planetf1.com

dizlexik wrote:

Blinky McSquinty wrote:First off, I'm sick and tired of people dragging out the old "but it would not have saved Bianchi" argument. He wasn't killed by something hitting his head, it was the sudden stop. Even if he had been in a top fuel dragster cage he still would have suffered the same fate.


http://www.dragracingonline.com/raceres ... erhead.jpg

I voted for the Red Bull Aeroscreen because it is able to stop smaller objects because of the transparent screen. Aesthetically, I like the Ferrari Halo. But this is a work in progress, different organizations are attempting to find a solution that is inevitable, improved driver head protection. Who knows, maybe the end result is a full canopy. But whatever is written into the rules will be something more and something unlike the proposed Red Bull and Ferrari designs presently on the table.

Personally I'd like to see the Deltawing design slimmed down from two to one driver and implemented.

It's not that current F1 cars are looking nice, we are just used to them. If the can solve visibility issues in rain and reduce reflections to minimum, I think aeroscreen is the way to go.

And to support you argument that head protection isn't reaction to Bianchi accident. This is video from 2011: https://vimeo.com/26098946 See FIA was already testing such a stuff.

I was reading that Red Bull are going to source anti glare coatings for inside and out and rain protection for the screen.
They are also going to run it again in the next 2 race weekends in free practise to test it out.
If the screen gets the go ahead, they will all be made by the one company (expert company that supplies jets etc) and supplied to the teams. (So no crazy designs to get an aero advantage) The support part still might be made by the teams as it needs to be mounded to the chassis.

I think with next years wider cars, lower rear wings and the other changes, the screen might be more in proportion to the car.

On the halo, if debris, or say the nose of a car (with front wing broken off it) go under that halo, it would guide the whole nose straight into the drivers helmet. I think the Halo might cause more deaths.
The screen might actually prevent one.

Aesthetically the Aeroscreen looks infinitely better than the Halo and, from a safety viewpoint, it seems to answer more questions than the Halo.

The one concern with the Areoscreen is the negative affect it seems to have on the cars cooling ability. If it turns out that that it will require a major re-design to regain that lost air flow to the engine, that could be a major hurdle for the introduction of the screen.

Among other issues I have with the Halo, I'm still not convinced that forward vision would not, in some instances, be compromised by that central pillar.

Looking at this view below, which is suppose to be the drivers view, there just seems to be too much forward vision obscured by that pillar. I would hate to be making my way on the run down to Eau Rouge with this view staring me in the face.



www. missmotorsport.files.wordpress.com

Iv'e actually been pretty underwhelmed by the halo as a response to the various incidents over the last few years. It just looks like it would only be effective in a very specific incident situation and would have only a minor positive, or even a negative impact, in a lot of the others we have seen. I said at the time of the Mercs design release that it looked like a half assed solution and iv'e seen nothing since that would change my view.

The Areoscreen seems to be a good concept that addresses most of the safety concerns

Don't know why we need a new name for a windshield, but the Aeroscreen one for me.

Blinky McSquinty wrote:First off, I'm sick and tired of people dragging out the old "but it would not have saved Bianchi" argument. He wasn't killed by something hitting his head, it was the sudden stop. Even if he had been in a top fuel dragster cage he still would have suffered the same fate.

According to the FIA's investigation and final conclusions, Bianchi's head struck the recovery vehicle which is what caused the rapid deceleration injuries. The contact was not direct so it whipped his head back as it impacted the bottom of the crane and then, upon clearing it, it whipped back forward as the final impact was taking place, and it's possible even a third time as his head snapped back after stopping. While it's not a certainty a canopy would have prevented his injuries, I think his chances would have been significantly greater of surviving the incident because the canopy would have absorbed and then dissipated the energy and pushed the crane upwards even more so than the front of his car alone and it's quite possible he may have walked away.

http://www.fia.com/news/accident-panel

"9. Bianchi’s helmet struck the sloping underside of the crane. The magnitude of the blow and the glancing nature of it caused massive head deceleration and angular acceleration, leading to his severe injuries."


