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

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

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.

Completely agree. And you don't even need an engineer degree and an in-depth study to see the flaw -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzKc76-isOk

[S griffin]

I'm glad they're not rushing it in, there's still too many flaws for it to do it's job

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by S griffin

I'm glad they're not rushing it in, there's still too many flaws for it to do it's job

Totally agree. Have they done any tests/simulations, to see how quickly a driver can get out of the car?

[Woolley]

And how quickly/easily he can be extricated if necessary.

All very well GPDA issuing a safety concern if someone subsequently burns because they couldn't get out quickly enough.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Woolley

And how quickly/easily he can be extricated if necessary.

All very well GPDA issuing a safety concern if someone subsequently burns because they couldn't get out quickly enough.

I am not sure what you are saying. Did the GPDA issue some type of statement with concerns about the halo concept? Especially with respect to concerns about extraction during a fire? I searched, but couldn't find anything. If anything it was the opposite...

http://www.gpupdate.net/en/f1-news/3...by-halo-delay/

I have conflicting opinions regarding the postponement of new safety measures. I am not a fan of the halo concept as I feel it is a lesser solution given the alternatives. I hope they postponed implementation of improvements for the right reasons. I do find it interesting that along with the announcement was a good bit a press on disagreement within the ranks of drivers on the need for any improvements. The cynic in me wonders if there is a underground movement somewhere to stop any type of new safety improvements with respect to the current look of the cockpit. And that this is more than just a "delay".

Richard

[ScotsBrutesFan]

The biggest issue for me is that teams are thinking in terms of a bolt on design to the current or 2017 cars. But as Red Bull have shown the current halo blocked some of the airflow to the top airbox.

If we are now to wait until 2018 then let's agree a specs for the cockpit opening for drivers to get in or out, whether a halo style frame, a visor style or as I've alway advocated a enclosed cockpit that is "Designed in" and fully aerodynamicly integrated for airflow and cooling. It would be tested along with the other crash structures on the car.

[dsg]

Originally Posted by ScotsBrutesFan

The biggest issue for me is that teams are thinking in terms of a bolt on design to the current or 2017 cars. But as Red Bull have shown the current halo blocked some of the airflow to the top airbox.

If we are now to wait until 2018 then let's agree a specs for the cockpit opening for drivers to get in or out, whether a halo style frame, a visor style or as I've alway advocated a enclosed cockpit that is "Designed in" and fully aerodynamicly integrated for airflow and cooling. It would be tested along with the other crash structures on the car.

Great post. A proper screen/canopy integrated into the chassis can have other benefits such as allowing better side vision. This enables the driver to see more of what is going on around them and allowing us to see more of the drivers while still providing them greater protection.

The protection in whatever form they choose needs to be part of the overall design.

[Tourer]

Andrew Frankel's view in Motorsport: http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/op...f1/halo-effect

[Number4]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Andrew Frankel's view in Motorsport: http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/op...f1/halo-effect

"The problem with the halo is not the halo per se, but what it represents: one more barrier between the viewers and spectators and what they want to see. It might surprise F1’s organisers, but I don’t believe many tune in to hear clever hybrid systems harvesting energy – they tune in to see drivers drive."

Ha ha, what a joke! All you can see is a helmet and a pair of thumbs going past.
I don't believe I tune in at all.

[Matt]

Yeah, I tune in to watch the drivers drive somewhat guided land missiles above everything else, tbh.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Andrew Frankel's view in Motorsport: http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/op...f1/halo-effect

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but IMHO, most of what is in that article is absolutely ridiculous. I wish he had provided actual information as to which online poll said the main reason fans don't want changes to the cockpit is...

because they like to see F1 drivers at work

The cars could have mannequins inside and nobody would know the difference. You see the helmet and maybe a bit of their hands. So yes... lets drive the safety aspect of the sport based upon a clear logical fallacy. They might as well line up potential options ("do nothing", "halo", "windscreen", "enclosed cockpit") and then use a dowsing rod to determine what to do.



And lastly, the final statement boggles my mind...

The truth is that the only way for F1 to be truly safe is for there to be no F1. And even in its current state, I don’t think many would want that.

That clearly implies that this is about "absolute" and not "relative" safety when in fact it is not. Another fallacy. What this is about is a clear pattern of death and injury and an effort to "reduce" that. Lets say that current cars left the drivers feet totally exposed. And we had a rash of maiming accidents. Would the argument continue to be... "Well it is a dangerous sport. We can't solve all of the problems. Fans like to see the drivers feet in action." Or might we just not expose their feet and pretty much solve the problem.



Richard

[chillibowl]

whether its a logical fallacy or not (and i agree its a pretty poor article and misses the point entirely imo) its pretty clear that the league runs itself under those sorts of guidelines.

the relaxation of the radio ban is case and point. it was necessitated by the fact that these cars are too complex for the drivers to drive alone but the illusion of the drivers being in control must be maintained.

the easiest way to do that is to ban the radio and leave the drivers to their own devices but if we cant see them (or in this case hear them) how would we know what they ar doing?

we cant have that because perception demands that we see the drivers at all times so that means we have to have the radios on even if the drivers are just following instructions. its typical of an organization that only sees things in black and white.

for me in a perfect world there would be someone with enough vision to satisfy both goals. improve safety while giving the driver more to do.

i believe it was Wurz who was talking about this a while ago in so much that with improvements in safety come opportunities in building more aggressive cars and opens up the realm to more aggressive track layouts.

if done properly we could have both. more safety and a greater burden placed on the driver.

with the money these guys are spending im not sure why anyone has to compromise here?

