Jump to content


Photo

Frank Costin Canopy would avoid Massa´s Injuries


  • Please log in to reply
162 replies to this topic

#1 550spyder

550spyder
  • Member

  • 177 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 26 July 2009 - 16:05

I remember Frank Costin car in Formula 2 called Protos or Proteus in the sixties. The car was driven with some success by Pedro Rodriguez. The car and driver had an accident in Etna, Sicily, I presume, and was abandoned.
This particular Formula 2 used a canopy aiming aerodynamic gains or less drag, not security, and the canopy was closed, similar to a fight aeroplane like Spitifire or Hurricane. The drivers complained of claustrophoby and dampness because the canopy was closed and ventilation poor. As I said, the intention was less drag not security.
Right now it would be easy to adapt a canopy with holes to help ventilation. There would be more drag but more security.
I would like to find some photos of Frank Costin car. Maybe this topic shoud be moved to Nostalgia but I left that to the administrators.
Best regards,

Advertisement

#2 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 11,176 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 26 July 2009 - 16:13

Yeah, the Protos!
Could well be merged with http://forums.autosp...howtopic=112635

#3 JPW

JPW
  • Member

  • 3,335 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 26 July 2009 - 16:30

I think you mean this one:

Posted Image

There's more on it on 8W

#4 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 26 July 2009 - 16:32

Why stop there??


Posted Image

#5 550spyder

550spyder
  • Member

  • 177 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 26 July 2009 - 16:36

I think you mean this one:

Posted Image

There's more on it on 8W


I believe this is the final version, in the first version the canopy was closed. Anyway, seems interesting to improve the situation.


#6 Arska

Arska
  • Member

  • 730 posts
  • Joined: April 02

Posted 26 July 2009 - 16:43

They don't really need a canopy, just a decent-size windshield like in Motogp.

#7 550spyder

550spyder
  • Member

  • 177 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 26 July 2009 - 17:00

Well, I do not believe a "decent sized windshield" would do any good for Henry Surtees. A canopy would protect the driver even from a wheel. Actually, wheels are spinning often these times. Today, Alonso lose the right front wheel.

#8 jgm

jgm
  • Member

  • 194 posts
  • Joined: December 02

Posted 26 July 2009 - 18:46

If a 1kg piece of steel hit the canopy at 170mph the result would be exactly the same. It would go straight through it like a bullet.

#9 kodandaram

kodandaram
  • Member

  • 4,378 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 26 July 2009 - 19:00

A full Canopy is not the right solution IMHO.

1. It will cause extreme claustrophobia - an F1 cockpit is already a tight place and adding a structure that gives you a feeling of seeing through a casket is a bad idea. Plus in extremely hot conditions it will have the greenhouse effect and can suffocate a person to death. With open cockpits drivers can open the visor to get fresh air which is not possible with canopies.

2. Extricating a driver after an accident will be very difficult especially if its an emergency.

3. How much safer will it be ? at those speeds..any object will break through them I guess and only make it more dangerous for the drivers.

#10 HanSolo

HanSolo
  • Member

  • 57 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 26 July 2009 - 19:10

You'd also have to have another guy in the pits furiously cleaning and polishing the windshield on each stop, because you'd lose the tear-off visors.

#11 J

J
  • Member

  • 675 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 26 July 2009 - 19:19

A full Canopy is not the right solution IMHO.

1. It will cause extreme claustrophobia - an F1 cockpit is already a tight place and adding a structure that gives you a feeling of seeing through a casket is a bad idea. Plus in extremely hot conditions it will have the greenhouse effect and can suffocate a person to death. With open cockpits drivers can open the visor to get fresh air which is not possible with canopies.

2. Extricating a driver after an accident will be very difficult especially if its an emergency.

3. How much safer will it be ? at those speeds..any object will break through them I guess and only make it more dangerous for the drivers.


Well how come it works in aircraft?

I haven´t heard any complaints about claustrofobia from pilots. Extraction is a pretty rapid affair in fighter too...

Open cockpits and open wheels are in F1 because they make the show better. IMHO it is just a question how safe people want F1 to be. Proper application of closed wheels and closed cockpits would be a massive safety improvement, but would it still be F1?..