The Red Bull wind screen as it stands (I realize it's a crude mockup for testing) would most likely caused more injuries due to it breaking, causing it's structure to be pushed towards and into the driver's head and torso. I feel the best solution is to go full fighter pilot-like canopy and be done with it. It's a tried, tested and proven system and would offer the best protection and best aesthetic appearance that would fully coincide with F1 aero/design principals.

I don't think anyone would be disappointed with a final product similar to this:


http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/close ... than-good/

I think the screen looks better, but have they tested it in the wet, and can the driver get out if the car is upside down? (possibility on fire too)

moby wrote:I think the screen looks better, but have they tested it in the wet, and can the driver get out if the car is upside down? (possibility on fire too)

The problem with this line of argument - which always comes up when canopies are discussed - is that Formula 1 cars don't burst into fire anymore. People seem to want to equate the risk of being struck by debris with the risk of being trapped in a burning car, as if they're anything like the same probability; they're not. When was the last time an F1 car caught fire and burned out of control?

I'm fully in favor of a fighter jet-style canopy; it offers the best protection, looks the best and definitely fits the best with the design aesthetic of an F1 car.

The way F1 has been going lately, the FIA would look at this poll (93% Aeroscreen, 7% Halo) and select the Halo!
It seems they do the opposite of what the fans want.

I like the look of the closed cockpit above, but how does a driver get into/out of that thing in a hurry?

Randine wrote:The way F1 has been going lately, the FIA would look at this poll (93% Aeroscreen, 7% Halo) and select the Halo!
It seems they do the opposite of what the fans want.

I like the look of the closed cockpit above, but how does a driver get into/out of that thing in a hurry?

They would need to have a very good argument as to why they went with a safety solution that appeared, on the face of it, to be inferior to an alternative. Especially if we had another Massa type accident.

I just cant see any scenario where the Halo would be a superior safety measure when compared to the screen.

As for a fully enclosed cockpit, I agree it would be the best solution but there may be other safety issues involved that cannot be sorted at the moment, such as driver extraction in an emergency for example.

I'm not sure we will ever see a full canopy on a F1 car. Correct me if i'm wrong but all cars with full driver protection have doors on them don't they? I'm not sure F1 would be too keen to go down that path if they can avoid it. I'm guessing that would mean a major re-design of the car and I don't see that happening.

None.

Ugh to all of them.

And btw, the only two deaths in F1 since Imola 93 were due to a truck entering or standing in an area where racing cars were moving. A truck, ffs!!!

A cursory examination of the racing premises, and a simple review of procedures would have avoided them. But here we are, presented with two mickey mouse rags so we the public can charge for it and forget about their utter stupidity which has cost two lives.

-ZeroGravityToilet- wrote:None.

Ugh to all of them.

And btw, the only two deaths in F1 since Imola 93 were due to a truck entering or standing in an area where racing cars were moving. A truck, ffs!!!

A cursory examination of the racing premises, and a simple review of procedures would have avoided them. But here we are, presented with two mickey mouse rags so we the public can charge for it and forget about their utter stupidity which has cost two lives.

Although I do believe increased driver head protection is inevitable and commendable, your point is incredibly valid. This has been glossed over and a smoke screen has been thrown up. Any procedures relating to safety must be followed without deviation and/or exception. I do understand why some Hamilton fans have a rash over the two reprimands their favorite driver carries, I hope he was not singled out and targeted because he is Mr High Profile.

With all safety-related rules every driver must be thoroughly taught on what to do, and understand that there are no exceptions, no grey areas, and misunderstandings. Drivers should take an annual test as a condition of holding their superlicence, and every track must be fully capable of maintaining the expected standards.

Covalent wrote:Don't know why we need a new name for a windshield, but the Aeroscreen one for me.

This kind of sums up a lot of F1's problems for me.
Even choosing a name they have to complicate it.

Exediron wrote:

moby wrote:I think the screen looks better, but have they tested it in the wet, and can the driver get out if the car is upside down? (possibility on fire too)

The problem with this line of argument - which always comes up when canopies are discussed - is that Formula 1 cars don't burst into fire anymore. People seem to want to equate the risk of being struck by debris with the risk of being trapped in a burning car, as if they're anything like the same probability; they're not. When was the last time an F1 car caught fire and burned out of control?

