Closed cockpit tests will be carried out

[golic_2004]

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/fia-s ... kpit-tests

[CoopsII]

I don't actually mind that suggested design too much. I'm sure many will and decry the dumbing down or health & safety mad approach being applied to motorsport but the bottom line is in this day and age we can't and shouldn't have drivers dying. Years ago they had no seatbelts and wore cardboard helmets and back then the drive for safety standards was seen as being weak but this is the 21st century and we must be better than that. If young guys and gals today really need an endeavour that puts their lives at risk perhaps they should join the army or something.

[dr-baker]

The one thing that will have to be considered with that design is forward visibility. Obviously. But if they can design it to prevent accidents like Massa's and Wilson's, or it leads to future solutions, then it cannot be a bad thing at all.

[Izzyeviel]

I'm all for closed cockpits, but that design is hideous and doesn't seem to be much safer.

[Klon]

In the end, what is relevant to me is that in the end we have a net gain of security. Closed cockpits can have safety issues as well (the mentioned topic of visibility, quick escapes when e.g. the car is on fire), so tests are a good idea to see whether they improve the situation. If they do, go ahead.

[AustralianStig]

I was totally against closed cockpits (because, in my mind, it wasn't F1), but recent events have me totally convinced that this is a necessity. Kudos to the powers that be for sanctioning this testing.

[Izzyeviel]

Why arent people concerned with 'quick escapes' in sports car racing?

[dr-baker]

Why arent people concerned with 'quick escapes' in sports car racing?

Because there is both a left-hand door and a right-hand door on those cars, giving a choice of exit?

[CoopsII]

Why arent people concerned with 'quick escapes' in sports car racing?

Because there is both a left-hand door and a right-hand door on those cars, giving a choice of exit?

That was almost flippant.

[dr-baker]

Why arent people concerned with 'quick escapes' in sports car racing?

Because there is both a left-hand door and a right-hand door on those cars, giving a choice of exit?

That was almost flippant.

It wasn't meant to be!

[Izzyeviel]

[/quote]
Because there is both a left-hand door and a right-hand door on those cars, giving a choice of exit?[/quote]
That was almost flippant.[/quote]
It wasn't meant to be![/quote]

I knew you weren't

But seriously, F1 folk are clever, it can all be worked out. Just look on google images at how awesome looking closed cockpit F1 cars can be. Example:

http://www.thisisf1.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/AndriesvanOverbeeke11-800x450.jpg

[dr-baker]

But seriously, F1 folk are clever, it can all be worked out. Just look on google images at how awesome looking closed cockpit F1 cars can be. Example:

http://www.thisisf1.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/AndriesvanOverbeeke11-800x450.jpg

I can see sidepods from the 1996 Ferrari F310, and the front end looks kinda IndyCar-like to me...

[Spectoremg]

Because there is both a left-hand door and a right-hand door on those cars, giving a choice of exit?[/quote]
That was almost flippant.[/quote]
It wasn't meant to be![/quote]

I knew you weren't

But seriously, F1 folk are clever, it can all be worked out. Just look on google images at how awesome looking closed cockpit F1 cars can be. Example:

http://www.thisisf1.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/AndriesvanOverbeeke11-800x450.jpg[/quote]McLaren are great at concept cars, wonder if they'd be any good at racing them?

[mario]

Why arent people concerned with 'quick escapes' in sports car racing?

Although dr-baker's answer unintentionally came across in a flippant manner, it certainly highlights one reason why there have been fewer concerns about the elimination of open cockpit LMP1 cars. Given that the cockpits are relatively large - at least, larger than in an F1 car - it reduces some of the issues that medical staff might otherwise have in accessing a driver who is in an upside down car.

That said, issues do still sometimes arise - I believe that there were complications when the medical teams tried to remove Davidson from his car when he crashed back in 2012 and fractured his vertebrae. There were also, I believe, some issues with extracting Nakajima from his car when he fractured a vertebrae earlier this year, due to the additional effort and time required to extract the driver from the car without potentially causing further injuries.

Now, in the case of the proposed canopy designs, this could potentially be mitigated if the structure is removable, allowing the driver to then be lifted out of the car (the seats have been designed so, should a driver have a suspected back injury, the medical team can lift them out using the seat to provide greater support for their back).

