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

[Greem]

I'm a bit baffled by the turn this thread has taken.

As someone involved in UK motorsport as a volunteer official (from club level through to F1) I'm all for changes which enhance safety. Only a couple of weekends ago I was at Rockingham for the British GT meeting, where there were two fairly major incidents where a GT3 and a GT4 car were pretty much written off but the drivers walked away (in the GT3 case the car was rebuilt overnight). In one of the F3 races, a car cartwheeled end over end into a gravel trap about 100m from me - once set the right way up, the driver got out and walked away.

In each of those incidents, if the driver had been in a 1950s Cooper, Maserati or similar or a 1960s Lotus, or a 1980s car of any type they would highly likely have been seriously injured or killed.

Before jumping to a quick conclusion here and dismissing the point, consider this: there are still people around today who view those eras as some form of 'golden age' from which we should never have moved.

This proposed change is the same as the wearing of belts, installation of ROPS, ditching leather helmets and making drivers wear fire retardant clothing, standardising certain car layouts, the introduction of the HANS device and so on, and so forth. Some people will endlessly bang on about how it isn't motorsport any more, it isn't the same, it's making it easier, it shouldn't be allowed, I won't watch it if they do etc etc.

It isn't about us (the viewer).

It's about the people in the car (and sometimes those around them, like me).

Think of it this way: if the FIA mandate a screen or canopy and one person's life is saved as a result, it's worth doing.

I'm done here; that's my view, it won't change anybody else's view so I'm out of this thread until something worth talking about happens.

[wnut]

For the traditionalists, Moss testing Vanwall at Monza in 1958.

[wnut]

A full canopy would prevent this type of ejection situation.

For the record driver Martin Posthumous escaped serious injury.









Not moving toward full canopies is just dumb!

[wnut]

Vanwall in standard trim is not that far shy of the RBR solution anyway

[Matt]

Originally Posted by wnut

A full canopy would prevent this type of ejection situation.

For the record driver Martin Posthumous escaped serious injury.





Not moving toward full canopies is just dumb!

What a name.

Originally Posted by wnut

Vanwall in standard trim is not that far shy of the RBR solution anyway

That's the "street car" Vanwall that came out a few years ago.

The actual racers were a little different.

[Akrapovic]

The only difference there is the legally required wheel covers on the road car. The windscreen height on those race cars is identical to the road car.

[Purist]

If you're having an ejection problem, fix the bloody seat and restraints! Sheesh, talk about misdiagnosing the underlying issue of the crash. It's like blaming Jimmie Johnson's Busch Series crash at Watkins Glen on the gravel trap, when it was that hump in the ground on the inside of Turn 1 that launched the car off the ground, so it wasn't even in contact with the gravel.

ROPS?

I've said it at least twice now, that I wouldn't be too bothered by a taller screen, to a point.

If one cause is leading to 1,000 incidents, and another leads to 10 in the same period of time, fix the first one first. Also, you may end up eliminating 4 or 5 of that second group by fixing the first problem. If a canopy mitigates 8 out of 10, but properly implementing the other measures, which prevent MANY more incidents overall, eliminates 9 out of the 10, and the canopy doesn't save the driver in the tenth, you haven't saved a life. And if you ONLY introduce the canopy, and overlook all the other stuff, you still have FAR more hazard left out there on the whole for the drivers, crews, marshals, AND spectators to face. I know how to do my sums; I don't see this as a magic bullet. Not all safety measures are even remotely equal in impact. Don't miss the forest for the trees.

(She is a cruel mistress, but I will admit to a certain sense of comfort provided by the consistent and absolute edicts of the laws of physics. I don't have to worry about political or other biases. I don't have to worry about stewards, who are introducing somewhat artificial penalties anyway, not actually doing their jobs competently or credibly.)

And getting back to not all safety measures being equal, haven't open wheels been a FAR greater safety hazard than an open cockpit over the decades? I'm pretty darn sure the number of car launches from contact with other cars heavily outnumbers the quantity of serious debris intrusions into the cockpit. If there are no "sacred cows", and safety is truly the top priority, why weren't open wheels gotten rid of ages ago?

