:30 (Ref:2973431)   #155
henners88
Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Wales
Posts: 611
henners88 should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesH View Post
Looking at a modern F1 car, you can hardly see the drivers helmet anyway - they are almost enclosed already.
True, but adding a canopy would possibly involve redesigning the entire car to suit. The canopy would need to be up to an inch thick if we judge this by the F-16 design and that would bring considerable weight. Not to mention the centre of gravity for the car would change, along with the airbox needing to be relocated etc. It would bring about alot of problems aswell as solving a few IMO.
henners88 is offline  
Quote
Old 18 Oct 2011, 19:42 (Ref:2973438)   #156
Richard Casto
Subscriber
Veteran
 
Richard Casto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
United States
Durham, NC, USA
Posts: 2,316
Richard Casto will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameRichard Casto will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameRichard Casto will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameRichard Casto will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameRichard Casto will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameRichard Casto will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameRichard Casto will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameRichard Casto will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Fame
Not sure if it has been mentioned, but with a closed cockpit, would we also then see A/C in F1 for the first time?

Richard
Richard Casto is offline  
Quote
Old 18 Oct 2011, 19:59 (Ref:2973447)   #157
Marbot
Retired
20KPINAL
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
United Kingdom
Posts: 22,897
Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!Marbot is going for a new lap record!
Surely they would use aircraft type 'quick clear' glazing?

But they might still need a windscreen wiper......

Isn't all of this just going to make it more difficult for the driver to know what's going on around him/her?
Marbot is offline  
Quote
Old 18 Oct 2011, 23:15 (Ref:2973545)   #158
Hubble
Veteran
 
Hubble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
England
Bishops Stortford, Herts
Posts: 751
Hubble should be qualifying in the top 10 on the gridHubble should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88 View Post
The canopy would need to be up to an inch thick
How the hell did you work that out? Use the right materials and construction and it shouldn't be necessary to be more than 5-6mm tops. Car windscreens are only around 3-4mm thick, and have a much larger frontal area than would be necessary on an F1 car...and F1 screens would be stronger in frontal impacts due to the wraparound shape...

All that aside, I'm against canopies for F1 cars...
Hubble is offline  
__________________
Give me the wisdom to know what is right, the courage to change what is wrong, and the bank balance to support me when I can't tell the difference
Quote
Old 19 Oct 2011, 02:01 (Ref:2973615)   #159
bjohnsonsmith
Race Official
Veteran
 
bjohnsonsmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
United States
London, England
Posts: 15,154
bjohnsonsmith is going for a new world record!bjohnsonsmith is going for a new world record!bjohnsonsmith is going for a new world record!bjohnsonsmith is going for a new world record!bjohnsonsmith is going for a new world record!bjohnsonsmith is going for a new world record!bjohnsonsmith is going for a new world record!bjohnsonsmith is going for a new world record!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hubble View Post
How the hell did you work that out? Use the right materials and construction and it shouldn't be necessary to be more than 5-6mm tops. Car windscreens are only around 3-4mm thick, and have a much larger frontal area than would be necessary on an F1 car...and F1 screens would be stronger in frontal impacts due to the wraparound shape...

All that aside, I'm against canopies for F1 cars...
... and on open wheel cars in general. Part of a race car designer's remit is to find that compromise between an open cockpit and the rest of car's aerodynamics.
bjohnsonsmith is offline  
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying."
Colin Chapman.
Quote
Old 19 Oct 2011, 02:04 (Ref:2973616)   #160
Richard Casto
Subscriber
Veteran
 
Richard Casto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
United States
Durham, NC, USA
Posts: 2,316
Richard Casto will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameRichard Casto will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameRichard Casto will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameRichard Casto will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameRichard Casto will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameRichard Casto will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameRichard Casto will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameRichard Casto will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Fame
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hubble View Post
How the hell did you work that out? Use the right materials and construction and it shouldn't be necessary to be more than 5-6mm tops. Car windscreens are only around 3-4mm thick, and have a much larger frontal area than would be necessary on an F1 car...and F1 screens would be stronger in frontal impacts due to the wraparound shape...

All that aside, I'm against canopies for F1 cars...
The FIA did tests recently using jet fighter canopy (links probably somewhere in this thread). So I believe he was basing his assumption upon the thickness of a F16 canopy which are a bit over 1" thick.

I also don't think the thickness of car windshields factor into this at all. They are to prevent wind and weather from getting into a vehicle and are not safety devices. It takes relatively little effort to penetrate one. Anyhow thickness is pure speculation unless someone here has experience in designing this type of thing. And I suspect that most of the experience in this area probably would be military or industrial in nature.