As Klon says, what we ideally want the outcome of this study to be is that, whatever approach is adopted, the outcome should result in the best possible balance of risks. Ideally, I would like the studies by the FIA to consider a wider range of factors rather than just the closed cockpit and to deal with a wider range of issues, such as looking at the spread of debris from a crash and whether procedural issues would be more effective in eliminating the risk of head injuries.

I would think that there are ways that improvements could be made in those areas that lead to improvements in safety for a wider range of individuals - for example, improvements in the procedures for dealing with crashed cars could potentially improve safety for marshals as well as for drivers.

[CoopsII]

I wouldn't necessarily describe myself as pro-closed cockpit rather than anti-pointless deaths but I was feeling encouraged by the reports that the FIA are looking into it until I read somewhere, it may even have been Joe Saward or some similar bloggerist, that in actual fact this issue has been "explored" since 1994 when Senna was killed.

So perhaps we're not as close to a final solution as I thought

[Wallio]

Didn't the FIA test a reflector hoop thingy only a year or two ago? I swear I remember seeing a video of a tyre being fired at a bare monochoque......

The problem, more so in Indycar than in F1 where cars change every year, is that it is far easier to modify a car by removing a piece it was designed to have, rather than add a piece it was never intended for. Hence why many of the solutions are inelegant, shall we say?

[Backmarker]

In the concept in the motorsport.com article, why is there one pylon (/blade) right in front of the drivers eyes, rather than two pylons at the side more like a dirt buggy's cage?

[Wallio]

In the concept in the motorsport.com article, why is there one pylon (/blade) right in front of the drivers eyes, rather than two pylons at the side more like a dirt buggy's cage?

As crazy as it sounds, that wouldn't obstruct vision as much as you might think. Plus two side "bars" leave a alrge gap for items to go in. With the bar in front, anything that gets to the driver would have to hit it, slowing it down, if not deflecting it.

[DanielPT]

In the concept in the motorsport.com article, why is there one pylon (/blade) right in front of the drivers eyes, rather than two pylons at the side more like a dirt buggy's cage?

As crazy as it sounds, that wouldn't obstruct vision as much as you might think. Plus two side "bars" leave a alrge gap for items to go in. With the bar in front, anything that gets to the driver would have to hit it, slowing it down, if not deflecting it.

They could place some plexiglas of sorts in the space between the two bars if there is a worry small debris could pass between that gap.

[mario]

Didn't the FIA test a reflector hoop thingy only a year or two ago? I swear I remember seeing a video of a tyre being fired at a bare monochoque......

The problem, more so in Indycar than in F1 where cars change every year, is that it is far easier to modify a car by removing a piece it was designed to have, rather than add a piece it was never intended for. Hence why many of the solutions are inelegant, shall we say?

The FIA has tried a range of structures over the years, ranging from plexiglas materials to an aerospace composite canopy, as well as a front deflector hoop in more recent years.

However, none of the proposals so far seem to have satisfied the FIA - the plexiglas option was rejected after it shattered and allowed debris to punch through the structure, whilst the aerospace canopy reportedly flexed too much and might have struck the driver on the head anyway, not to mention causing concerns about where the debris might then be deflected to.

The more recent attempt with the front deflector hoop was also rejected for similar concerns about where the debris might then be deflected to, as well as concerns from the drivers that the proposed structure would obstruct their field of vision (given that it was constructed from quite thick steel tubes). That seems to be why the proposed open canopy structure is now being investigated, as it should hopefully have less of an impact on the field of vision of the drivers.

[Waris]

What about just having a very large windscreen, one that goes above the driver's head, but not so far as to make the driver inextricable from the car?

[Izzyeviel]

What about just having a very large windscreen, one that goes above the driver's head, but not so far as to make the driver inextricable from the car?

I was going to say that would look cheap and awful... then I googled the Penske F1 car and I was wrong. You're onto something!



Isn't she a beaut?

[TheFlyingCaterham]

What about just having a very large windscreen, one that goes above the driver's head, but not so far as to make the driver inextricable from the car?

