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

[courageous]

In the good 'ol days there was virtually no difference between F1 & sportscars (in fact it was quite common for a few changes to be done on a car between races on the same bill to allow it to run both).

The indycar reject Deltawing will run Le Mans next year & now this - are we coming full circle?

[wnut]

Originally Posted by courageous

In the good 'ol days there was virtually no difference between F1 & sportscars (in fact it was quite common for a few changes to be done on a car between races on the same bill to allow it to run both).

The indycar reject Deltawing will run Le Mans next year & now this - are we coming full circle?

F1 and Sports Cars same program and not Formula Libre!

When? 1956?


"The indycar reject Deltawing will run Le Mans next year"

That thing is just complete rubbish and surrounded by so much spin and BS - believe that when you see it actually turn a lap, and then make the grid.

Personally I would love to take a bet against it racing there or anywhere else, although any right thinking bookie would give you the same odds of winning the lottery!

[stripedcat]

Surprised that it has happened sooner really. My thinking is, that it would help the 'aero' out and make F1 cars quicker. Not having a driver in the way, but a smooth surface.

[emjaya]

Originally Posted by nickyf1

I'm pretty sure there was a car in the 60's with a perspex canopy and a wooden chassis?

Yes, a Frank Costin design, I think? I have been trying to remember the name of it.

Not a full canopy, more like a half with a horizontal slit at eye level.

[gttouring]

i am okay with this idea- if prototypes can run with out fear of trapping a driver when it flips. however this will change the formula a lot, and how far doe it go to Formula ford, or Karts? F1 and GP2 or build a cage of sorts around the driver-
i can't think of many World of Outlaw or Midget/ sprint USAC silver crown head accidents from debris, and someone goes end over end in every race.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by emjaya

Yes, a Frank Costin design, I think? I have been trying to remember the name of it.

Not a full canopy, more like a half with a horizontal slit at eye level.

Jack Brabham and designer Ron Tauranac ran a full canopy on one of the Brabhams in about 67 but tossed the idea because the canopy was distorting the driver's view. (Practice Monza 1967 Brabham BT24)

Sprint cars and midgets have full roll cages that protect the driver in the event of a frontal impact.
A huge number of drivers are injured in these series that we never get to hear about as well. So unless you have an accurate statistic from a credible source you may just have an inaccurate picture gttouring.


Every safety innovation that is ever adopted is accompanied by a lot of hand wringing and protests.
Early hard crash helmets, then full face helmets, driving gloves - wrecked your feel, fire proof overalls were too hot and heat exhaustion caused accidents, seat belts - it was safer to be ejected from the car than stay with it, HANS devices Coulthard and Barrichello - endless nonsense, Stewarts safety campaign - too expensive would see the end of racing!

On and on we go .....!

[Hubble]

Originally Posted by emjaya

Yes, a Frank Costin design, I think? I have been trying to remember the name of it.

Not a full canopy, more like a half with a horizontal slit at eye level.

Protos F2...

[Drummer]

Originally Posted by safc_fan89

Why not just stop motorsport altogether? Then there'll be no risk at all.

I don't think it is necessary. Firstly, in my opinion it would look ridiculous and secondly, there will presumably be an issue with vacating the car within X seconds. Thirdly...just no. What next, wrapping the cars in cotton wool?

HEAR HEAR! Let's go one further and go back to wearing leather helmets. Hey, why don't we close all the roads and railways, ground all the planes, dig up all the airfields into crop fields and un-invent the wheel. I think we were much better off in the stone age!

Sarcasm aside, I think this could be a very good idea. I mean, if we've exhausted all our options with head and neck protection and so forth, this would probably be the next level. Also, with regards to extraction time, surely some of those LeMans cars are a bit awkward? I didn't hear of anyone moaning about those!

Motorsport is evolving all the time, and I think this is one idea that could work, if it's implemented correctly. Let's face it, you can't get much worse of an idea than "controlling the weather", now, can you? It just shows that not all these ideas are from La La Land!

[EDIT] Idea!: Why not have a device that, upon releasing the belts, releases the canopy too? That would work for the driver. For marshals, I don't suppose an extra button to push would be that horrifying of a thought... Would it?

[JeremySmith]

LeMan's cars have doors though, big difference..

[Drummer]

Yeah, little tiny holes, on the SIDE of the car, where you have to bend SIDEWAYS to get out... Not like open wheelers, which have holes on the top, where you go upwards, which is much more natural. If the whole canopy comes off in one big lump, it'll be just the same as always. I understand the point, though. If it's not implemented properly, it'll be a mess. However, if it is, it'll do just fine, I think.

Also, some of those LeMans and sports cars may as well not have doors, they're so awkward. Stock cars are worse!

[davyboy]

The issues over extrication are very easy to solve.

o Removable canopies.

o Removable floors.

o Side doors.

o Removable fronts.

o Removable backs.

They've had no need to consider any of these because the driver could be removed via the top [in most instances]... but any of these are very easy to implement.