-J


#12 550spyder

550spyder
  • Member

  • 177 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 26 July 2009 - 21:43

If a 1kg piece of steel hit the canopy at 170mph the result would be exactly the same. It would go straight through it like a bullet.


Like hapens every day with the modern jet-fighters. We read every day about it in the newspapers. :lol: :lol: :lol:

These canopys are designed to resist very well in case of a small bullet or a large bird.

Edited by 550spyder, 26 July 2009 - 21:46.


#13 550spyder

550spyder
  • Member

  • 177 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 26 July 2009 - 21:49

Well how come it works in aircraft?

I haven´t heard any complaints about claustrofobia from pilots. Extraction is a pretty rapid affair in fighter too...

Open cockpits and open wheels are in F1 because they make the show better. IMHO it is just a question how safe people want F1 to be. Proper application of closed wheels and closed cockpits would be a massive safety improvement, but would it still be F1?..

-J


I totally agree with you, open cockpits made the show better. Actually, I read something about it from Doug Nye. He said that races were more interesting in the past because the circuits are more frightening to see, we can see the driver working and the cars had more agressive look.


#14 jez6363

jez6363
  • Member

  • 570 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 26 July 2009 - 22:10

Like hapens every day with the modern jet-fighters. We read every day about it in the newspapers. :lol: :lol: :lol:

These canopys are designed to resist very well in case of a small bullet or a large bird.

1. Air is basically clean, not filled with oil and rubber, so tearoffs aren't so necessary. Reducing visibility reduces active safety (ie driver awareness), which is very important.
2. Planes don't have to be inch perfect when maneuvering, so if the pilot can't see as well through the cockpit, its not such a problem (+ electronic aids help pilots)
3. Pilot visibility is much worse than open top driver visibility, because of cockpits. I think the main reason planes have cockpits is to prevent the driver being buffeted by mach 2 winds, otherwise the vibration would make it impossible to see at all.
4. Birds are a LOT LOT LOT less dense than springs and wheels, so energy to dissipate is a lot less
5. I think bullets pass through cockpits, not bounce off, unless its a really glancing blow.

I don't think you could easily stop things like that spring with a cockpit that you could see through. You could stop a wheel though, and keep an open cockpit the driver can get out of, using basically a roll cage of some sort.


#15 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 5,357 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 26 July 2009 - 22:33

A larger windshield could be done without too much problem, perhaps FIA should bring this? Not sure about these more elaborate contraptions.

#16 AussieF1

AussieF1
  • Member

  • 318 posts
  • Joined: December 00

Posted 26 July 2009 - 22:39

So if it rains we need windscreen wipers?

#17 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 26 July 2009 - 22:44

Anything will bounce off a canopy/windscreen if the angle is acute enough, it only needs to deflect the object not stop it dead. Anyway it would be composite with stretch interlayers. It would provide a lot of protection.

They're always looking for ways to slow the cars down and challenge the engineers. F1 aircon and wash/wipe would be ideal :p .

#18 Dmitriy_Guller

Dmitriy_Guller
  • Member

  • 4,023 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 26 July 2009 - 22:46

A bigger windshield may not stop the projectile, but it'll absorb some energy and possible deflect the object from the driver's face.

#19 tristancliffe

tristancliffe
  • New Member

  • 26 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 26 July 2009 - 22:59

What happens if the object passes through the slot in the picture shown?

Fighter planes are not quick to disembark. It takes ages to get out of one*, and would be useless upside-down or embedded in a tyre wall like a car could be.




*not counting ejector seats, obviously!

Advertisement

#20 wewantourdarbyback

wewantourdarbyback
  • Member

  • 6,358 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 26 July 2009 - 23:02

The canopy above you in a fast jet is big, you have a large open area rather than the close bubble you'd be in were they used in F1.


Just watch James May's show on going in the U2 to see how claustrophobic just having the tight close helmet he had on can be (a glass front close to your face, not like the helmet the drivers wear).

#21 Demo.

Demo.
  • Member

  • 1,205 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 26 July 2009 - 23:24

The canopy above you in a fast jet is big, you have a large open area rather than the close bubble you'd be in were they used in F1.