Richard

Last edited by Richard Casto; 19 Oct 2011 at 02:09.
Richard Casto is offline  
Quote
Old 19 Oct 2011, 08:13 (Ref:2973692)   #161
henners88
Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Wales
Posts: 611
henners88 should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hubble View Post
How the hell did you work that out? Use the right materials and construction and it shouldn't be necessary to be more than 5-6mm tops. Car windscreens are only around 3-4mm thick, and have a much larger frontal area than would be necessary on an F1 car...and F1 screens would be stronger in frontal impacts due to the wraparound shape...

All that aside, I'm against canopies for F1 cars...
It was just an estimated guess off the back of the fact that F-16 canopies had been tested. They are 25-30mm thick which makes you wonder why such large examples were tested if they are not representitive of what is proposed for F1. I understand F1 cars don't go anywhere near as fast however. I am a desgn engineer myself and use a wide range of plastics in various applications, but plastic windscreens are not something I have a vast knowledge of. The most impact resistant plastic I have used is polycarbonate which is used for police riot shields but it also scratches fairly easily. I have no idea what plastics the military use.

Last edited by henners88; 19 Oct 2011 at 08:18.
henners88 is offline  
Quote
Old 19 Oct 2011, 09:09 (Ref:2973721)   #162
wnut
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,282
wnut has a real shot at the podium!wnut has a real shot at the podium!wnut has a real shot at the podium!wnut has a real shot at the podium!wnut has a real shot at the podium!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Casto View Post
The FIA did tests recently using jet fighter canopy (links probably somewhere in this thread). So I believe he was basing his assumption upon the thickness of a F16 canopy which are a bit over 1" thick.

I also don't think the thickness of car windshields factor into this at all. They are to prevent wind and weather from getting into a vehicle and are not safety devices. It takes relatively little effort to penetrate one. Anyhow thickness is pure speculation unless someone here has experience in designing this type of thing. And I suspect that most of the experience in this area probably would be military or industrial in nature.

Richard
This is wrong, they are certainly safety devices in Armour Plate and laminated safety glass form, I have seen a windshield that has prevented a .38 shell penetrating it and another that prevented a brick from penetrating it at a little over 120kph. Neither of which I would like to try with one of my helmets.



The F15 is meant to resist penetration of objcts at up to Mach 2!
wnut is offline  
Quote
Old 19 Oct 2011, 12:15 (Ref:2973772)   #163
JamesH
Veteran
 
JamesH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
United Kingdom
Christchurch, Cambs, UK
Posts: 2,092
JamesH has a real shot at the championship!JamesH has a real shot at the championship!JamesH has a real shot at the championship!JamesH has a real shot at the championship!JamesH has a real shot at the championship!
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnut View Post
This is wrong, they are certainly safety devices in Armour Plate and laminated safety glass form, I have seen a windshield that has prevented a .38 shell penetrating it and another that prevented a brick from penetrating it at a little over 120kph. Neither of which I would like to try with one of my helmets.

The F15 is meant to resist penetration of objcts at up to Mach 2!
For goodness sake, that's twice in a week I find myself agreeing with wnut.

Even basic car windscreen are safety devices (amongst other things), otherwise they wouldn't be expensive laminated objects. Why else do you need to carry around a hardended pointed hammer to break them if you fall in to a river (Well, I do - lots of long roads next to rivers where I live)

And yes, an F16 screen can withstand impacts at mach 2 - so not really comparable to f1's rather palty 200mph.

And to be honest, they don't need to withstand penetration as such, just need to deflect enough energy go give better protection that a visor alone.
JamesH is offline  
__________________
Locost #54 Boldly Leaping where no car has gone before. And then being T-boned. Damn.
Survivor of the 2008 2CV 24h!! 2 engines, one accident, 76mph and rain.
Quote
Old 19 Oct 2011, 12:21 (Ref:2973777)   #164
henners88
Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Wales
Posts: 611
henners88 should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnut View Post
The F15 is meant to resist penetration of objcts at up to Mach 2!
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesH View Post
And yes, an F16 screen can withstand impacts at mach 2 - so not really comparable to f1's rather palty 200mph.
I did acknowledge that aspect in my previous post I think I should add.
Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88 View Post
They are 25-30mm thick which makes you wonder why such large examples were tested if they are not representitive of what is proposed for F1. I understand F1 cars don't go anywhere near as fast however.
henners88 is offline  
Quote
Old 19 Oct 2011, 14:59 (Ref:2973859)   #165
Richard Casto
Subscriber
Veteran
 
Richard Casto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
United States
Durham, NC, USA
Posts: 2,316
Richard Casto will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameRichard Casto will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameRichard Casto will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameRichard Casto will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameRichard Casto will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameRichard Casto will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameRichard Casto will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameRichard Casto will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Fame
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesH View Post
For goodness sake, that's twice in a week I find myself agreeing with wnut.