I'm fully in favor of a fighter jet-style canopy; it offers the best protection, looks the best and definitely fits the best with the design aesthetic of an F1 car.

It only occurred to me just the other day that the best case scenario in case of an inverted cat on fire is probably for the driver to be fully enclosed in the safety cell, closed canopy and everything. The fuel cell and battery packs are already isolated from the driver, if you added a canopy to that then even if either rupture and catch fire in a crash then the driver is now perfectly safe rather than doused in fuel.

It inherently makes what would be a life threatening situation now quite safe. Add a check valve to the inlet and exit of the cockpit that opens with positive pressure, if the car crashes and stops the valves close dealing off the driver. In case of smoke and fumes do exactly what we do on aircraft. Under the seat there is a thing called an EPOS (emergency personal oxygen system) which weighs about 200g and is a plastic hood that goes over your head with a 15 minute oxygen supply with CO2 scrubbers.

The crash crew now have no rush and can extinguish the fire before safely righting the car rather than risking permanent spinal damage in an emergency egress.

If someone said that they were going to set fire to me in a car... But I had the option of choosing between two cars, a convertible or an armoured truck I wouldn't have to think too hard on my decision.

Edit: inverted car, not an inverted cat. I do not condone crashing and burning of small animals of any species... However it made me chuckle picturing drivers hunkering down under a perspex dome to protect themselves from cat's which have crashed and burst into flames... So I'm leaving it.

Blackhander wrote:Edit: inverted car, not an inverted cat. I do not condone crashing and burning of small animals of any species... However it made me chuckle picturing drivers hunkering down under a perspex dome to protect themselves from cat's which have crashed and burst into flames... So I'm leaving it.

Thanks for leaving it, that gave me a good laugh!

James14 wrote:

Covalent wrote:Don't know why we need a new name for a windshield, but the Aeroscreen one for me.

This kind of sums up a lot of F1's problems for me.
Even choosing a name they have to complicate it.

To be fair, it's not as if the FIA are officially changing the name. Either teams that are developing solutions or indeed us fans are naming these things.

-ZeroGravityToilet- wrote:None.

Ugh to all of them.

And btw, the only two deaths in F1 since Imola 93 were due to a truck entering or standing in an area where racing cars were moving. A truck, ffs!!!

A cursory examination of the racing premises, and a simple review of procedures would have avoided them. But here we are, presented with two mickey mouse rags so we the public can charge for it and forget about their utter stupidity which has cost two lives.

To be fair, that second driver ignored yellow flashing lights and flags so is it really fair to put his blatant disregard for safety warnings on anyone else?
And while in "F1" there have been just 2 deaths since 1993, we very well almost had another in Massa's case. With the ridiculous push for F1 to develop and run/feature technology that is relevant to other things, developing a safety structure such as the canopy that works well would trickle down to other racing series and improve safety for countless others.

I'm pretty sure the Surtees, Wheldon and Wilson families would be in a different place had this safety measure been in place. This isn't MotoGP where nothing could have protected riders in certain scenarios like Simoncelli. There is structure and a platform on which to develop and devise better protection of the stars of this sport. I'm a Lewis fan but I feel his comments would be quite different had he experienced what Massa did.

Again, you must look at the pros vs. the cons in this and the biggest and most significant Pro is that it would not hurt or alter the racing in any capacity so you would be missing absolutely nothing. I too prefer the look of the open cockpit, but with all the bits and components adorning the cars these days I feel it's best to weigh on the side of safety.


Ricciardo had this to say…

"Red Bull’s Daniel Ricciardo said he did not support the argument that closed cockpits went against the traditions of F1.

He said: “[A closed cockpit] is something I want to definitely go for – for me it is the last piece of the puzzle. The helmets have come on a long way but unfortunately we have still seen some tragic accidents and you get to a point where you don’t care about tradition any more.

