636 replies to this topic

[undersquare]

The first canopy example you give is ugly, the second one gorgeous, but both are unworkable as drawn. Both canopies do not give ANY head clearance as helmets come up to the bottom of the airbox - any canopy has to start at the top of the airbox, with obvious problems, unless the airbox is raised, with its own aesthetic consequences. The second one is also too narrow and would handicap egress. The second one is also flat, which reduces strength significantly, compared to the rounded shape of real canopies. Visibility through the sides would also be very dubious as you would get significant internal reflections with the head so close to the sides. A workable canopy would be a much more bulbous and bulky affair and would still cause problems with the airbox requiring other changes.

With a canopy they wouldn't need bulky helmets.  Possibly not a visor either.  They could just have a fabric headband for HANS, perhaps, or it might be possible to have airbags small enough to use instead of HANS.

[Skinnyguy]

The first canopy example you give is ugly, the second one gorgeous, but both are unworkable as drawn. Both canopies do not give ANY head clearance as helmets come up to the bottom of the airbox - any canopy has to start at the top of the airbox, with obvious problems, unless the airbox is raised, with its own aesthetic consequences. 

 

 

Airbox is already raised for both proposals. You can see it´s higher than the rear wing, while currently airbox ends at exactly the same height.

[Skinnyguy]

You could argue that in this case, if a canopy was present, it could have posed a greater risk as it would have been wiped out across the cockpit by the flying/passing Red Bull, towards the driver's helmet. Potential decapitation from the canopy...

 

Actually the canopy would have kept that car further away from the head in that incident.

[Clatter]

With a canopy they wouldn't need bulky helmets.  Possibly not a visor either.  They could just have a fabric headband for HANS, perhaps, or it might be possible to have airbags small enough to use instead of HANS.

Helmets would still be required. I don't think any racing series whether open or closed top would ever dispense with the helmet.

[Andrew Hope]

I'd list the bad things that can happen to you in single seater racing that are more likely and more dangerous than being struck by debris but sadly you can't make a post longer than 10,000 words.

[chipmcdonald]

So instead of a cheap solution like being able to get oneself out in 5 seconds, you now have a system to detach half the car from the other by explosive bolts and a fire suppression system that can deal with anything presumably carrying extinguishant .  And a canopy.

 

 

Yes.  And a canopy. 

 

Because getting out of the car in 5 seconds doesn't help you when a spring that popped off the car in front of you is about to smack you in the face at 180 mph.  Or when the undertray of another car is skimming a centimeter past your carotid.

 

Today fire as a hazard is secondary to those as threats.  My suggestion was in contrast to your 5-second quip; the driver doesn't get out in 5 seconds if he's upside down with or without a canopy, nor does he get out if he's unconscious, nor does he get out in 5 seconds if his car is sitting in the middle of the track with oncoming cars.

 

 

In those circumstances, if *fire* is your big concern, getting the driver away from the engine/fuel cell as fast as possible makes the most sense.  The way the engine attaches to the rear bulkhead is actually the simplest way to do that at the scene of an accident.

 

But in reality - as I've said, fire is not the hazard it was.  Where the fuel cell is positioned, and the nature of it, means that for any significant release of fuel to occur - the impact almost certainly means the driver is already dead.  So that is not the prime issue - because in recent times we *have* had many close calls with other cars coming into the cockpit, parts off of other cars, and suspension parts/wheels coming into the cockpit. 

 

It is much, much more likely a driver gets killed in the next 5 years from that, than fire.

[chipmcdonald]

With a canopy they wouldn't need bulky helmets.  Possibly not a visor either.  They could just have a fabric headband for HANS, perhaps, or it might be possible to have airbags small enough to use instead of HANS.

 

 

They should still wear helmets - there would be no reason not to add to the impact safety. 

[chipmcdonald]

 

"What we really need is a way to make this more difficult to do".

 

 

 

Look at where the fire is in relation to the cockpit.  While it looks scary, he wasn't in an immediate Nikki Lauda-situation.  You've either got the fuel cell - which is behind the driver's back, which isn't going to catch on fire without being physically compromised - which would require the driver being killed in the process.   Or, the limited amount of fuel from what's left in the lines after it shuts off.  Oil in the radiator splashing about would be better shielded from the driver in a canopy, not an open cockpit.

 

And again, why there aren't mandated redundant extinguisher systems built into the body  work is an FIA mistake, not something relevant to the added safety of a canopy.  That sort of fire shouldn't still be happening, as inconsequential as it was.

[smitten]

Today fire as a hazard is secondary to those as threats.  My suggestion was in contrast to your 5-second quip; the driver doesn't get out in 5 seconds if he's upside down with or without a canopy, nor does he get out if he's unconscious, nor does he get out in 5 seconds if his car is sitting in the middle of the track with oncoming cars.
 
 
In those circumstances, if *fire* is your big concern, getting the driver away from the engine/fuel cell as fast as possible makes the most sense.  The way the engine attaches to the rear bulkhead is actually the simplest way to do that at the scene of an accident.