Even basic car windscreen are safety devices (amongst other things), otherwise they wouldn't be expensive laminated objects. Why else do you need to carry around a hardended pointed hammer to break them if you fall in to a river (Well, I do - lots of long roads next to rivers where I live)

And yes, an F16 screen can withstand impacts at mach 2 - so not really comparable to f1's rather palty 200mph.

And to be honest, they don't need to withstand penetration as such, just need to deflect enough energy go give better protection that a visor alone.
Again, the primary function of glass in automobiles (windshields, side windows, etc.) is for convenience purposes. Yes windshields/windscreens do provide some safety. They are good at deflecting small stones, etc. However their primary function is not as a safety device. Air bags, crushable structures, crush resistant structures, harnesses/belts, helmets, fire resistant material, ABS brakes, etc. are all examples of safety devices. If anyone knows of specific regulations regarding prevention of intrusion into the passenger area of an automobile via glass covered areas, I would love to hear about them. They may exist, but I don’t know of any.

Regarding laminated “Safety” and tempered glass that is used in modern automobiles, the special features of these types of glass is not to protect you from other things. It is used to “protect you from the glass itself when it breaks”. Laminated windshields are to prevent damage to you from injury from either you impacting the windshield or having large sections of windshield glass impacting you. The lamination holds the large pieces together. Tempered side windows are not laminated, but due to internal stress are designed to break into very small pieces to again prevent injury to you from flying glass.

Regarding the thickness of a fighter jet canopy, clearly the FIA thought that there was some merit to using one as part of their recent tests. It may well have been that this was the easiest to obtain example of a small protective cockpit covering that used a clear material. I have no idea what the requirements are for a jet fighter canopy. I suspect that the primary concern is bird strikes. So I did the math for kinetic energy of a worst case scenario for an F1 car and then compared that to a bird strike on an airplane canopy. What speed would a goose have to be traveling to equal the kinetic energy of an F1 car at speed impacting a solid object such as a barrier?

Maybe I am doing my math wrong. Someone point my errors out.

Using Energy = (1/2) * Mass * Velocity squared

F1 weight = 640 kg
F1 speed = 180 MPH = 80.5 m/s
.5 * 640 * 80.5^2 = 2,073,690 J

Reverse the equation to determine velocity needed for the Goose to get equivalent energy

Velocity = Square root of ( 2 * Energy / Mass)

Goose weight = 35 lbs = 15.9 kg
Energy = 2,073,690 J

That results in a velocity for the Goose of 510.7 m/s or 1140 mph or about 1.48 Mach at sea level. Even that speed surprised me.

So, yes that is an extreme example with respect to the F1 car impact. The deceleration forces would probably kill the driver regardless of protection from cockpit intrusion. I also suspect that the one inch thick jet canopies are in fact not designed to handle such a large bird at those speeds.

But my point is that everyone should not be so quick to say “Oh, it will never be that thick”. The forces they might need to protect against on an F1 car may be larger than you think and the resulting canopy surprisingly thicker than most people’s “gut” estimates.

Clearly it all depends upon what they (FIA) might try to protect against. The scenario above may be overly extreme and overly simplified (or not). But protection against suspension assemblies, wheels and smaller debris might be something that can be reasonably protected against.

And this is all a minor hypothetical point and I apologize for being pedantic and overly verbose. For those that don’t agree with me, we will just have to agree to disagree.

Richard
Richard Casto is offline  
Quote
Reply

Bookmarks




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Closed cockpits gttouring Sportscar & GT Racing 5 27 Mar 2003 22:59
FIA to introduce a 'spy' into F1 cockpits Super Tourer Formula One 25 12 Feb 2003 14:29
A step closer to reality... Gt_R Formula One 4 20 Dec 2000 07:47
Open v. Closed Cockpits...Why? Heeltoe6 Sportscar & GT Racing 4 8 Jun 2000 08:04


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT. The time now is 14:19.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Original Website Copyright © 1998-2003 Craig Antil. All Rights Reserved.
Ten-Tenths Motorsport Forums Copyright © 2004-2016 Royalridge Computing. All Rights Reserved.