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

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by BSchneiderFan

The problem with a closed canopy has got to be driver extraction. If Alonso's car had had a full canopy in Melbourne, he'd have been trapped. Now imagine the car catches fire.

I think the Red Bull screen looks a whole lot better than the halo; and 1950s Grand Prix cars had windshields. But the real question is effectiveness.

Hatches. Like LMPs (let's not pretend the LMP1s have proper doors).

Once again, all of these problems have been solved before. Why are we now insisting they are problems again? Are we going to sit and discuss what shape wheels should be? Other series are using round ones, so F1 will have to invent another shape. I vote for hexagon.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by BSchneiderFan

The problem with a closed canopy has got to be driver extraction. If Alonso's car had had a full canopy in Melbourne, he'd have been trapped. Now imagine the car catches fire.

I think the Red Bull screen looks a whole lot better than the halo; and 1950s Grand Prix cars had windshields. But the real question is effectiveness.

The ease of driver extraction is paramount, whether the driver is conscious or not. The FIA therefore needs to devise a series of tests, with the various devices to cover both scenarios, using a conscious driver and a rescue dummy.

[chillibowl]

but surely a fully closed canopy (jet fighter styles) plus the safety cell means the timeliness of extraction becomes less of an issue as the driver is protected within.

rather, isnt the necessity for quick extraction a bigger issue now as their is currently a total lack of protection from fire for example?

anyways im just happy they are moving towards the goal of better protection. for me what is gained in safety far outweighs the need to maintain a sense of visual aesthetic.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by BSchneiderFan

The problem with a closed canopy has got to be driver extraction. If Alonso's car had had a full canopy in Melbourne, he'd have been trapped. Now imagine the car catches fire.

"Now imagine" is the key here. We all can imagine many doomsday scenarios to fit any situation. Imagine Alonso's car being open cockpit (like it is now), but pushed up just a bit closer to the wall in a way that prevents egress due to the proximity of the wall and crash debris... and now on fire. Not inconceivable.



In reality, I believe there have been more risk due to cockpit intrusion than something like fire. Intrusions happen instantaneously and generally can only be prevented by proactive measures, while some of the other things people commonly post here as attempts to shoot down cockpit protection can be addressed by both proactive and reactive measures. For example, fire can use proactive measures such as flame retardant material, onboard fire suppression (or even using the canopy to separate the driver from the fire!) and reactive measure such as trackside fire fighting (marshals and emergency teams).



Richard

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

but surely a fully closed canopy (jet fighter styles) plus the safety cell means the timeliness of extraction becomes less of an issue as the driver is protected within.

rather, isnt the necessity for quick extraction a bigger issue now as their is currently a total lack of protection from fire for example?

anyways im just happy they are moving towards the goal of better protection. for me what is gained in safety far outweighs the need to maintain a sense of visual aesthetic.

Despite the safety cell, Alonso still suffered chest injuries, so not necessarily. The most important thing is to get the driver out as quickly as possible, so they can be assessed and extraction of the driver will be impeded if the car has turned over or if there's a similar accident to Bianchi's.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Despite the safety cell, Alonso still suffered chest injuries, so not necessarily. The most important thing is to get the driver out as quickly as possible, so they can be assessed and extraction of the driver will be impeded if the car has turned over or if there's a similar accident to Bianchi's.

true of course. i guess a better question would have been does the additional safety created by a canopy or another form of shield justify the several minutes extra it would take for extraction?

i would think the risk of taking extra time is more than offset by the extra amount of protection.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

That RedBull device is hideous though I'm concious of the fact that it's a bolt on piece, developed for a future car I'm sure the lower edge would be smoothed into the lines of the car.
The mere fact that RedBull are using the word Aero in the name of it, I fear speaks more for what it's intended to do, and that is reduce wind buffet on the driver's head and deflect air around the cockpit area...the fact that it would prevent cockpit intrusion from some angles is an excuse to try it out in race (read as one lap) conditions.

I personally still advocate a full blister cockpit canopy, with squib charges running through it that when only arm under certain conditions and then can only be set off by a positive action from either within the cockpit, or by a marshal outside. The canopy shatters leaving the cockpit opening unobstructed for safe egress.