“I don’t care if the statistics say there have only been a few (deaths) in the last 20 years. Statistics cannot predict what is going to happen in the future so now we need to ignore tradition and go for safety."

Taken from here: http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2015/09/i ... -canopies/

Randine wrote:The way F1 has been going lately, the FIA would look at this poll (93% Aeroscreen, 7% Halo) and select the Halo!
It seems they do the opposite of what the fans want.

I like the look of the closed cockpit above, but how does a driver get into/out of that thing in a hurry?

the folks at FIA wouldn't look at any pole on the internet, they don't believe in f1 being on the internet !

Exediron wrote:

moby wrote:I think the screen looks better, but have they tested it in the wet, and can the driver get out if the car is upside down? (possibility on fire too)

The problem with this line of argument - which always comes up when canopies are discussed - is that Formula 1 cars don't burst into fire anymore. People seem to want to equate the risk of being struck by debris with the risk of being trapped in a burning car, as if they're anything like the same probability; they're not. When was the last time an F1 car caught fire and burned out of control?

I'm fully in favor of a fighter jet-style canopy; it offers the best protection, looks the best and definitely fits the best with the design aesthetic of an F1 car.

How many F1 drivers were hit by derbies in the last last year? I recall 2 engine fires, (one Kimi) had fumes and flames come out of the air intake, which would be directly under the driver if the car was upside down, and would fill the cockpit, including screen area, the air the driver is breathing, with fumes.



Ps, Cats always land on their feet, so it would not matter then

moby wrote:

Exediron wrote:The problem with this line of argument - which always comes up when canopies are discussed - is that Formula 1 cars don't burst into fire anymore. People seem to want to equate the risk of being struck by debris with the risk of being trapped in a burning car, as if they're anything like the same probability; they're not. When was the last time an F1 car caught fire and burned out of control?

I'm fully in favor of a fighter jet-style canopy; it offers the best protection, looks the best and definitely fits the best with the design aesthetic of an F1 car.

How many F1 drivers were hit by derbies in the last last year? I recall 2 engine fires, (one Kimi) had fumes and flames come out of the air intake, which would be directly under the driver if the car was upside down, and would fill the cockpit, including screen area, the air the driver is breathing, with fumes.

As Blackhander pointed out, the fumes don't need to be a problem - a lightweight oxygen system could easily be installed in the cars to give the drivers plenty of time for the marshals to extinguish the flames and turn the car over. In fact, with a completely enclosed canopy, F1 drivers could wear oxygen masks like fighter pilots if need be, and then there wouldn't even be any worry of an unconscious driver being unable to get to his mask.

As for drivers being hit by debris: In the last year? None that I'm aware of. Since the last time an F1 car was engulfed by flames or smoke? Several, including dangerous or fatal incidents.

The list of racing cars that enclosed cockpits is almost endless. They are all subject to fire, in fact with F1 safety being one of the highest in any motorsport, there's less chance in F1 than pretty much all other forms of motorsport.

They tend to deal with fires in cars which are enclosed pretty well. I don't see why F1 would struggle in this area.

Exediron wrote:

moby wrote:

Exediron wrote:The problem with this line of argument - which always comes up when canopies are discussed - is that Formula 1 cars don't burst into fire anymore. People seem to want to equate the risk of being struck by debris with the risk of being trapped in a burning car, as if they're anything like the same probability; they're not. When was the last time an F1 car caught fire and burned out of control?

I'm fully in favor of a fighter jet-style canopy; it offers the best protection, looks the best and definitely fits the best with the design aesthetic of an F1 car.

How many F1 drivers were hit by derbies in the last last year? I recall 2 engine fires, (one Kimi) had fumes and flames come out of the air intake, which would be directly under the driver if the car was upside down, and would fill the cockpit, including screen area, the air the driver is breathing, with fumes.

As Blackhander pointed out, the fumes don't need to be a problem - a lightweight oxygen system could easily be installed in the cars to give the drivers plenty of time for the marshals to extinguish the flames and turn the car over. In fact, with a completely enclosed canopy, F1 drivers could wear oxygen masks like fighter pilots if need be, and then there wouldn't even be any worry of an unconscious driver being unable to get to his mask.