[Lotusonpole]

Originally Posted by wnut

Jack Brabham and designer Ron Tauranac ran a full canopy on one of the Brabhams in about 67 but tossed the idea because the canopy was distorting the driver's view. (Practice Monza 1967 Brabham BT24)

Sprint cars and midgets have full roll cages that protect the driver in the event of a frontal impact.
A huge number of drivers are injured in these series that we never get to hear about as well. So unless you have an accurate statistic from a credible source you may just have an inaccurate picture gttouring.


Every safety innovation that is ever adopted is accompanied by a lot of hand wringing and protests.
Early hard crash helmets, then full face helmets, driving gloves - wrecked your feel, fire proof overalls were too hot and heat exhaustion caused accidents, seat belts - it was safer to be ejected from the car than stay with it, HANS devices Coulthard and Barrichello - endless nonsense, Stewarts safety campaign - too expensive would see the end of racing!

On and on we go .....!

Pics of both the BT24 and Protos are on...
http://www.f1technical.net/forum/vie...php?f=6&t=7107
Below the Spitfire pic.

P

[MGDavid]

Originally Posted by wnut

......
A huge number of drivers are injured in these series that we never get to hear about .....!

I usually shake my head at your posts, but this is the most extreme example of self-contradiction yet

I don't suppose it's worth asking you to substantiate it?

[Hubble]

Originally Posted by davyboy

The issues over extrication are very easy to solve.

o Removable canopies.

o Removable floors.

o Side doors.

o Removable fronts.

o Removable backs.

They've had no need to consider any of these because the driver could be removed via the top [in most instances]... but any of these are very easy to implement.

LOL.....I'll have some of whatever he's on....

The implications of some of your suggestions on the structural integrity/torsional stiffness of the chassis would be severe to say the least. The only viable one is the removable canopy, which we're discussing already...

[awrb]

Originally Posted by Hubble

LOL.....I'll have some of whatever he's on....

The implications of some of your suggestions on the structural integrity/torsional stiffness of the chassis would be severe to say the least. The only viable one is the removable canopy, which we're discussing already...

Well it would affect the stiffness and rigidity, but all it would need is a bit of thought and a clever idea. The removable canopy would mean the cars would stay similar to how they are now, but it certainly isn't the only option if you are at least a bit open-minded.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by Hubble

LOL.....I'll have some of whatever he's on....

The implications of some of your suggestions on the structural integrity/torsional stiffness of the chassis would be severe to say the least. The only viable one is the removable canopy, which we're discussing already...

LOL... this is a classic example of what the Chinese call 'frog in the well' syndrome !

There are engineering solutions to accommodate any of my suggestions above using technology available today.

[m1fcf]

Originally Posted by Tal Aras

The big problem is getting at a driver in the car when it's upside down. Either the car will need a door or every marshals post will need cutting gear and I can't see the teams being too keen on getting the cars back in small bits.

People seem to manage with current series of racers with roofs...

Need a door you say? well, how are the drivers going to get in to it in the first place? I very much doubt they will sit in the car and wait while the canopy is bolted into the chassis around them - I would see either a side or front hinge assembly with some form of quick-release mechanism to separate the canopy completely from the car in the even of emergency access.

[Gingers4Justice]

I think the FIA is beginning to lose the plot with this.

No one wants to see anyone die, but does anyone honestly think F1 would be as popular as it is today if it was safe and risk-free?

Racing drivers know what they are doing is dangerous, and for some of them, that's even why they do it. It can seperate the drivers that drive 100% from drivers that drive at 99%.

After the above paragraph, posters will probably do the whole "fine, let's go back to the 70s then" thing at me, but that's not what I want at all. We just need some risk. Much like there's no pleasure without pain, no life without suffering....F1 will slowly become emotionless if it becomes too safe.

The whole idea of spending millions on R&D to slightly reduce the already slim chance of death of 22 drivers who are already taking risks for a living - a very large living for very small risks, I might add - seems a bit silly, particularly when there are far, far more dangerous aspects of the automotive world. I think a Formula One driver is more likely to get hurt of seriously injured when driving to the circuit in his every day roadcar. Roacars are dangerous, and they needn't be. F1 isn't even the first place to start in motor sport. Two drivers were hospitalised by moderate crashes in GT cars at Le Mans this year and you hear of far more injuries in GT cars than you do anything else. The amateurs get the raw deal with safety. FIA, spend your time and money there.

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by Gingers4Justice

I think the FIA is beginning to lose the plot with this.

No one wants to see anyone die, but does anyone honestly think F1 would be as popular as it is today if it was safe and risk-free?

Racing drivers know what they are doing is dangerous, and for some of them, that's even why they do it. It can seperate the drivers that drive 100% from drivers that drive at 99%.

After the above paragraph, posters will probably do the whole "fine, let's go back to the 70s then" thing at me, but that's not what I want at all. We just need some risk. Much like there's no pleasure without pain, no life without suffering....F1 will slowly become emotionless if it becomes too safe.