What the RedBull device does show for a full canopy, just how integral in the design it would have to be, with the front of the canopy starting much further forward on the car reducing he angle of screen but still providing clearance above the helmet. It would probably result in a new design of airbox (and roll hoop) given the way air would pass over the canopy surface.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

true of course. i guess a better question would have been does the additional safety created by a canopy or another form of shield justify the several minutes extra it would take for extraction?

i would think the risk of taking extra time is more than offset by the extra amount of protection.

The only way to determine any of this, will be through testing. There is nothing to stop the FIA from proceeding with a testing programme.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Despite the safety cell, Alonso still suffered chest injuries, so not necessarily. The most important thing is to get the driver out as quickly as possible, so they can be assessed and extraction of the driver will be impeded if the car has turned over or if there's a similar accident to Bianchi's.

Nothing would have saved Bianchi.

Originally Posted by ScotsBrutesFan

What the RedBull device does show for a full canopy, just how integral in the design it would have to be, with the front of the canopy starting much further forward on the car reducing he angle of screen but still providing clearance above the helmet. It would probably result in a new design of airbox (and roll hoop) given the way air would pass over the canopy surface.

So, like this?

[wnut]

Originally Posted by ScotsBrutesFan

That RedBull device is hideous though I'm concious of the fact that it's a bolt on piece, developed for a future car I'm sure the lower edge would be smoothed into the lines of the car.
The mere fact that RedBull are using the word Aero in the name of it, I fear speaks more for what it's intended to do, and that is reduce wind buffet on the driver's head and deflect air around the cockpit area...the fact that it would prevent cockpit intrusion from some angles is an excuse to try it out in race (read as one lap) conditions.

I personally still advocate a full blister cockpit canopy, with squib charges running through it that when only arm under certain conditions and then can only be set off by a positive action from either within the cockpit, or by a marshal outside. The canopy shatters leaving the cockpit opening unobstructed for safe egress.

What the RedBull device does show for a full canopy, just how integral in the design it would have to be, with the front of the canopy starting much further forward on the car reducing he angle of screen but still providing clearance above the helmet. It would probably result in a new design of airbox (and roll hoop) given the way air would pass over the canopy surface.

I think that the efforts to integrate a full canopy into the rest of the car would enhance F1.

Still believe that a pneumatic cylinder like the on board air jacks, but under the canopy and facing up could be used to force the canopy off the car and push the car away from an object trapping the driver.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Matt

Nothing would have saved Bianchi.

I am quite uncomfortable going here, but it should be noted that Jules was not killed outright, so it would seem that even a relatively small change may have saved his life.
If he was so severely injured by the sudden deceleration against the wall then a canopy would not work, however if the injury was as a result of a glancing blow against his helmet from the rear of the tractor, then a canopy may well have given the margin necessary to save his life.

I don't know which situation is correct, there are a lot of vested interests in pursuing the line that nothing would have saved Jules though.

If anyone has seen any good analysis of the accident and the causes of Jules' injuries I for one would like to hear about it.

[dsg]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Despite the safety cell, Alonso still suffered chest injuries, so not necessarily. The most important thing is to get the driver out as quickly as possible, so they can be assessed and extraction of the driver will be impeded if the car has turned over or if there's a similar accident to Bianchi's.

Isn't the most important thing to prevent trauma to the driver in the first place even if it means a small delay in their extraction from the vehicle?

As Akrapovic says, this isn't reinventing the wheel.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

Originally Posted by Matt

So, like this?

I was thinking just an inch or 2 further towards the front of the car, not something that starts at the suspension struts.

The current car design has a clear zone for the drivers as an imaginary line from the top of the role hoop to a point on the crash structure the drivers helmet can't protrude above. Both this and the Halo are being bolted onto that design.
A full integration of any design, halo, screen or full canopy, would probably require or result in a change to this rule, meaning that perhaps the drivers could ride a little higher, or sit more upright in the cars again, safely ensconced within the canopy.