As for drivers being hit by debris: In the last year? None that I'm aware of. Since the last time an F1 car was engulfed by flames or smoke? Several, including dangerous or fatal incidents.

Oxygen is the very last thing you need near a fire of any sort, but leaving that aside, either the driver has to be "plumbed in to it" at all times, or it would need to be fully automatic, as the driver may not be able to operate it. a fully sealed head set brings all sorts of other problems with it which will have endless knock on's

I also think if we are going that road, they just as well go the whole way, but this would involve a complete redesign of the cars, not just sticking a bubble on the existing car.
The thing then though is that they become so close to existing series, that there is little point continuing as a separate series and should amalgamate. (Which as I see it, is not a bad thing.)

moby wrote:

Exediron wrote:

moby wrote:I think the screen looks better, but have they tested it in the wet, and can the driver get out if the car is upside down? (possibility on fire too)

The problem with this line of argument - which always comes up when canopies are discussed - is that Formula 1 cars don't burst into fire anymore. People seem to want to equate the risk of being struck by debris with the risk of being trapped in a burning car, as if they're anything like the same probability; they're not. When was the last time an F1 car caught fire and burned out of control?

I'm fully in favor of a fighter jet-style canopy; it offers the best protection, looks the best and definitely fits the best with the design aesthetic of an F1 car.

How many F1 drivers were hit by derbies in the last last year?

A great deal more than is reported. When Carbon Fiber of F1 composition breaks, it shatters. And just like glass, shards/bits/pieces fly all over the place with reckless abandon. As the drivers sweep through debris fields, they kick up all those shards where they remain airborne long enough for a trailing car to pass right on through and some of the debris hits them. As well I'm sure you've seen bits and large chunks of rubber smack drivers all the time. The other component we've been fortunate to not have seen injure anyone are the wheels after crashes or punctures/blowouts when the drivers are barreling down the track as fast as they can to get fresh rubber as soon as possible. Often this results in fractures and cracked wheels but the bits that have fallen off are rarely seen. While this leads us to the conclusion it is ultra rare for these bits to injure a driver, the fact is any chance, no matter how slight is enough to weigh on the side of safety.

In 2014 Nico and Lewis spoke about helmets and how important they are and how they are allotted 13-18 units per season because they take so many little nicks from debris on track, the moment a scuff or a chip is seen in the Gelcoat, that helmet is immediately replaced with a new one and inspected fully using high tech equipment by the manufacturer.

moby wrote:Oxygen is the very last thing you need near a fire of any sort, but leaving that aside, either the driver has to be "plumbed in to it" at all times, or it would need to be fully automatic, as the driver may not be able to operate it. a fully sealed head set brings all sorts of other problems with it which will have endless knock on's

Are you being deliberately obtuse, or do you not see the difference between an oxygen mask (inside a sealed cockpit) and introducing oxygen to an open flame (which would be outside the cockpit)?

moby wrote:I also think if we are going that road, they just as well go the whole way, but this would involve a complete redesign of the cars, not just sticking a bubble on the existing car.
The thing then though is that they become so close to existing series, that there is little point continuing as a separate series and should amalgamate. (Which as I see it, is not a bad thing.)

I'm also not sure what you mean by this. There is no such thing currently as an open-wheeled formula with bubble canopies; how would it be close to anything? And even aside from that, your argument could easily be applied to F1 and any other open-wheeled, open-cockpit formula right now. Might as well amalgamate F1 and Japanese Super Formula, or GP2 - they're basically the same thing, right?

Adding bubble canopies to F1 would make the cars more unique and distinguishable, not less.

The aeroscreen seems to make more sense and I reckon would be far less likely to aggravate some tyoes of accident. The drawback compared to the halo would be how it would cope in rainy conditions.

Also, the poll should include an option for neither of the two. It's a possible choice.

