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

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Maybe everyone should just refer to it as the "Thong" instead of the "Halo".

Richard

Hale o the Thong.

[wnut]

Kimi in Barcelona wearing a "thong"!

[wnut]

[Gingers4Justice]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

playing devils advocate a bit here, but there are unintended consequences from a windscreen as well.

putting extraction to the side, how would you keep a windscreen clean? a wiper could work for rain but wouldnt be effective against oil and smoke.

and if it is made to work then that is another electronic system which could fail.

if safety is important then a driver presumably shouldnt be allowed on the course if they have a dirty screen so we have additional stops, early retirements, or DQ's for having a dirty screen etc. that would come across as rather silly no?

Well here's a question, how do you think LMP1 cars manage, going at F1 speeds for far longer periods of time?

Also bare in mind that LMP cars race at dusk and dawn when there are far more bugs about, and when the sun glares and makes the situation worse. Prototypes have tear-offs these days, but even then it's not practical to have 30 of them on one car, so for most stops, it's a good old-fashioned wipe of the windscreen in the pits.

The only time it would be a problem would be during periods of heavy rain - you'd need a very peculiarly-shaped windscreen wiper. But I'm sure there's a solution out there for that waiting to be invented...

[Gingers4Justice]

I don't think the canopy idea was explored far enough - it would be the most aesthetically pleasing in most people's view. The issue is, of course, driver extraction but am I really supposed to believe the combined brain power of Formula One can't develop a solution to that?

My idea would be something like the glass-bubble used on the Renault Alpine A442B, which featured enough of a hole on the top to be considered an open-top chassis to comply with the regulations. This was to gain an extra 8km/h on the Mulsanne of course, but something like that with a removable strut across the top of the hole to prevent large pieces of debris or a wheel invading the cockpit would look a lot better imo

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Gingers4Justice

I don't think the canopy idea was explored far enough - it would be the most aesthetically pleasing in most people's view. The issue is, of course, driver extraction but am I really supposed to believe the combined brain power of Formula One can't develop a solution to that?

My idea would be something like the glass-bubble used on the Renault Alpine A442B, which featured enough of a hole on the top to be considered an open-top chassis to comply with the regulations. This was to gain an extra 8km/h on the Mulsanne of course, but something like that with a removable strut across the top of the hole to prevent large pieces of debris or a wheel invading the cockpit would look a lot better imo

Is that Didier Pironi?

[Gingers4Justice]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Is that Didier Pironi?

Ooooh he's good!!

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Gingers4Justice

Ooooh he's good!!

I know my stuff Dude,

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Gingers4Justice

Well here's a question, how do you think LMP1 cars manage, going at F1 speeds for far longer periods of time?...

its the longer period of time. if an F1 driver has to come in for a canopy cleaning/extra pit stop that effectively means their race is over. over 6-24 hours it is, i wont say easier, more probable that a team can over come then it is in F1.

i dont know how valid of a point that is but when i made that comment i was sort of thinking about Webber/team who are far more able to come back from extra stop in LMP1 vs his first F1 win in which he won despite a drive through penalty...which was pretty much considered an incredibly rare occurrence.

so strictly from a point of view of a guy watching on the couch i must say i am a little skeptical of any solution that that is addressed with pit stops or passing in the pits type of thing.

similar for the extraction issue. not sure i like the additional time it will take and the prolonged SC period that would come with it.

[Gingers4Justice]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

its the longer period of time. if an F1 driver has to come in for a canopy cleaning/extra pit stop that effectively means their race is over. over 6-24 hours it is, i wont say easier, more probable that a team can over come then it is in F1.

i dont know how valid of a point that is but when i made that comment i was sort of thinking about Webber/team who are far more able to come back from extra stop in LMP1 vs his first F1 win in which he won despite a drive through penalty...which was pretty much considered an incredibly rare occurrence.

so strictly from a point of view of a guy watching on the couch i must say i am a little skeptical of any solution that that is addressed with pit stops or passing in the pits type of thing.

similar for the extraction issue. not sure i like the additional time it will take and the prolonged SC period that would come with it.

I see your concern but my main point was that muck on the screen doesn't affect the professionals as much as you think it would. I remember Brendon Hartley in the #17 Porsche 919 at Le Mans last year complaining on the radio about oil on the windshield at dusk after another car's engine had blown, but even though there was something like 17 or 18 hours left at that point, the team replied something along the lines of "tough luck mate, we can't afford to lose the time stopping you out of schedule." I don't think that would be too much of an issue. I can remember very few incidents where a car has had to pit because of wind-shield issue in touring cars, prototypes or GT racing, so I'm not too sure why Formula One would be any different?

Although this is an excuse to dig this one out again.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phrzll4Us9w

I see the point about extraction, and that's why I thought my idea above might be a good compromise. Don't the gull-wing doors of the McLaren roadcars fall off if the car's upside down or something as well? I don't really know much about this, but I get the impression they gave up on canopies because of the time and money needed to do it properly, rather than the idea being a total non-starter.

[sizzle]

Originally Posted by Armco Bender

That halo looks like a thong,and the cockpit view looks like when you pull your underpants over your head....