(Get rid of fender flares, too, and you can just about eliminate launches with fendered cars as well. Anybody remember the BMW M3 going over the Ford GT in Turn 9 at Mosport during the ALMS race in 2010 or so? What about that V8 Supercars incident at Phillip Island in 2009? Blocking on the approach to Doohan led to a launch, McConville sailed through the run-off, and bounced across the return leg of the circuit coming back from the Southern Loop.)

Kempi, if/when the clan who runs IMS run out of money, the 500 may become a NASCAR race anyway.

[Matt]

V8's will always have a launch problem due to the crazy amounts of negative camber they run in the front.

[Purist]

Make a rule for maximum allowed camber, and check the angles at inspection.

[Matt]

Yay more rules!

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Matt

Yay more rules!

For teams to try to circumvent. Two teams are currently being investigated for finding a way to reduce tyre pressures by 2 psi once the cars are on the track, having been passed by the FIA and Pirelli for having the correct pressures before leaving the pits or the grid.

[Purist]

So, how did the FIA find this irregularity of two psi? If they have the telemetry feed, they can simply give any car with an irregularity of more than a certain amount, or for more than a certain amount of time, a drive-through penalty.

Maybe, they just need to set up an inspection rig in the Penalty Box on pit lane for Qualifying. After a run, you immediately go to the rig, in full view of cameras and the public, and get the time-sensitive checks done right then and there, without any team personnel allowed to touch the car after the run. Get the immediate checks done there, then officials take it behind the wall for more comprehensive inspection, and the rig is clear for the next car when it finishes its run. After the race, have the pit boxes cleared except for inspection officials. And maybe, we just forego the pre-session checks in lieu of the post-Qualifying and post-Race scrutineering, which is carried out on EVERYONE.

I assume that the pit-to-car telemetry and commands are supposed to be banned, right?

Of course, part of why circumventing has become so refined is the existing rules limit so many things in so many areas, that those that can still be exploited must be done to the nth degree to make any real gain. (However, we're already who knows how far down that rabbit hole now.)

If you REALLY wanted to just let the violators have it, tell everyone ahead of time that a full session's results will be nullified for certain breaches. So, EVERYBODY will be punished for the trickery of one. If you want to absolutely avoid the hammer, find whoever it is, and make them stop. (The old, "I don't care who started it; I'm gonna smack all y'all if you don't QUIT IT!" approach.)

Matt, you do realize mandating a new change to the cars is yet another rule also, right?

[Purist]

Perhaps, some of the above will convince some of you guys that, if I did fully embrace things as you seem to want me to, you might NOT be so happy with my dedication to their enforcement, and would say I was taking it "too far", "too seriously", "too harshly", etc.

(Be careful what you wish for. I PREFER to be the passionate enthusiast, NOT the cold, hard enforcer. I think you guys want me to STAY as the former, and NOT talk like the latter. Having those "sacred cows" helps feed the passion, and helps hold me back from beating certain other things into the ground. Fair enough?)

[calderra]

Originally Posted by Moneyseeker

To my mind they are trying to 'retro fit' a protective design onto a current F1 chassis. Surely if they wanted to make this a goer they would have to design the car around the cockpit and make it a bit like an LMP1/2 design and incorporate driver entry and exit/extraction from the side. Obviously this brings cockpit cooling and misting into the equation, but looking at the Red Bull option I imagine that will be pretty hard to see through in a wet race.

As posted, F1 has had windscreens before, I don't remember them being a problem but someone feel free to post any historical sources that know better.

If we're talking redesigns, then F1 could farm out some ideas for a more radical future. There are plenty of closed cockpit f1 designs already out that look way cooler than the existing cars. Cool factor is not a problem at all.

So if they want to be open cockpit, then I say just leave it open cockpit and deal. If they want to go closed, then go all the way and redesign the cars. But if they just duct tape a windscreen to the 2017 that was built without one, that's the worst of all possible worlds. The car wasn't designed to accept that part, there will be issues.