Just watch James May's show on going in the U2 to see how claustrophobic just having the tight close helmet he had on can be (a glass front close to your face, not like the helmet the drivers wear).

people also forget quite how much a fighter jets canopy deflects when it is hit by such things as a bird.
Bird strike on canopy
the deflection starts at 0.03 seconds and by 0.04 second the bird has ingressed so far into the canopy that it goes out of frame ( try pausing and clicking forward 1 frame at a time to see exactly how far in the bird goes)
effectively within the size constraints of an F1 car the canopy would not absorb any significant amount of the force before it hit the driver anyway

#22 RoutariEnjinu

RoutariEnjinu
  • Member

  • 2,344 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 26 July 2009 - 23:35

What happens if the object passes through the slot in the picture shown?

Fighter planes are not quick to disembark. It takes ages to get out of one*, and would be useless upside-down or embedded in a tyre wall like a car could be.




*not counting ejector seats, obviously!


Are you off the LFS forum?

#23 Rubens Hakkamacher

Rubens Hakkamacher
  • Member

  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 27 July 2009 - 00:02

This thread really... fraks me off.

1) visibility with a fighter-type canopy (ala F-16) is not an issue. I've sat in one; there's no distortion, and you could make the shoulder-guards we now have smaller, so actually side visibility would be *better*

2) the "it can't stop a bird strike" point is irrelevant - an F-16 canopy can withstand a birdstrike going 400 mph; that's not relevant to F1 speeds

3) even at that, if one presumes the canopy *were* to break - the driver is still wearing a helmet. You've just made the helmet's job a lot easier, have you not?

It's moronic to say a canopy wouldn't make it safer. I can think of many times recently we've had close calls with cockpit incursion - Fischella rolling onto the fence at Monaco, Wurz... Absurd this isn't seriously discussed.


#24 Rubens Hakkamacher

Rubens Hakkamacher
  • Member

  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 27 July 2009 - 00:11

The "upside down" argument doesn't fly, either. How many times have we seen a car upside down in the past 10 years, versus how many "close calls" with cockpit incursions? Not to mention, if a car rolls and landing upside down is an issue - landing upside down on an object protruding into the cockpit is likely as well.

Fire? How many times have we seen that as an issue, versus crash impact itself?

#25 Dragonfly

Dragonfly
  • Member

  • 4,496 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 27 July 2009 - 00:14

The "upside down" argument doesn't fly, either. How many times have we seen a car upside down in the past 10 years, versus how many "close calls" with cockpit incursions? Not to mention, if a car rolls and landing upside down is an issue - landing upside down on an object protruding into the cockpit is likely as well.

Fire? How many times have we seen that as an issue, versus crash impact itself?

Be sure that once canopies are fitted such "very improbable" thing will start to happen.

#26 jez6363

jez6363
  • Member

  • 570 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 27 July 2009 - 01:41

This thread really... fraks me off.

1) visibility with a fighter-type canopy (ala F-16) is not an issue. I've sat in one; there's no distortion, and you could make the shoulder-guards we now have smaller, so actually side visibility would be *better*

2) the "it can't stop a bird strike" point is irrelevant - an F-16 canopy can withstand a birdstrike going 400 mph; that's not relevant to F1 speeds

3) even at that, if one presumes the canopy *were* to break - the driver is still wearing a helmet. You've just made the helmet's job a lot easier, have you not?

It's moronic to say a canopy wouldn't make it safer. I can think of many times recently we've had close calls with cockpit incursion - Fischella rolling onto the fence at Monaco, Wurz... Absurd this isn't seriously discussed.

I support doing something to provide better cockpit protection, but I think full canopies have problems that make it not a simple choice, and things like more/better roll hoops also need investigating.

I also agree that on balance, protecting from cockpit intrusion is more important than a possible upside down rescue being slowed down by a cockpit, or a driver being stuck in a fire, but they do need thinking through, as does for example cooling the driver so they can actually drive in the oven of an F1 cockpit.

On your points:

1) One problem with canopies is they get dirty - it obviously happens, which is why drivers have tearoffs. This is nothing to do with the clarity of the cockpit - its to do with the crud that comes out of the back of the cars in front, and it obviously is a concern.