Hey Armco, when did you stop calling it a Jandal?

[Akrapovic]

The idea that F1 cars would have bigger problems with debris on the windscreen is yet another example of a problem that doesn't exist. LMPs manage to go easily 45 minutes, sometimes more without the need for the tear offs. Yet hear we are saying that just wouldn't work for F1. Why not? We're creating problems to justify the ridiculous solution that they've come up with.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Gingers4Justice

I see your concern but my main point was that muck on the screen doesn't affect the professionals as much as you think it would. I remember Brendon Hartley in the #17 Porsche 919 at Le Mans last year complaining on the radio about oil on the windshield at dusk after another car's engine had blown, but even though there was something like 17 or 18 hours left at that point, the team replied something along the lines of "tough luck mate, we can't afford to lose the time stopping you out of schedule." I don't think that would be too much of an issue. I can remember very few incidents where a car has had to pit because of wind-shield issue in touring cars, prototypes or GT racing, so I'm not too sure why Formula One would be any different?

Although this is an excuse to dig this one out again.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phrzll4Us9w

I see the point about extraction, and that's why I thought my idea above might be a good compromise. Don't the gull-wing doors of the McLaren roadcars fall off if the car's upside down or something as well? I don't really know much about this, but I get the impression they gave up on canopies because of the time and money needed to do it properly, rather than the idea being a total non-starter.

In the same vein...

[Tja]

Originally Posted by Matt

In the same vein...

They were using glass windshields until 2013 as far as I know, lighter and safer materials are used these days... The halo design is just hideous, a proper canopy would look better and provide better safety for the driver in most cases. Then again, F1 cars haven't looked good for a long time now, so why not use that halo.

[JeremySmith]

You just answered your own question, if the Halo stops one driver being injured then it's worth having don't you think ?
I would prefer a F16 type canopy, but have no problem with this device as long as it's considered to be safe ...
Motor racing will always be dangerous ..Lewis Hamilton has responded to the trial of the Halo as if he has never seen or heard of it before ??? Rather odd don't you think !

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Tja

They were using glass windshields until 2013 as far as I know, lighter and safer materials are used these days... The halo design is just hideous, a proper canopy would look better and provide better safety for the driver in most cases. Then again, F1 cars haven't looked good for a long time now, so why not use that halo.

Yep, glass screens til the CoTF chassis was introduced.

They took the front and rear ones out because it got smoked by a wheel and tire assembly.

[gttouring]

Go for the top fuel style canopy. NHRA forces are intense and must have figured on a 300mph+ thing crashing into anything like an errant wheel or concrete barrier. Overturned cars must have been thought of by NHRA, it likely works well. If Indy can be beat f1 to it it would be good for them and all of us, ovals can use every bit of safety possible

[bjohnsonsmith]

Red Bull have come up with their own concept.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report...concept-images

[chillibowl]

have to ask...but would a halo have helped or hurt in that shunt?

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

have to ask...but would a halo have helped or hurt in that shunt?

Indeed, what if there was a fire and Alonso wouldn't be able to get out of the car because of the HALO system?

Is the chance of one car sliding over the other in a critical manner so much larger than ending up up side down in a fire?

[YorkshireLad]

Doesn't this crash just show how safe these cars already are? I've been reading various 'knee-jerk' comments on Twitter all morning!
Accidents happen it's just fate wether you get hurt or not.

Having a halo will have pros and cons.. Not having one has pros and cons.

[wnut]

Alonso's crash pretty well demonstrated how lucky you can get!
If the car had entered the gravel trap upside down and slid ...

What it did demonstrate, is that the canopy is probably the better solution.

Amazing how the NHRA could implement canopies quickly and easily and yet F1 continues to fiddle around.

Apparently the NHRA canopies are bullet proof and not only aero as has been suggested.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports...acing/1914579/

[gttouring]

Either way the current tub and construction held up as it should in that very accident, thing could always be improved, but these things are unreal, good for Alonso and good for us too. That was nuts looking, first view of the Haas car I didn't even realize a car was back there!

[S griffin]

I didn't realise there was another car in the accident, was barely recognisable in that mess. Good to see Alonso was ok, the monocoque saved him and that's the main thing. Crash of coursed almost mirrored Brundle and Villenueve's crashes there

[TrapezeArtist]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

Indeed, what if there was a fire and Alonso wouldn't be able to get out of the car because of the HALO system?

Is the chance of one car sliding over the other in a critical manner so much larger than ending up up side down in a fire?

Look at the accidents of the past 10 years. I can't recall a serious fire, but plenty of occasions when a car climbed over another and passed perilously close to the driver's head. I don't remember a flying wheel getting near a driver either (in F1). I doubt the halo would have saved Jules Bianchi.

Taking Alonso's accident today, the halo would have provided extra protection during the roll (fortunately not needed). It would also have got in the way of his exit from the car (probably) but it would have done no harm to wait until the marshals could have assisted him. On the whole, the halo would have had no effect on today's shunt, but if you ran a similar scenario 100 times, it would be better to have the halo than not.