|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
19 Jul 2011, 01:49 (Ref:2928354) | #51 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Quote:
If the marshalls had had a crowbar they could have moved the car. If the marshalls had helped Purley in time, if the police had let the crowd help Purley, if the car could have have lifted itself off him as proposed above. The outcome would not have been so distressingly tragic for all concerned. |
||
|
19 Jul 2011, 01:54 (Ref:2928355) | #52 | |||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,742
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
19 Jul 2011, 02:03 (Ref:2928359) | #53 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Quote:
Anything that would aid extraction has to be good. Doesn't it? |
||
|
19 Jul 2011, 02:17 (Ref:2928365) | #54 | ||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,742
|
Of course it has to be but if the roll bar didn't fail, the problem was down to the chassis/fuel tank design.
|
||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
19 Jul 2011, 02:41 (Ref:2928369) | #55 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Quote:
At that point extricating him from the car was the problem which should have been performed by the marshalls and rescue personell ......... In my book the problem was that he couldn't get out, go and stand on the other side of the armco, and watch the damn thing burn. Last edited by wnut; 19 Jul 2011 at 02:50. |
||
|
19 Jul 2011, 08:24 (Ref:2928446) | #56 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 758
|
Quote:
I also remember seeing some artists impressions in a 1970's car magazine showing various F1 cars with full canopies as a nod to, at the time, future possible developments. P |
|||
__________________
Madness is a normal condition interupted only by spells of sanity. |
19 Jul 2011, 12:23 (Ref:2928537) | #57 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,600
|
||
|
19 Jul 2011, 12:25 (Ref:2928539) | #58 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,067
|
Awesome! I really like that.
It looks like an 80's car. Really cool. Selby |
||
__________________
Run-offs, chicanes, hairpins... Think you can do better? Let's see it! Check out the "My Tracks" forum here on Ten-Tenths. |
19 Jul 2011, 22:42 (Ref:2928751) | #59 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,100
|
That's certainly a good looking design, I assume it's mainly a ground effect based aero package from the look at it (?). The only thing is that thing in front of the driver's head in terms of vision, I think a proper jet canopy thing would probably be better all round. Call me silly, but I suppose if you could fit headlights on those things night races might be easier, which could have some advantages in heavy rain for example.
|
||
__________________
Marbot : "Ironically, the main difference between a Red Bull and a Virgin is that Red Bull can make parts of its car smaller and floppier." |
19 Jul 2011, 22:48 (Ref:2928756) | #60 | ||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,742
|
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
20 Jul 2011, 00:06 (Ref:2928772) | #61 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,600
|
This concept was for FCJ (Formula Challenge Japan). However, this proposal was not adopted. The chassis of Formula Renault is used now.
<SPEC> Wheel Base: 2600mm Front Tread: 1450mm Rear Tread :1400mm Weight: 460kg G.C Height: 280mm Monocoque: Carbon composites + Aluminum honeycomb NoseBox: Carbon composites + Aluminum honeycomb Body Work: CFRP Under Tray: Stepped bottom + Diffuser Wing: (Fr/Rr)Carbon composites(adjustable) Suspension: (Fr/Rr) Double wishbone + Push rod, lnboard damper / SpringDamper2way adjustable Brake: 4pod caliper + Ventilated discTyre / WheelFCJ tyre + Aluminum cast wheel Transmission: Hewland JFR 5 speed sequential Engine: 2lt、4 cylinder in line, Dry sump.(Power: up to 250hp. Torque: 25kg-m) Safety: Conformity to FIA Latest F-3 standard + α, Side intrusion test Extractable seats (Optional), Double belt system, Footbox protection etc. Data Logger: New generation Wireless logging system (Optional) |
|
|
20 Jul 2011, 11:50 (Ref:2928939) | #62 | |
Racer
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 385
|
||
|
20 Jul 2011, 14:36 (Ref:2929021) | #63 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,536
|
In r acecar engineering a few years back, they did a unlimited refs
It had two axles in backs for 4 tires one up front and a trim tab front wing and all sorts of magic undertray.. I can't remeber the issue, itwas ugly and WilliamsF1 liveried. A fighter cockpit isn't terrible but open wheel and open cockpit like many prototypes look better with the struggling driver available. Afterall great cars are worn as extensions and suiits for the driver, they don't just sit inside. |
||
__________________
SuperTrucks rule- end of story. Listen to my ramblings! Follow my twitter @davidAET I am shameless ... |
20 Jul 2011, 16:00 (Ref:2929044) | #64 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,892
|
Luke, I think I'll take an Alpine-Renault A442 or A443 over that thing.