Aeroscreen has a problem though... it must make the cockpit much hotter, preventing wind coming into drivers face, causing a partial greenhouse effect inside aswell in a hot sunny day

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

moby wrote:

Exediron wrote:

moby wrote:I think the screen looks better, but have they tested it in the wet, and can the driver get out if the car is upside down? (possibility on fire too)

The problem with this line of argument - which always comes up when canopies are discussed - is that Formula 1 cars don't burst into fire anymore. People seem to want to equate the risk of being struck by debris with the risk of being trapped in a burning car, as if they're anything like the same probability; they're not. When was the last time an F1 car caught fire and burned out of control?

I'm fully in favor of a fighter jet-style canopy; it offers the best protection, looks the best and definitely fits the best with the design aesthetic of an F1 car.

How many F1 drivers were hit by derbies in the last last year?

A great deal more than is reported. When Carbon Fiber of F1 composition breaks, it shatters. And just like glass, shards/bits/pieces fly all over the place with reckless abandon. As the drivers sweep through debris fields, they kick up all those shards where they remain airborne long enough for a trailing car to pass right on through and some of the debris hits them. As well I'm sure you've seen bits and large chunks of rubber smack drivers all the time. The other component we've been fortunate to not have seen injure anyone are the wheels after crashes or punctures/blowouts when the drivers are barreling down the track as fast as they can to get fresh rubber as soon as possible. Often this results in fractures and cracked wheels but the bits that have fallen off are rarely seen. While this leads us to the conclusion it is ultra rare for these bits to injure a driver, the fact is any chance, no matter how slight is enough to weigh on the side of safety.

In 2014 Nico and Lewis spoke about helmets and how important they are and how they are allotted 13-18 units per season because they take so many little nicks from debris on track, the moment a scuff or a chip is seen in the Gelcoat, that helmet is immediately replaced with a new one and inspected fully using high tech equipment by the manufacturer.

I regularly ride a motorcycle on the road (sometimes quite quickly) and as you say, there is a torrent of flying debris, even on a normal road. just a large insect at 100 mph feels like it has taken your head off, and a 5mm stone thrown up at that speed takes a chip out of your helmet. I have had to renew a good helmet at least half a dozen times due to it being struck by something. This is nothing new since they wore leather helmets and goggles, but modern helmets are well up to the job. with the HANS device, i think unless the helmet is penetrated, anything not heavy enough shake the brain wil have little effect other than spoil their pants.

It is complicated enough if we just look at large FOD's, because if we get into the small stuff it will have to be a full canopy.

moby wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

moby wrote:

Exediron wrote:

moby wrote:I think the screen looks better, but have they tested it in the wet, and can the driver get out if the car is upside down? (possibility on fire too)

The problem with this line of argument - which always comes up when canopies are discussed - is that Formula 1 cars don't burst into fire anymore. People seem to want to equate the risk of being struck by debris with the risk of being trapped in a burning car, as if they're anything like the same probability; they're not. When was the last time an F1 car caught fire and burned out of control?

I'm fully in favor of a fighter jet-style canopy; it offers the best protection, looks the best and definitely fits the best with the design aesthetic of an F1 car.

How many F1 drivers were hit by derbies in the last last year?

A great deal more than is reported. When Carbon Fiber of F1 composition breaks, it shatters. And just like glass, shards/bits/pieces fly all over the place with reckless abandon. As the drivers sweep through debris fields, they kick up all those shards where they remain airborne long enough for a trailing car to pass right on through and some of the debris hits them. As well I'm sure you've seen bits and large chunks of rubber smack drivers all the time. The other component we've been fortunate to not have seen injure anyone are the wheels after crashes or punctures/blowouts when the drivers are barreling down the track as fast as they can to get fresh rubber as soon as possible. Often this results in fractures and cracked wheels but the bits that have fallen off are rarely seen. While this leads us to the conclusion it is ultra rare for these bits to injure a driver, the fact is any chance, no matter how slight is enough to weigh on the side of safety.

In 2014 Nico and Lewis spoke about helmets and how important they are and how they are allotted 13-18 units per season because they take so many little nicks from debris on track, the moment a scuff or a chip is seen in the Gelcoat, that helmet is immediately replaced with a new one and inspected fully using high tech equipment by the manufacturer.