The whole idea of spending millions on R&D to slightly reduce the already slim chance of death of 22 drivers who are already taking risks for a living - a very large living for very small risks, I might add - seems a bit silly, particularly when there are far, far more dangerous aspects of the automotive world. I think a Formula One driver is more likely to get hurt of seriously injured when driving to the circuit in his every day roadcar. Roacars are dangerous, and they needn't be. F1 isn't even the first place to start in motor sport. Two drivers were hospitalised by moderate crashes in GT cars at Le Mans this year and you hear of far more injuries in GT cars than you do anything else. The amateurs get the raw deal with safety. FIA, spend your time and money there.

I agree with a lot of what you say but the suggestion that you are safer in a road car than racing in F1 really won't wash.

You can't really analyse this statistically as the sample for F1 is so small. If you include all F1 racing miles from the beginning of May 1994 to the present you will get a fataility per mile figure orders of magnitude larger than the risk in a road car. If you draw the line at the end of May 1994 you will create the illusion there is zero risk. It's similar to Concorde which statistically went from the (joint) safest airliner ever built to one of the most dangerous at the moment of the Paris crash.

Looking at it from the other side (where we do have a large sample) road fatalities run at about 1.5 per 100,000,000 miles if F1 were as safe we would have one driver killed in a race every 770 years. Do you seriously think F1 is anywhere near that safe?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by m1fcf

People seem to manage with current series of racers with roofs...

Need a door you say? well, how are the drivers going to get in to it in the first place? I very much doubt they will sit in the car and wait while the canopy is bolted into the chassis around them - I would see either a side or front hinge assembly with some form of quick-release mechanism to separate the canopy completely from the car in the even of emergency access.

Alan McNish eventually got out of the Audi, after his horrific accident at Le Mans this year, using the door.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jnibRyrK-o

[wnut]

Originally Posted by MGDavid

I usually shake my head at your posts, but this is the most extreme example of self-contradiction yet

I don't suppose it's worth asking you to substantiate it?

The post was in response to this bit of gttouring's post

"i can't think of many World of Outlaw or Midget/ sprint USAC silver crown head accidents from debris, and someone goes end over end in every race."

I was merely eluding to the fact that Sprint car racing is not a bastion of good practice in racing safety, do in fact have full roll cages around the drivers, and still does injure and kill a lot of drivers.


Go here

http://www.motorsportmemorial.org/index.php?db=ct

and search for Sprint Car fatalities. 27 Fatalities since 2000.
I have no idea how many injuries.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Lotusonpole

Pics of both the BT24 and Protos are on...
http://www.f1technical.net/forum/vie...php?f=6&t=7107
Below the Spitfire pic.

P

Thanks mate.

Never seen a picture of the car actually running before.

This from within the article was good too

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2009/07/2...n-improvement/

interesting to see Fittipaldi advocating canopies 15 years ago.

[wnut]

In order to release the canopy all that you would have to do is position an air jack/ram beneath or next to the roll over protection bar and under the canopy.
Powered by its own air bottle and actuated like the on board extinguisher system.
This would be able to push the canopy off the car, right a car that had overturned, or force the car clear of an obstacle that the car was up against, trapping the driver in. A scenario that we have seen from time to time in tyre walls etc.
A device like this would have saved Roger Williamson's life when he was trapped uninjured under his overturned car at Zandvoort.

[SJA]

My preliminary thought is that this is quite silly from a risk management perspective. I’m sure some one with the stats could work out the formula but based on my 20 something years watching open cockpit motor racing the likelihood (amount of races in history Vs. amount of incidents of Massa’s type) is quite low and the consequence is also low (most likely consequence, not worst case consequence) due to existing controls such as helmet, HANS etc. If putting in place further controls because of silly damage control, knee jerk reaction bureaucratic freaks only heightens the risk of other hazards… Well it’s just all gone mad over a risk that was quite low to begin with!

A lot of people blame safety people for this sort of over-the-topness, but are wrong to do so. It’s people in much higher places that know nothing about safety and risk that force safety people to come up with these things. Everyone’s always answering to someone else a little higher then themselves, and they are always asking, “so, what are we doing about this?”. This ends up going down the food chain till it rests on the shoulders of the safety person to “do something”, even if it is not really necessary for something to be done due to the inherently low risk.

All management see is there is an accident, perhaps a very public accident, something HAS to be done- we HAVE to be seen to be ATTEMPTING to improve.

This is not safety gone mad – its bureaucrats!

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

In order to release the canopy all that you would have to do is position an air jack/ram beneath or next to the roll over protection bar and under the canopy.
Powered by its own air bottle and actuated like the on board extinguisher system.
This would be able to push the canopy off the car, right a car that had overturned, or force the car clear of an obstacle that the car was up against, trapping the driver in. A scenario that we have seen from time to time in tyre walls etc.
A device like this would have saved Roger Williamson's life when he was trapped uninjured under his overturned car at Zandvoort.

Unfortunately, I remember Roger Williamson's accident all too well but that was down to fuel tank/chassis design; his car wouldn't have caught fire in the first place, after hitting the Armco.