Cars can still catch fire, so I would NOT want an air bottle in close proximity to the driver. And if a driver is truly incapacitated, even if they've just been knocked out temporarily, the rescue teams will take several minutes to winch an enclosed car back upright, to make sure they do NOT potentially injure the driver. Even if the car is upright, it's been common practice for decades to cut the roof off of a car to extract a driver who appears to be in need of assistance. So, an automatic device that would roll the car back over suddenly I am unabashedly opposed to. That is a job specifically for the rescue crews, to be performed in a very carefully controlled manner. And yes, talking about putting a canopy as a safety device on a car that has nil structural integrity in the first place is REALLY putting the cart before the horse! There's a video of Stirling Moss driving a 1959 Cooper Climax at Donington on YouTube, and he makes a very telling comment about the relative strength of cars of then and now. And taking into account that structural rigidity didn't start to improve markedly until the latter part of the 1970s, or early 1980s, the relative rigidity of F1 cars has increased by 40x or so in the last 30-35 years. Back to the topic at hand, with all the belts and restraints, a driver is often relatively incapacitated if his car is upside down. He may hardly be able to move at all, and the way the human brain is wired, we become disoriented, at least to some extent, when held in a non-upright position. So he may be unable to properly manipulate a manual canopy release while upside down, and if there is concern of a back or neck injury in particular, you do NOT want an automatic release. Besides, if a small enough object, with enough mass, and going fast enough encounters the canopy, it will punch a hole in it. I think the spring that hit Massa could well be such an object, even with a canopy in place. And you can't make the canopy too think ,or it impacts visibility by being less trnasparent, and may act as a lens/prism, distorting a driver's depth perception. At the end of the day, I think the canopy adds FAR more complications than it's worth for the EXTREMELY FEW injuries it might minimize or eliminate. Last edited by Purist; 20 Jul 2011 at 16:11. |
||
__________________
The only certainty is that nothing is certain. |
20 Jul 2011, 18:40 (Ref:2929099) | #65 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,536
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
SuperTrucks rule- end of story. Listen to my ramblings! Follow my twitter @davidAET I am shameless ... |
20 Jul 2011, 23:23 (Ref:2929207) | #66 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Quote:
It looks perfectly acceptable - no tinting allowed! Even in a roll over situation a canopy would dissapate a hell of a lot more energy than a human neck or crash helmet. The argument against an the Brawn spring piercing the canopy are not accurate. If you look at the damage to Massa's helmet and then imagine the above canopy made out of automotive laminated shatterproof safety glass and bearing in mind it has about an 10 degree angle of inclination to the approaching spring, it would certainly deflect the spring clear of the driver. Even if it did penetrate; chance very low; the energy would have been massively dissipated, and the helmet would then have done its job. In a roll over situation a canopy would dissapate a hell of a lot more energy than a human neck or crash helmeted head. Bear in mind the 10 degree angle compared to the nearly 90 degree of the front of the helmet to an approaching object. Deflection is all you need! Last edited by wnut; 20 Jul 2011 at 23:29. |
||
|
20 Jul 2011, 23:29 (Ref:2929208) | #67 | |||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,742
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
20 Jul 2011, 23:43 (Ref:2929216) | #68 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
||
|
20 Jul 2011, 23:48 (Ref:2929218) | #69 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Quote:
For years I have advocated frontal protection for drivers, and this quite honestly seems like a concept that should be explored, and it would apparently look high tech and just plain awesome. Lockheed should know a bit about canopies by now you'd hope. Technology transfer! |
||
|
20 Jul 2011, 23:50 (Ref:2929219) | #70 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,892
|
All I'm going to say here is this. "F1 cars should be cars that have models made of them, NOT cars that are modeled after BAD, "futuristic-styled" Hot Wheels toys."
|
||
__________________
The only certainty is that nothing is certain. |
20 Jul 2011, 23:59 (Ref:2929220) | #71 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Quote:
F1 would never use that type of technology |
||
|
21 Jul 2011, 00:07 (Ref:2929222) | #72 | ||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,742
|
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
21 Jul 2011, 10:37 (Ref:2929359) | #73 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 385
|
Quote:
Maybe we need a different series to promote such a thing and F1 can have the cars frozen in the "golden age" they are in now. F1 needs to move with new tech not oppose it at every opportunity. Its supposed to be pioneering not a throw back to what you used to watch. I like the Red bull concept for what it stands for. If it has to look like that to be the fastest around a track then great. If another team can make one that goes as fast following the current regs then all power to them but im more interested in performance and innovation than looks. |
||
|
21 Jul 2011, 11:14 (Ref:2929378) | #74 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,100
|
I prefer the FCJ concept, I'd rather the cars had open wheels from the top, but the design around the front wing does look good. I'm torn on the lights issue, they do have some advantages but do make the cars a bit more prototypey.
|
||
__________________
Marbot : "Ironically, the main difference between a Red Bull and a Virgin is that Red Bull can make parts of its car smaller and floppier." |
21 Jul 2011, 20:46 (Ref:2929575) | #75 | ||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,742
|
It certainly has the touch of the LMPs about it.
|
||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
|
|
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 07:04 |