I regularly ride a motorcycle on the road (sometimes quite quickly) and as you say, there is a torrent of flying debris, even on a normal road. just a large insect at 100 mph feels like it has taken your head off, and a 5mm stone thrown up at that speed takes a chip out of your helmet. I have had to renew a good helmet at least half a dozen times due to it being struck by something. This is nothing new since they wore leather helmets and goggles, but modern helmets are well up to the job. with the HANS device, i think unless the helmet is penetrated, anything not heavy enough shake the brain wil have little effect other than spoil their pants.

It is complicated enough if we just look at large FOD's, because if we get into the small stuff it will have to be a full canopy.

Yes! Dragonflies! God damn! Worst than copping a paintball point blank. Probably better than when a wasp end up in the helmet though, why is it always wasps?!?

Blackhander wrote:

moby wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

moby wrote:

Exediron wrote: The problem with this line of argument - which always comes up when canopies are discussed - is that Formula 1 cars don't burst into fire anymore. People seem to want to equate the risk of being struck by debris with the risk of being trapped in a burning car, as if they're anything like the same probability; they're not. When was the last time an F1 car caught fire and burned out of control?

I'm fully in favor of a fighter jet-style canopy; it offers the best protection, looks the best and definitely fits the best with the design aesthetic of an F1 car.

How many F1 drivers were hit by derbies in the last last year?

A great deal more than is reported. When Carbon Fiber of F1 composition breaks, it shatters. And just like glass, shards/bits/pieces fly all over the place with reckless abandon. As the drivers sweep through debris fields, they kick up all those shards where they remain airborne long enough for a trailing car to pass right on through and some of the debris hits them. As well I'm sure you've seen bits and large chunks of rubber smack drivers all the time. The other component we've been fortunate to not have seen injure anyone are the wheels after crashes or punctures/blowouts when the drivers are barreling down the track as fast as they can to get fresh rubber as soon as possible. Often this results in fractures and cracked wheels but the bits that have fallen off are rarely seen. While this leads us to the conclusion it is ultra rare for these bits to injure a driver, the fact is any chance, no matter how slight is enough to weigh on the side of safety.

In 2014 Nico and Lewis spoke about helmets and how important they are and how they are allotted 13-18 units per season because they take so many little nicks from debris on track, the moment a scuff or a chip is seen in the Gelcoat, that helmet is immediately replaced with a new one and inspected fully using high tech equipment by the manufacturer.

I regularly ride a motorcycle on the road (sometimes quite quickly) and as you say, there is a torrent of flying debris, even on a normal road. just a large insect at 100 mph feels like it has taken your head off, and a 5mm stone thrown up at that speed takes a chip out of your helmet. I have had to renew a good helmet at least half a dozen times due to it being struck by something. This is nothing new since they wore leather helmets and goggles, but modern helmets are well up to the job. with the HANS device, i think unless the helmet is penetrated, anything not heavy enough shake the brain wil have little effect other than spoil their pants.

It is complicated enough if we just look at large FOD's, because if we get into the small stuff it will have to be a full canopy.

Yes! Dragonflies! God damn! Worst than copping a paintball point blank. Probably better than when a wasp end up in the helmet though, why is it always wasps?!?

I once caught a wasp in my crotch while riding a motorcycle, the sting was so painful I only just managed to not crash.

Covalent wrote: I once caught a wasp in my crotch while riding a motorcycle, the sting was so painful I only just managed to not crash.

On the other hand crashing might just have taken your mind off the sting... Although the way you say "caught a wasp in my crutch" does make it seem a little like you managed it on purpose? That is one elaborate party trick if so.

Wasps are no elfin' joke. They are extremely fast and can zip in and out with elite speed as they envenomate. I took my family to Busch Gardens This past holiday season and my oldest son sat between my wife and I on one of the fastest roller coasters int he park and I found it odd that my son was crying since he LOVES coasters so much. When we exited the ride he was crying with gusto and holding his hand and I asked him what was wrong and he said a wasp flew right past his hand and stung him without stopping flight!