Also there is a problem when it is a wet race, not dry. Without wipers, and at slow speeds, you won't be able to see, and I think it would be worse than with a helmet only, and the driver can't wipe the outside of the cockpit. In a plane, you simply don't have to be as accurate, and you have instruments to help you when you need to be (eg landing).

2) Why is it irrelevant? The energy absorption required to take a wheel or spring at 200mph is more than to take a bird strike at 400mph - its because birds are light and squishy, compared to lumps of metal.

3) Yes, but you do have to consider what happens to the framework of the canopy. An F-16 cockpit doesn't have to cope with being scraped along the ground, or a car landing on it.


#27 klyster

klyster
  • Member

  • 4,249 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 27 July 2009 - 02:12

Hmmm, what if it does deflect an object but shatters or crazes and leaves the driver with no visibility to manoeuvre the vehicle to a safe stop?

Sharp fragments could also impale a driver in a collision, and a damaged canopy could hinder an extraction effort.

There are definite advantages, but they bring with them, definite disadvantages.

#28 Rosemayer

Rosemayer
  • Member

  • 1,253 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 27 July 2009 - 14:49

Also on most Fighter planes when a pilot ejects explosive bolts blow the canopy off.

#29 Villes Gilleneuve

Villes Gilleneuve
  • Member

  • 2,248 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 27 July 2009 - 15:06

A full Canopy is not the right solution IMHO.

1. It will cause extreme claustrophobia - an F1 cockpit is already a tight place and adding a structure that gives you a feeling of seeing through a casket is a bad idea. Plus in extremely hot conditions it will have the greenhouse effect and can suffocate a person to death. With open cockpits drivers can open the visor to get fresh air which is not possible with canopies.

2. Extricating a driver after an accident will be very difficult especially if its an emergency.

3. How much safer will it be ? at those speeds..any object will break through them I guess and only make it more dangerous for the drivers.



There are lots of motorsports in enclosed canopies. Claustrophobia? Oh yes, this is why there are no spiders in F1 cockpits: arachnophobia. The greenhouse effect would build up C02 levels, melt the ice caps and cause flooding in the cockpit, this is a common occurrence at Le Mans.

The 908's cockpit was very narrow.

Posted Image

A windshield has its problems for F1- however, a tapered cage in front of the driver could deflect objects

#30 whitewaterMkII

whitewaterMkII
  • Member

  • 5,263 posts
  • Joined: November 05

Posted 27 July 2009 - 15:35

This a joke of a thread. I see all these arguments about how a canopy is useles, hinders the view, won't take a hit,etc etc etc.
We used F-16 canopies for years and had zero issues with them on these.
Posted Image


#31 FonzCam

FonzCam
  • Member

  • 762 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 27 July 2009 - 16:08

Out of curiosity what it would look like I did a quick bit of quick 'n' dirty photoshopping...

Posted Image

I could live with that

#32 Villes Gilleneuve

Villes Gilleneuve
  • Member

  • 2,248 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 27 July 2009 - 16:52

Out of curiosity what it would look like I did a quick bit of quick 'n' dirty photoshopping...

Posted Image

I could live with that



you forgot the little soccer ball hanging off the rear-view mirror.

:up:

#33 Ben

Ben
  • Member

  • 3,181 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 27 July 2009 - 16:57

Ashley Cooper - Died Feb 2008

Posted Image

Right-hand drive closed car
Hit a wall on the left-hand side of the car
HANS device

Motorsport is dangerous - says so on the ticket. Forcing F1 cars to become closed cockpit is crazy.

Ben

#34 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 56,834 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 27 July 2009 - 17:02

True, but is there a reason they evolved into open cockpit open wheeled cars? There was a period where 'front wings' pretty much covered the wheels. Within the F1 design 'box' if there werent various concessions for roof/no roof like Le Mans, wouldn't you try to enclose most of the car in bodywork?

#35 HoldenRT

HoldenRT
  • Member

  • 5,131 posts
  • Joined: May 05

Posted 27 July 2009 - 17:03

A full Canopy is not the right solution IMHO.

For there to be a solution, there needs to be a problem and in my opinion there isn't.