My thoughts on how the closed cockpits would work is something similar to that. Thw windshield material goes over the drivers head and connects to the Roll hoops area, but the the strip of it isn't that wide, as to make the driver able to easily escape the car from the side of the cockpit.
EDIT: This is pretty similar to what I visualized for the closed cockpit:


Somewhat related, but I can see the cars having a lot less drag if closed-cockpit cars are successfully implemented, due to the fact that the roll-hoops structure wouldn't really be needed that much anymore, as the windshield (if designed right) would be abl e to protect that drivers head in the case of a rollover. So the car wouldn't be as high as todays cars, and therefore would easily have less air resistance than before.

[dinizintheoven]

Somewhat related, but I can see the cars having a lot less drag if closed-cockpit cars are successfully implemented, due to the fact that the roll-hoops structure wouldn't really be needed that much anymore, as the windshield (if designed right) would be able to protect that drivers head in the case of a rollover. So the car wouldn't be as high as todays cars, and therefore would easily have less air resistance than before.

I wonder if that was Ferrari's thinking with the F1-86. Bear in mind this was from back in the day when every car had an exposed roll bar - some extended right above the driver's head (e.g. the Williams FW11) where others had a very low engine cover (where there was one at all) and a roll bar that barely cleared the top of the driver's helmet and seemed to offer little protection if it was actually called upon to perform its duty (e.g. the Coloni FC188 and AGS JH23, the latter with horrific consequences). But Ferrari opted for this instead...



...though to little effect, and for 1987 they were back to a conventional design.

[mario]

Somewhat related, but I can see the cars having a lot less drag if closed-cockpit cars are successfully implemented, due to the fact that the roll-hoops structure wouldn't really be needed that much anymore, as the windshield (if designed right) would be able to protect that drivers head in the case of a rollover. So the car wouldn't be as high as todays cars, and therefore would easily have less air resistance than before.

I wonder if that was Ferrari's thinking with the F1-86. Bear in mind this was from back in the day when every car had an exposed roll bar - some extended right above the driver's head (e.g. the Williams FW11) where others had a very low engine cover (where there was one at all) and a roll bar that barely cleared the top of the driver's helmet and seemed to offer little protection if it was actually called upon to perform its duty (e.g. the Coloni FC188 and AGS JH23, the latter with horrific consequences). But Ferrari opted for this instead...



...though to little effect, and for 1987 they were back to a conventional design.

I am not necessarily sure that it would lead to a removal of the current roll over structure - if you were to remove that structure, that would also necessitate the redesign, and potentially the relocation, of the air intake systems for the engines, and in some instances also necessitate the removal of ancillary coolers (some teams have now relocated oil system radiators into that area, for example).

Whilst it does increase the height of the cars, it also has the advantage of relocating equipment that would otherwise have to go into the sidepod areas. Such a change could have an adverse effect on internal airflow through the sidepods and increase the volume of the sidepods, which could in turn have a negative impact on the airflow passing rough the sidepods and between the sidepods and the top of the floor.

The current regulations also require the teams to have a lifting point for cranes to assist with the removal of crashed or broken down cars - these are currently incorporated into the roll hoop structure at the moment. Even if it was reduced in size, there would still need to be some sort of structure incorporating a mounting point for a crane incorporated into the area behind the drivers head.

[dr-baker]

I am not necessarily sure that it would lead to a removal of the current roll over structure - if you were to remove that structure, that would also necessitate the redesign, and potentially the relocation, of the air intake systems for the engines, and in some instances also necessitate the removal of ancillary coolers (some teams have now relocated oil system radiators into that area, for example).

Whilst it does increase the height of the cars, it also has the advantage of relocating equipment that would otherwise have to go into the sidepod areas. Such a change could have an adverse effect on internal airflow through the sidepods and increase the volume of the sidepods, which could in turn have a negative impact on the airflow passing rough the sidepods and between the sidepods and the top of the floor.

The current regulations also require the teams to have a lifting point for cranes to assist with the removal of crashed or broken down cars - these are currently incorporated into the roll hoop structure at the moment. Even if it was reduced in size, there would still need to be some sort of structure incorporating a mounting point for a crane incorporated into the area behind the drivers head.