My "quip" is currently part of the FIA regulations. Your engine detaching thing is non-trivial, yet leaves the fuel tank with the driver side of the chassis, exposes marshals to explosive bolts and assumes they will only fire when you want them to, presumably writes off the chassis, and is not as simple as you seem to belive it to be.

[undersquare]

They should still wear helmets - there would be no reason not to add to the impact safety. 

 

 

Helmets would still be required. I don't think any racing series whether open or closed top would ever dispense with the helmet.

Many of the arguments against canopies are also arguments against helmets.

 

If we take a fresh look at it, the helmet adds weight and momentum to loads on the neck.  Conversely within a canopy there are no head impact threats to speak of, unless they are already beyond the scope of a lightweight helmet.

 

In many ways helmets are simply a convention in closed circuit-racing cars.  I suppose fire is the risk, but we've been talking about a cockpit sealed against fire and giving far more protection from it than a helmet and visor.

[muramasa]

Because getting out of the car in 5 seconds doesn't help you when a spring that popped off the car in front of you is about to smack you in the face at 180 mph.  Or when the undertray of another car is skimming a centimeter past your carotid.

yea. if anything in such situation a driver shouldnt be moved and removed in haste.

 

the point of 5sec rule is to ensure all those things like belt and head protection are released instantly. Unlike pit stop, 5sec itself isnt an absolute purpose. 5sec or 10sec, or even 30sec for that matter, doesnt make much difference to consequences.

To deal with fire threat, just put more extinguishers around the circuit is easy and effective solution imo.

 

btw have to remind that that Heidfeld car in fire had exotic exhaust position. Other cars wouldnt catch fire like that. What needs to be looked into is what would happen and what to do when the car goes upside down imo.

 

If we take a fresh look at it, the helmet adds weight and momentum to loads on the neck.  Conversely within a canopy there are no head impact threats to speak of, unless they are already beyond the scope of a lightweight helmet.

 

In many ways helmets are simply a convention in closed circuit-racing cars.  I suppose fire is the risk, but we've been talking about a cockpit sealed against fire and giving far more protection from it than a helmet and visor.

even if canopy is 100% safe, you would hit your head to sides of canopy or monocoque and steering wheel or whatever. Also helmet is significant fire protection. Helmet and side protection is a must and would stay no matter what.

[Clatter]

Many of the arguments against canopies are also arguments against helmets.

 

If we take a fresh look at it, the helmet adds weight and momentum to loads on the neck.  Conversely within a canopy there are no head impact threats to speak of, unless they are already beyond the scope of a lightweight helmet.

 

In many ways helmets are simply a convention in closed circuit-racing cars.  I suppose fire is the risk, but we've been talking about a cockpit sealed against fire and giving far more protection from it than a helmet and visor.

Really? I didn't even think there was an argument against helmets.

 

The chances are that any canopy will be in close proximity to the head and they will still need a helmet to protect the head from impacting it. 

[undersquare]

 

even if canopy is 100% safe, you would hit your head to sides of canopy or monocoque and steering wheel or whatever. Also helmet is significant fire protection. Helmet and side protection is a must and would stay no matter what.

The head doesn't project far beyond the shoulder, so it's not a given that there wouldn't be enough width inside a canopy.

 

The risk is relative. A canopy offers the opportunity to keep fire away from the cockpit altogether.  There are benefits of having drivers more visible, that might make canopies more likely to be accepted.

 

So I think minds should be open to the idea.  In fact IMO minds should be open to new ideas generally in F1.

[smitten]

The head doesn't project far beyond the shoulder, so it's not a given that there wouldn't be enough width inside a canopy.
 
The risk is relative. A canopy offers the opportunity to keep fire away from the cockpit altogether.  There are benefits of having drivers more visible, that might make canopies more likely to be accepted.
 
So I think minds should be open to the idea.  In fact IMO minds should be open to new ideas generally in F1.

And despite being tightly belted, there have been instances of helmeted heads hitting steering wheels although mainly mitigated by the HANS device. The chances of a head hitting "something" in the cockpit are high, and of course there is always the chance of cockpit intrusion even with a canopy.

There are no racing benefits to having no helmets, but apparently some people want to see their faces whilst racing.

A canopy may keep fire away from the cockpit, but what about a fire *in* a cockpit.

So far we have canopies, fire extinguishing systems, engine detatching systems all of which add weight. We also don't know how it can be arranged for fast driver egress (I don't buy arguments that it isn't needed), nor how the driver can be removed in their seat, how it will work in wet/humid weather, how marshals open/close the canopy in an emergency, how marshals disarm the engine detaiching system. or indeed how crash proof a canopy is (what happens in a crash, not what happens for an object strike).

All this complexity and added risk to mitigate a known, but rare, risk.

[Koen]

I found this interesting concept in motion:

[RA2]

Found this interesting one

[4MEN]

Another interesting project.

http://www.topgear.c...type-2014-07-08

[spacekid]

The head doesn't project far beyond the shoulder, so it's not a given that there wouldn't be enough width inside a canopy.