What has happened has been tragic but it's been freak accidents. Motorsports is dangerous and people die. This is why drivers always go on about safety and armchair experts think that they are being scared old ladies from behind their keyboards. It's dangerous, and there is always a small chance something bad can happen. If it lost that element, it wouldn't be motorsports anymore.

#36 kosmos

kosmos
  • Member

  • 6,446 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 27 July 2009 - 17:12

Out of curiosity what it would look like I did a quick bit of quick 'n' dirty photoshopping...

Posted Image

I could live with that



What about the heat?, what happend if there is smoke or fire inside?,

#37 Ruud de la Rosa

Ruud de la Rosa
  • Member

  • 2,137 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 27 July 2009 - 17:12

Ashley Cooper - Died Feb 2008

Posted Image

Right-hand drive closed car
Hit a wall on the left-hand side of the car
HANS device

Motorsport is dangerous - says so on the ticket. Forcing F1 cars to become closed cockpit is crazy.

Ben


I accept motorsports are dangerous, but that doesn't mean we/they should stop trying to make it safer. what were your thought about seat belts, roll bars, side/front/rear crash structures, fully closed helmets etc etc

#38 FonzCam

FonzCam
  • Member

  • 762 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 27 July 2009 - 17:31

What about the heat?, what happend if there is smoke or fire inside?,


Air-conditioning like at Le Mans. Most problems like heat/rain/visibility have been sorted out long ago for LMP1 cars. For dirt you just have whole screen tear-offs at each pit-stop.

Hinge it left to right with quick releases below the hinges so you can either open it hinged or pop the whole thing.

Mandate that a driver must be able to get out in a short period just as they do now. The teams will produce systems that will work in the event of fires etc just as well as the current cars cope.



#39 Flexa

Flexa
  • Member

  • 403 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 27 July 2009 - 17:48

This is a picture someone made as a joke on the f1 technology couple of years ago, it has messed up proportions, still I guess ppl could live with this style of canopy present:

Posted Image

Advertisement

#40 ivanalesi

ivanalesi
  • Member

  • 1,767 posts
  • Joined: August 04

Posted 27 July 2009 - 17:55

I don't understand why you discuss canopies, which have such a strong structure, when apparently we had a visor not strong enough!
Obviously the visors aren't strong enough, the material should be as strong as the jet canopies. Current visor producers are marketing their products on looks and UV filter, not on safety!
But obviously Henry Surtees would be alive with a canopy like on this Protos.

#41 AndyM

AndyM
  • Member

  • 125 posts
  • Joined: January 01

Posted 27 July 2009 - 18:03

If a 1kg coil spring can rip through and breach an F1-spec Schuberth, there is no way a perspex canopy could prevent the same. A canopy to protect against a flying car part or wheel and tyre assembly at 300 kph would have to be so large it would be unfeasible.

Edited by AndyM, 27 July 2009 - 18:04.


#42 FonzCam

FonzCam
  • Member

  • 762 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 27 July 2009 - 18:04

I don't understand why you discuss canopies, which have such a strong structure, when apparently we had a visor not strong enough!
Obviously the visors aren't strong enough, the material should be as strong as the jet canopies. Current visor producers are marketing their products on looks and UV filter, not on safety!
But obviously Henry Surtees would be alive with a canopy like on this Protos.


Get whacked on the head with enough force and it doesn't matter what you're wearing on your head. A canopy would send all the force into the car not the driver's head, brain and neck. It would also help in the event of a roll over, I'm always terrified when cars roll on a gravel trap that their head is going to dig in.

#43 FonzCam

FonzCam
  • Member

  • 762 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 27 July 2009 - 18:13

If a 1kg coil spring can rip through and breach an F1-spec Schuberth, there is no way a perspex canopy could prevent the same. A canopy to protect against a flying car part or wheel and tyre assembly at 300 kph would have to be so large it would be unfeasible.

It didn't rip through it left a big dent and bounced off. A canopy would at best deflect and at worst lessen the impact of the object it doesn't have to stop it dead just increase the survivability of the accident.

#44 FlatOverCrest

FlatOverCrest
  • Member

  • 2,823 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 27 July 2009 - 19:15

Jez6363......