His hand was getting redder and swelling fast so they called the medics and they applied some special topical ointment which numbed the pain and neutralized the effects of the venom. Pretty scary.

Here in South Florida, riding motorcycles was always an experience. Depending on where you were riding, the Mosquitos alone can felt on any exposed portion of your body and the dragonflies and giant grasshoppers are almost enough to lift your helmet clean off.

Here's what I'm talking about… This one we found at a place called Holiday park which is where a hundred or more riders get together every Sunday for a ride on a long stretch of road. Imagine getting smacked by that while going 100mph.

Blackhander wrote:

Covalent wrote: I once caught a wasp in my crotch while riding a motorcycle, the sting was so painful I only just managed to not crash.

On the other hand crashing might just have taken your mind off the sting... Although the way you say "caught a wasp in my crutch" does make it seem a little like you managed it on purpose? That is one elaborate party trick if so.

I can assure you it was not on purpose, I don't know what word I should have used

Japanese beetle to the chest at 70mph is not pleasant, but at least they don't sting.

I really think people need to remove any thought of oxygen being an issue in a fire. Honestly!

Asphalt_World wrote:I really think people need to remove any thought of oxygen being an issue in a fire. Honestly!

My mother has to be on oxygen a few hour a day and they made a big presentation stressing that she should not smoke, cook if there was a gas flame etc.

Having played with oxygen in many dangerous ways when I was a teen, (yes I was a nutter ) I can tell you, no, you can not remove any thought of oxygen being an issue in a fire. Something hardly smouldering bursts into flame and burns very hot. That's why they add oxygen to the gas for welding and cutting. It does not need pure oxygen just a few % above the norm. There is no need for oxygen either. Air at above atmospheric pressure will keep any fumes out without being a danger. Oxy is used by pilots, and emergency masks for passengers, because there is not enough oxygen at high altitudes, not because that is what is needed to breath. "normal" air is about 20% oxygen and you can breath it 3 or more times and still get enough from it.

On pure looks, Aeroscreen.... But whichever one is safer should be picked

Aeroscreeen looks better but will be a problem in the rain. Water droplets/streaks on screen and helmets will make visibility very poor.

AravJ wrote:Aeroscreeen looks better but will be a problem in the rain. Water droplets/streaks on screen and helmets will make visibility very poor.

50 years ago maybe, but it's not a big problem to solve these days.

Asphalt_World wrote:

AravJ wrote:Aeroscreeen looks better but will be a problem in the rain. Water droplets/streaks on screen and helmets will make visibility very poor.

50 years ago maybe, but it's not a big problem to solve these days.

Or in an everyday road car... I'm not 100% sure but I think higher speeds make visibility better? I've been up front in a plane coming in to land in a cyclone. Probably about 400km/h through a cyclone and visibility was fine, the rain just streamed off too fast to interfere much at all.

I don't know whether the screen would present a problem in the rain or not. But closed WEC cars still have windscreen wipers. I don't think they fit them just for looks.

Fiki wrote:I don't know whether the screen would present a problem in the rain or not. But closed WEC cars still have windscreen wipers. I don't think they fit them just for looks.

More than water hits the windshield. Oil and grease will land there too and will obscure vision. I expect that without wipers there will be unscheduled pit stops that will be just to clear the screen for unlucky drivers.

Blackhander wrote:

Asphalt_World wrote:

AravJ wrote:Aeroscreeen looks better but will be a problem in the rain. Water droplets/streaks on screen and helmets will make visibility very poor.

50 years ago maybe, but it's not a big problem to solve these days.

Or in an everyday road car... I'm not 100% sure but I think higher speeds make visibility better? I've been up front in a plane coming in to land in a cyclone. Probably about 400km/h through a cyclone and visibility was fine, the rain just streamed off too fast to interfere much at all.

They probably need to test this. Streaming will still create a layer that will bend light on the screen. Sitting as low down as they do with lost of mist spray will make things worse. Drivers helmets will stream less, more likely to accumalte water droplets.