planetf1.com

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/40542285

First time seeing this and haven't seen it being talked about on here yet. Correct me if wrong.

I dont hate it to be honest!

Looks much better than the Halo and much have surely passed the strength tests if it has got this far?

Looks cool. I'm wondering if they are going to use aircraft style explosive bolts to allow for quick driver egress? Otherwise you have to pop the screen and then remove the driver's headrest and only then, get out of the upside down, burning car.

Also, I've just filed a patent request for Automotive Cockpit/Wind Shield Tear-off. The bug splatter will be mega if think so why not?!?!

Moving the airbox structure slightly higher and slightly forward could allow the driver to exit if upside down without removing the screen.

Some road car screens are made so smooth that they do not require windscreen wipers, maybe this is possible with this device.

what will happen when it gets covered in dead flys

So what will the competitors be dubbed? Drivers? Pilots? Agents of..?

Loads of road junction windscreen washers are currently sending their CV's to all the F1 teams

G926 wrote:Loads of road junction windscreen washers are currently sending their CV's to all the F1 teams

We need an exhaust blown windscreen. Burn off dead flies and rain

giant rip offs

This is more or less what I had in mind as the ideal solution for a closed/semi-closed cockpit. Effectively a jet fighter style canopy; Good visibility, proven performance and looks cool

I think it is easy to overplay the issue of driver egress. I think to would be possible to design it in such a way that removal or escape is not significantly more difficult than it currently is with belts and head rest. Also even if it does make it slightly slower or cause potential issue in a few specific scenarios that doesn't necessarily make it a bad idea:

• How many near misses have we had where a driver has had to (and been able to) get out of a car in a difficult (i.e. upside down) position under their own power and in a hurry due to fire or for some other reason in recent times?
• And how many near misses have we had were a potentially lethal piece of debris or car has narrowly avoided hitting a driver?

When it comes to safety I don't think there is a problem with making very minor sacrifices in one area if you stand to make very signifiant gains in another.

LBET wrote:Looks cool. I'm wondering if they are going to use aircraft style explosive bolts to allow for quick driver egress? Otherwise you have to pop the screen and then remove the driver's headrest and only then, get out of the upside down, burning car.

Also, I've just filed a patent request for Automotive Cockpit/Wind Shield Tear-off. The bug splatter will be mega if think so why not?!?!

I do not think that having any explosive devices close to the driver (and his head) is a good idea.

If the car is on fire and upside down, then maybe what was used previously, a self-contained air supply can be re-introduced. And the track workers should be able to get to the car and extinguish any fire within 60 seconds. When was the last time we had that scenario? In safety you plan for the highest probabilities.

A locking tang and some quick-disconnect bolts or latches along each side would make the canopy relatively easy to remove if required.


https://images-eu.ssl-images-amazon.com ... LjDmEL.jpg

wolfticket wrote:

• How many near misses have we had where a driver has had to (and been able to) get out of a car in a difficult (i.e. upside down) position under their own power and in a hurry due to fire or for some other reason in recent times?
• And how many near misses have we had were a potentially lethal piece of debris or car has narrowly avoided hitting a driver?

This, this, this, and more of this. Burning cars are not a safety issue of modern open-wheeled racing! Being hit by debris very much still is. It does not make sense to prioritize safety in a situation that doesn't occur anymore (burning cars) over a situation that is a very present modern danger (debris and other foreign objects striking the head).

I like this idea better than the shield, and much more than the halo. It looks at least moderately sleek, and doesn't just look like a windshield stuck on a racing car. That said, I still support a full fighter jet canopy. Any half-measure is just going to be less effective and won't look as beastly.

Exediron wrote:

wolfticket wrote:

• How many near misses have we had where a driver has had to (and been able to) get out of a car in a difficult (i.e. upside down) position under their own power and in a hurry due to fire or for some other reason in recent times?
• And how many near misses have we had were a potentially lethal piece of debris or car has narrowly avoided hitting a driver?

This, this, this, and more of this. Burning cars are not a safety issue of modern open-wheeled racing! Being hit by debris very much still is. It does not make sense to prioritize safety in a situation that doesn't occur anymore (burning cars) over a situation that is a very present modern danger (debris and other foreign objects striking the head).

I like this idea better than the shield, and much more than the halo. It looks at least moderately sleek, and doesn't just look like a windshield stuck on a racing car. That said, I still support a full fighter jet canopy. Any half-measure is just going to be less effective and won't look as beastly.

I fully agree, we plan for probabilities. Because of we try to cover all the bases, then what do we do with a 747 crashing on a Formula One car?