A higher roll-hoop structure also means larger bodywork panels/engine covers, and therefore more advertising space!

[Wallio]

A higher roll-hoop structure also means larger bodywork panels/engine covers, and therefore more advertising space!

That was the reason the FIA dropped its ban on airboxes in 1994, and supposedly the reason Indycar kept them with the DW12, even though they are no longer needed with turbo engines.

[dr-baker]

A higher roll-hoop structure also means larger bodywork panels/engine covers, and therefore more advertising space!

That was the reason the FIA dropped its ban on airboxes in 1994.

When I was researching Lola and their airbox-less T95/30, I read that the reason for banning the airbox was to eliminate the ram-effect (which feeds more air into the cylinders/combustion chambers), but the ban was lifted when the FIA realised that the ram effect would be maintained by other ingenious methods. But the amount of space dedicated to advertising was probably a significant factor too...

[CoopsII]

What do we think?

I don't mind it from this angle

I don't like if from this angle and

It looks hard to get in and out of the cockpit with it in this one.

Thoughts?

[Aislabie]

I think they ought to put some sort of a bar around the top of it. Something to act as a handhold so as to make it easier for the driver to get in and out. Otherwise though, it looks pretty cool.

My only worry is that it could scupper Robert Kubica's comeback.

[mario]

I think they ought to put some sort of a bar around the top of it. Something to act as a handhold so as to make it easier for the driver to get in and out. Otherwise though, it looks pretty cool.

My only worry is that it could scupper Robert Kubica's comeback.

Vettel was pretty unhappy with the screen when he tested it today, complaining that the curvature of the screen was causing problems with his forward vision being heavily distorted. It suggests that they will probably come under pressure to drop the screen for the short term whilst they work on an alternative solution.

[Nuppiz]

Another issue with any type of windsreen or canopy is that they get very hard to see through if it's raining or the screen gets dirty. Which calls for windcreen wipers of some sort.

[DonTirri]

Yeah, no.

Crap like that will be more of a hinderance than an advantage. quick escapes, vision obstruction and looking stupid weigh more in the scale than the once in a blue moon event of something striking a driver.

[Londoner]

Say hello to the Halo - the Strategy Group has mandated its introduction for the 2018 season.

[Miguel98]

Say hello to the Halo - the Strategy Group has mandated its introduction for the 2018 season.

But it wasn't the Strategy Group. It was the FIA. Teams were all against it.

It's a knee jerk reaction from the FIA... They clearly didn't care about the shield testing - the moment Vettel "criticized" the on-track performance of the shield, they imediatelly introduced the Halo.

[Waris]

Teams were all against it.

Actually, Autosport reports that 9 of the 10 teams were against it. I wonder if the one team that was in favour was Ferrari...

Anyway, it also said "the FIA will work with the teams to improve the design" or something like that. I'm thinking, why don't they, instead of one pillar down the middle, have two pillars on the side, and make them see-through?

[mario]

Teams were all against it.

Actually, Autosport reports that 9 of the 10 teams were against it. I wonder if the one team that was in favour was Ferrari...

Anyway, it also said "the FIA will work with the teams to improve the design" or something like that. I'm thinking, why don't they, instead of one pillar down the middle, have two pillars on the side, and make them see-through?

Is it possible for a team to abstain from voting? If that was a viable option, then it would be possible that the team that didn't vote against the measure also chose simply not to vote for it.

As for the question of having the pillar in the middle or at the sides, I believe that one reason why the central pillar was preferred was the fact that the drivers tend to look more to the sides rather than directly ahead - so it isn't as much of a distraction as you might thing.

[dr-baker]

As for the question of having the pillar in the middle or at the sides, I believe that one reason why the central pillar was preferred was the fact that the drivers tend to look more to the sides rather than directly ahead - so it isn't as much of a distraction as you might thing.

I wonder if that was Vettel's problem in Baku?

[CoopsII]

[Wallio]

I am assuming the FIA will allow the teams to paint them next year, right? I mean they would almost have to. Once painted, they won't look THAT bad. Of course the FIA should be taking hints from the new 2018-spec Indycars IMO.