[Akrapovic]

Nobody would ever watch series that has roofs. That's why NASCAR is so popular. Wait.

Or maybe WEC! That's why the Germany attendance figures were higher for WEC. Wait.

Or BTCC! Who'd go see that!? Um.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Nobody would ever watch series that has roofs. That's why NASCAR is so popular. Wait.

Or maybe WEC! That's why the Germany attendance figures were higher for WEC. Wait.

Or BTCC! Who'd go see that!? Um.

I'm sure Bernie's exorbitant sanctioning fee and the ticket prices that have to cover the fee, have something to do with it.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

whether its a logical fallacy or not (and i agree its a pretty poor article and misses the point entirely imo) its pretty clear that the league runs itself under those sorts of guidelines.

the relaxation of the radio ban is case and point. it was necessitated by the fact that these cars are too complex for the drivers to drive alone but the illusion of the drivers being in control must be maintained.

the easiest way to do that is to ban the radio and leave the drivers to their own devices but if we cant see them (or in this case hear them) how would we know what they ar doing?

we cant have that because perception demands that we see the drivers at all times so that means we have to have the radios on even if the drivers are just following instructions. its typical of an organization that only sees things in black and white.

for me in a perfect world there would be someone with enough vision to satisfy both goals. improve safety while giving the driver more to do.

i believe it was Wurz who was talking about this a while ago in so much that with improvements in safety come opportunities in building more aggressive cars and opens up the realm to more aggressive track layouts.

if done properly we could have both. more safety and a greater burden placed on the driver.

with the money these guys are spending im not sure why anyone has to compromise here?

Wurz's comments about more "aggressive track layouts" makes me laugh. When will that ever likely happen?

More aggressive track layouts because of the halo? How are the two things connected exactly?

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

More aggressive track layouts because of the halo? How are the two things connected exactly?

for sure i could be remembering Wurz' comments incorrectly or rather remembering just how i extrapolated those comments, but i dont think he was just talking about the halo per say.

i think he was talking about how with increased safety in the car there will be opportunities to have less safety measures elsewhere...less of a need for tarmac run offs, barriers next to the track etc.

obviously the safety features would have to go well beyond a halo and probably beyond the full canopy concept as well.

an overly complicated expectation...for sure it is but as an end goal i think its perfectly reasonable to think a better safety cell can be created while increasing the difficulty (and appeal) of the sport at the same time. so i think it could be happening as quickly as the teams allocate sufficient resources to do so.

for me its not a 'this or that' type situation as the writer implied in his article.

[Matt]

If they can race at Monaco they can race anywhere.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

for sure i could be remembering Wurz' comments incorrectly or rather remembering just how i extrapolated those comments, but i dont think he was just talking about the halo per say.

i think he was talking about how with increased safety in the car there will be opportunities to have less safety measures elsewhere...less of a need for tarmac run offs, barriers next to the track etc.

obviously the safety features would have to go well beyond a halo and probably beyond the full canopy concept as well.

an overly complicated expectation...for sure it is but as an end goal i think its perfectly reasonable to think a better safety cell can be created while increasing the difficulty (and appeal) of the sport at the same time. so i think it could be happening as quickly as the teams allocate sufficient resources to do so.

for me its not a 'this or that' type situation as the writer implied in his article.

No I know the article you mean, I read it too. I just don't believe the FIA will ever stop their relentless program of tarmacing over everything at a race track, even if there is this increased veil of safety is applied to the cars. I personally would vote for any measures which meant tracks were left alone, if only so that other series can race on them without the tracks needing to be butchered every other year with track "improvements".

[wnut]

Kurt Arens in the Protos 16 F2 at the 1967 German Grand Prix at Nurburgring, designed by Frank Costin and entered by Ron Harris Racing. P.S. Plywood monocoque.




Come on FIA and Formula 1 Working Group.

How difficult can it be?

[chillibowl]

the indycar accident in pitlane at Pocono is surely yet another example of why closed cockpits should be a thing in open wheel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8qw3OBhJSA

[bella]

dunno, isn't it a better example of how pitlane discipline needs to be sorted out in indycar first and foremost?

[chillibowl]

haha, true true...i guess im just seeing what i want to see.

in fairness though, it also highlights the need for protection when discipline falls short.

[VIVA GT]

I'm also concerned that although the halo is designed to repel frontal impacts, I'm not sure if it would have coped so well with the side-one impact of that crash. It may even have made things worse if the halo side had shattered...

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bella

dunno, isn't it a better example of how pitlane discipline needs to be sorted out in indycar first and foremost?

I don't watch or follow IRL so I don't know the pit lane procedures, but I agree something was going wrong there from a procedure perspective.

Look up the concept of "Defense in depth". Layers of protection. Don't rely upon a single strategy to solve all problems. Establishing policies and procedures can't prevent all accidents. There likely was already rules in place to prevent that from happening. Accidents are bound to happen regardless.

Helio Castroneves was "extremely" lucky (he said as much himself on Twitter) to have escaped without injury.

Richard

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

haha, true true...i guess im just seeing what i want to see.

in fairness though, it also highlights the need for protection when discipline falls short.

Can't disagree with that. Just a few weeks ago at Mid-Ohio, there was another pit road incident. An unsafe pit release saw Aleshin make contact with Josef Newgarden and a member of Juan Pablo Montoya’s pit crew got injured.