Er...sir.... To say a bird does not have the "MASS" to do much damage is folley!

Here is what a bird did to a C130....a Bald Eagle to be precise! Warning pictures are pretty graphic:
http://www.skybrary....ge:C130BS1.jpeg

Do not click this if you are squimish!
http://www.skybrary....ge:C130BS2.jpeg

and the Pilot who could have been killed, had this hit him in the head!
http://www.skybrary....ge:C130BS3.jpeg

The fact is, a fighter jet canopy like the F16, is actually designed to be bullet-proof up to I believe a 50 cal round. The A10 Canopy for exmple is the strongest of all.

As to visibility issues....seriously?
http://www.f-16.net/..._serialNumber=2

As was posted earlier.... F1 powerboats have been using canopies for years. Ultimately I believe F1 cars will look more and more like fighter jets with canopies in the future and if need be, the glass will be blown by "Det cord" just as a pilot does when he ejects., if a driver needs to be extracted from an upside down car.

However the most likely fast solution, is a redesign of helmets to include a titanium front head and chin plate for added strength. yes the helmet will weigh a bit more, but probably no more than a 1990's race helmet did. It is just todaysnew materials that made them extremely light weight.

Edited by FlatOverCrest, 27 July 2009 - 19:17.


#45 learningtobelost

learningtobelost
  • Member

  • 668 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 27 July 2009 - 19:24

Enclosed canopy… the way I see it:

Pro’s:

Largely reduced likelihood of head impact from flying debris.

Improved Aero.

Con’s:

Increased danger from other car impact (Wurz / Coultard for example) as I doubt there’s a material in the world that can withstand that sort of thing and remain see through

Increased heat, F1 cockpits are tiny compared to LMP1 cars, therefore the comparison is useless.

Significantly increased risk of drivers being trapped. Fighter jet explosive canopies could only work if the canopy is blown BEFORE the car is upside down / on fire etc… predictive crashing anyone??

I’m not convinced that an enclosed canopy is actually any safer.


#46 ex Rhodie racer

ex Rhodie racer
  • Member

  • 3,002 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 27 July 2009 - 19:25

Wow, isn´t it lucky for the development of mankind that we didn´t have to rely on the nay sayers of this world. Of course there are problems, as with everything in life. The trick is to solve them, not throw the idea out of the window when you encounter the first obstacle. Every problem has a solution, if you look long enough.

#47 BullHead

BullHead
  • Member

  • 6,653 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 27 July 2009 - 19:30

I don't mean to take the mick, but I do find this thread very funny (apologies to original poster, I know it's serious). Loving those doctored Ferrari pics, keep them coming. Can someone do me a Red Bull with canopy, oh and jetfighter wings. :)

Seriously though, is it necessary? Maybe a raised windshield. I know it won't make much difference, but at least it make the ones they do have look like they have some function. Actually , do they still have them?

#48 Dragonfly

Dragonfly
  • Member

  • 4,496 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 27 July 2009 - 19:51

have look like they have some function. Actually , do they still have them?

This is the question I asked to myself while reading. There used to be some low windshields but they seem to be gone. Have to look at car pictures for confirmation though.
But had there been such in this particular case it would be enough to deflect the spring upwards, and away from the driver's head. The spring came low and brushed the bodywork just before the cockpit edge.

#49 billm99uk

billm99uk
  • Member

  • 2,841 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 27 July 2009 - 19:55

This is a picture someone made as a joke on the f1 technology couple of years ago, it has messed up proportions, still I guess ppl could live with this style of canopy present:

Posted Image


Looks like a flippin' Transformer. Can it change into a big-ass robot? :lol:


#50 JarnoA

JarnoA
  • Member

  • 752 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 27 July 2009 - 20:02

Hmm, just thinking out loud here. What if the sides and back of the open cockpit had to be higher than the drivers head. (overhead impacts from wheels would hit the car, not the head) Instead of mirrors, there are rear video camera's covering all angles to stop the visibility problem.

In the case of Massa, the helmet did it's job, it was the visor that was the weak point. Is it possible to make a visor from bullet proof glass?

Please don't mock if you know I am spouting rubbish, like I said, I am just thinking out loud.