[gttouring]

And really the redesign won't be any worse, expense wise, than a new reg set for any year.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[bjohnsonsmith]

Quite an interesting article, as to why the FIA chose the Halo over the aeroscreen for 2017.

http://classic.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/124729

[gttouring]

Odd that the 'achilles' heel is still a huge problem like the freak Massa spring collision, or any other odd debris that could enter, yet they can't fit the halo with a screen ?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[bjohnsonsmith]

Ferrari testing Halo today at Austria.

http://classic.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/125042

[bjohnsonsmith]

Ferrari have been running an updated Halo in practice at Silverstone.

http://classic.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/125189

[ScotsBrutesFan]

The top of the helmet is still exposed and if anything the frontal openings look even bigger...no doubt to have the front T higher so that the driver can see up to the lights.

Not being completely negative, yes it would help against large object side intrusion, but can't say that I'm impressed.

[bjohnsonsmith]

No Halo for 2017.

http://classic.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/125500

[GHOGH]

Red Bull suspends aeroscreen development.
http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/re...opment-790408/

Even the roll bars in F1 are still evolving?

[wnut]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

No Halo for 2017.

http://classic.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/125500

I hope that the GPDA issues the Strategy Group and the FIA a notice that they believe them to be in violation of their duty of care and will be liable as such.

Looks like Richard's prediction about them waiting another serious incident before doing anything is coming true!

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by wnut

I hope that the GPDA issues the Strategy Group and the FIA a notice that they believe them to be in violation of their duty of care and will be liable as such.

Looks like Richard's prediction about them waiting another serious incident before doing anything is coming true!

This is more to do with politics than anything else, and who really controls F1 now.

Todt, unilaterally, decided that some form of protection was to be introduced from the start of 2017. I don't think that anyone was truly against the idea, but it has been rushed and for some reason, unknown to the people that actually keep F1 in it's exalted position, i.e. the punters watching through pay-to-view, the Red Bull proposal was deemed to not be fit for purpose.

Looking at the issue from the outside, it would seem as though Todt and others within the technical team at the FIA have decided that the Ferrari "halo" is the way to go forward, and that other teams putting forward their ideas are wasting their time.

My personal view is that the "halo" won't protect the drivers' heads as well as a properly constructed aero screen, but that Todt just wants to implement the requirement for the sole reason that he said it would be at the end of this season.

[knighty]

I have to say I dont blame the teams for blocking of this stupid set of bars, its a horrid design solution, I am a chartered engineer and a design manager for a huge automotove technology company and if one of my guys came up with a wretched design concept like this I would lose a lot of confidence in him......its just a bodge-job, not credible and everyone knows it........for sure Jules Bianchis passing was awfully sad, but the main cause was running in the rain, not slowing under safety car, the virtual safety car has partially fixed this, but for sure more dribver head protection is needed for sure.

Please dont get me wrong, I am a karting dad and we race 3 times per month with my 10 year old son in honda-cadet karts to MSA standard, safety is of paramount importance to me, and we have stopped racing at circuits that I consider too un-safe. Now we race mainly at buckmore and bayford.....buckmore is now owned by john surtees and the circuit has just undergone a massive safety upgrade with foam barriers around the whole circuit, it was driven through by john surtees, and everyone knows why safety is so important in that regard.

Really the FIA need to take a close hard look at the LMP1 canopies and door system, and simply design a narrower system for F1......so an aero screen up front, with a central upper spine running above the drivers head, which structuraly links the areo-screen to the rear of the cock-pit just under the main engine air-intake scoop.......simples......then a flip-up door on either side, with hinges on the upper spine, the lower areas of the 2 doors being partially integrated into the upper side-pod surface......its worked a treat for LMP1.

Sure Mclarens concept looked cool, but simply putting an F16 style full canopy on top of an F1 car will be no use once its rolled over.......driver extraction when the driver is rolled over is key I feel.