[Kempi]

When was the last time that a car caught fire in a crash? Seriously, I cannot remember and I have been watching since the early 90s. Yes, there were fires, mostly in the pits with extinguishers close by or by engine failure without crash.

I can remember several cockpit intrusions and close calls, though.

This should be considered when debating different risks: probabilities of incident and consequences of incidents.

[MoMedic9019]

Originally Posted by wnut

If he was so severely injured by the sudden deceleration against the wall then a canopy would not work, however if the injury was as a result of a glancing blow against his helmet from the rear of the tractor, then a canopy may well have given the margin necessary to save his life.

He suffered a diffuse axonal injury. The "glancing" blow at that speed is what killed him. It was significant enough to essentially shear the bulk of his neurons. There was no coming back from that. There is nothing that can be done to heal it. It's impossible to know if the canopy or halo would have had any change.

[MoMedic9019]

Originally Posted by dsg

Isn't the most important thing to prevent trauma to the driver in the first place even if it means a small delay in their extraction from the vehicle?

The whole canopy thing is easy to deal with. Mercedes required explosive bolts in the SLS, no reason you can't have a different style, quick release system to remove the canopy as one whole piece.

Having said that... unless the car is on fire, there is no reason to egress with any sort of expediency. And even if it is on fire, how often is it a rolling ball of fire? Almost never.

But, to answer your question that I often teach my students..

"If you want the patient to live, they have to not get killed in the first place"

We have to find a way to prevent the injury from ever occurring.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by dsg

Isn't the most important thing to prevent trauma to the driver in the first place even if it means a small delay in their extraction from the vehicle?

As Akrapovic says, this isn't reinventing the wheel.

Indeed it is, hence the various designs and devices that have been proposed. However, once there has been an accident, the most important thing is to get the driver out of the car quickly and safely so they can be assessed.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by MoMedic9019

He suffered a diffuse axonal injury. The "glancing" blow at that speed is what killed him. It was significant enough to essentially shear the bulk of his neurons. There was no coming back from that. There is nothing that can be done to heal it. It's impossible to know if the canopy or halo would have had any change.

Isn't rapid acceleration or deceleration the major cause diffuse axonal injury and this causes disruption of axons?

[bjohnsonsmith]

RBR debuted their aeroscreen today during first practice.

http://classic.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/124021

[Richard C]

Video of tire and ballistic test of the RBR screen...

http://www.redbullracing.com/article/aeroscreen-time

Richard

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Video of tire and ballistic test of the RBR screen...

http://www.redbullracing.com/article/aeroscreen-time

Richard

The first time the tyre is fired, it brushes what is supposed to be the driver's head and leaves tyre marks.

With the ballistics test, I'd like to have seen how the aeroscreen would have dealt with a smaller, sharper object like a metal pole.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

The first time the tyre is fired, it brushes what is supposed to be the driver's head and leaves tyre marks.

With the ballistics test, I'd like to have seen how the aeroscreen would have dealt with a smaller, sharper object like a metal pole.

That helmet also is sitting much higher than it does when the driver is actually in the car.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

The first time the tyre is fired, it brushes what is supposed to be the driver's head and leaves tyre marks.

With the ballistics test, I'd like to have seen how the aeroscreen would have dealt with a smaller, sharper object like a metal pole.

I missed that when I watched it the first time. It's not obvious but they show multiple hits in each video. I agree on the smaller ballistics test. But on the positive side at least we are seeing something smaller than a tire being used! With the halo concept, there is a lot of room for an item to fit between the bars. Previously its been a bit of showing how you just can't quite stuff your elbow in your ear.

Richard

[chillibowl]

psot FP2 there was an interview with DR where he was asked if the top of the screen would interfere with his ability to see the lights on the start grid.

while he didnt think it would be an issue he admitted that wasnt something he had tried to do.

legitimate question from the reporter or just looking for problems?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTayiI0bBag

[bella]

i think it's a legitimate question - this is f1, it's riddled with comedy design/reality interface failure anecdotes

you've got to imagine it's going to get in the way for *someone* on the grid at least, i wonder if we'll end up seeing leds fitted to the inside of them to solve that one.