Not sure what good that will do. It does not cover the top, which is what I thought the 'problem' was. Plenty of room for something to either fall in or be deflected off the intake.

Looks good and effective and once properly intergrated you could open up the cockpit.

Looks ok, except for the fact that it doesn't solve the very problem that brought about it's very existence. The 'Surtees Tyre' problem. A bouncing wheel is still going to drop onto a driver's head with this... it would admittedly heavily lessen the chances (you cant drive into said wheel without it hitting the shield) but there is still the chance you are passing under the wheel at that precise moment as it comes down... and that sort of weight coming straight down on a helmet doesn't bear thinking about.

Still seems like a half solution to a problem that all drivers accept is part of the danger of racing in open wheelers.

Blinky McSquinty wrote:

I fully agree, we plan for probabilities. Because of we try to cover all the bases, then what do we do with a 747 crashing on a Formula One car?

Well, 747's are being retired by the airlines at an incredibly fast rate. Only the 747-8 will be left flying soon, and the number of those built is VERY small compared to previous models, so the probability of one of those flying into an F1 car is pretty small.

Flash2k11 wrote:Looks ok, except for the fact that it doesn't solve the very problem that brought about it's very existence. The 'Surtees Tyre' problem. A bouncing wheel is still going to drop onto a driver's head with this... it would admittedly heavily lessen the chances (you cant drive into said wheel without it hitting the shield) but there is still the chance you are passing under the wheel at that precise moment as it comes down... and that sort of weight coming straight down on a helmet doesn't bear thinking about.

Still seems like a half solution to a problem that all drivers accept is part of the danger of racing in open wheelers.

The chances of something heavy dropping at a sufficiently steep angle to go over that sort of screen are very low. While something heavy dropping from above is potentially dangerous the main issue in F1 is down to the energy involved in high speed lateral impacts. These impacts are by their nature usually at a fairly shallow angle.

I don't actually want to look at the Surtees accident again, but as I recall while the tyre appeared to bounce onto the driver at a fairly steep angle it was not vertical the closing speed would have been such that a fairly close fitting screen like this would have likely deflected the tyre even if it was not fully closed.

Again, with safety it is a case of playing the percentages. Something that protects the driver from most but not all possible scenarios is still a good thing. That said I thing in the longer term a fully enclosed canopy/safety cell would be worth exploring.

It looks the best option so far.
I don’t think it would have helped Jules.
And bouncing tyres on track occur more often in oval racing/street circuits without proper run off areas.

I do think something should done to the cars, however the virtual safety car and tighter rules around double yellows (which came from Jules’ accident and Rosberg’s dodgy pole last year) are probably more effective at saving lives.

Personally I have 2 issues with it…

1. It completely dismisses the need for protection on the top of the drivers' heads
2. It's not very aesthetically pleasing. Looks rather clumsy, though I fully expect the actual thing to look much better.

Blinky McSquinty wrote:I do not think that having any explosive devices close to the driver (and his head) is a good idea.

http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... &start=195 It's done on fighter/trainer jets, so why not?

Fiki wrote:

Blinky McSquinty wrote:I do not think that having any explosive devices close to the driver (and his head) is a good idea.

http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... &start=195 It's done on fighter/trainer jets, so why not?

I don't think there is any real safety issue regarding explosives, I just think it would be complicated, expensive and unnecessary. Most of the reasons they have explosive bolts on fighter jets aren't relevant to F1. Clips/latches possibly with some sort of central release would be fine.

----------------

Thinking about the discussion regarding a full canopy vs a semi open "shield" like this, I think potentially the main issue isn't so much one of directly protecting the driver from ingress, more one of strength:

Looking at this video again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e87HIlOIYFA&t=1m11s (specifically the test at 01:11) I think one of the main reasons a canopy that light and thin can survive such a huge impact is that it dissipates the energy evenly around the cockpit. I think this has a lot to do with the enclosed shape of the canopy rather than just the material.

It might sound counter intuitive, but for these reasons a fully closed canopy might not only be safer from an ingress point of view, but also be lighter and more thin/transparent for the same level of impact protection. This could also make it easier and quicker to escape from than a smaller but more heavy and cumbersome shield design.

The halfway house of a wrap around semi open shield could be the worst of all worlds compared with a proven jet fighter style closed design.

So, what do we think?
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/shie ... me-930163/

Considering it's early days and obviously the level of integration that will be on the final design isn't there, I think it looks pretty good. Imagine it a bit smoother and a little more profiled into the body work: It could be really nice and just feel like a natural part of the car rather than some bolt on safety device.