The risk is relative. A canopy offers the opportunity to keep fire away from the cockpit altogether. There are benefits of having drivers more visible, that might make canopies more likely to be accepted.

So I think minds should be open to the idea. In fact IMO minds should be open to new ideas generally in F1.

And what does the head rest against? The head and neck need to be restrained to prevent whiplash.

Canopies are NOT going to remove the requirement to wear helmets. I don't understand why some people keep pushing this idea, helmets aren't going anywhere.

[Gorma]

I guess to front roll hoop/canopy discussion will surface again. Bianchi went head first straight under the tractor and a front roll hoop/canopy might protected against that type of an accident.

[Tsarwash]

A front roll hoop might have made the accident worse. We just do not know at this moment. 

[Jon83]

I think I'd want to know a few facts before determining whether or not a front roll hoop would have made a positive difference.

 

I think reviving this thread based on what happened today is a bit premature. 

[sabjit]

I think personally the front roll hoop is overkill, firstly today's incident was totally avoidable other than means of using a roll hoop (we know that for sure). The roll hoop would only be useful in cases that are so rare people will ask what their for? Roll hoops and canopies should be a last resort.

 

And although aesthetics always takes a back seat for safety, but would something which would be largely redundant except for once every 25-30 years or so be worth it to take away one of F1's USPs?

[Gorma]

And although aesthetics always takes a back seat for safety, but would something which would be largely redundant except for once every 25-30 years or so be worth it to take away one of F1's USPs?

Wouldn't front roll hoops be more unique than not having them?

[Lee Nicolle]

Found this interesting one

Found in any Sports Car Race world wide. And still no good for headbutting a tractor!

[Sash1]

The front roll hoop from the video was tested to prevent a 20kg wheel hitting a driver at 225 km/h. That's a bit different from nosedive hitting a 4.000 kg vehicle at say 150 km/h -the latter impact has 89 times as much energy- Something a roll hoop will never be able to cope with. And canopies are nice, but you need a very strong support system underneath it to deal with these kinds of impact. The examples just shown look good, but will not help in a situation like this. They might even make it worse if they braek and penetrate the driver.

You must basically look at GT car frames or LMP monocoques if you want to build something that can deal with a big impact and keep surrounding the driver fully (check out the crashes of Alan McNish in 2011 and Toyota in 2012). But at some point, if your chassis/canope is able to for example prevent you from going under a crane, the sudden stop of the whole structure will put an enormous stress on your body at which point your head will be fine, but the internal organs, nervous system and stuff like that will be ripped off causing internal bleeding or no connection between your brain and the rest of your body.

 

The best way to prevent this kind of thing (Bianchi) happening is no crane or other objects on the track without a serious reduction in speed (enforced speed zones with a limiter, like a pitlane limiter with a higher setting -or not-). After taking everything out that you could possibly be hit, the mass is a given and the only thing you can influence to reduce impact energy is speed. A safety car is too slow to deploy, so look for alternatives.

[Kristian]

Exactly; this incident tore off the rear roll bar, a front one would not have made a jot of difference. In fact it might have ended up causing more damage if it was pushed into the cockpit area. 

[jez6363]

From what I can gather the impact was either partly sideways or moving backwards and the roll hoop broke off. Whether the impact was the roll hoop first or not isn't public yet I think.

 

Sasha - the energy is 0.5 * M * V * V crudely. Speed is less. Weight is more - but its the 600kg weight of the car not the crane. So the amount of energy is about 15x. But cars are designed to handle stopping extremely quickly (eg when head on into barriers). It depends on the speed change - the crane would have moved somewhat in the impact as well spreading the energy (like a barrier gives when you crash, though probably not nearly as much). With the headon impact of a wheel, the energy is more immediately dissipated (though maybe not that much - it would depend on many factors).

 

If it was a rear impact then the roll hoop is probably in its least strong orientation. The front roll hoop that I proposed (the bars from the rear to the front, anchored well ahead of the steering wheel, would hugely strengthen  the rear roll hoop. In fact only an exactly side on impact wouldn't benefit significantly from my proposed design.

 

Also I wonder if a full canopy could well have provided better protection against a side impact that the front roll hoop though.

 

Probably the answer to this is better management of recovery vehicles on track - either by safety car, or even a really simple solution of strapping tecpro barrier to one side of the recovery vehicle, or having a second recovery tractor which simply has a length of Tecpro barrier strapped to the side, that positions itself to provide a shield for the recovery vehicle as it moves or indeed to shelter a stopped car. It wouldn't be possible in all situations, but it should work in most.

 

What you can not have is a situation where the time taken to pass through a section of double waved yellows is still critical to racing - at the moment any time lost through yellow and double yellow sections still is time lost, so drivers have an incentive to slow down as little as possible. It is wrong that a yellow means to make a minute and often meaningless lift but it is hard to know what else to do. For double yellows though - just force the cars to drop to e.g. half speed until the next green - something akin to a pitlane limiter system. Or use the system already in place to stop cars speeding when the safety car is out - double yellows need a serious reduction in speed that is equitable to all drivers (who have to pass through it, or maybe all drivers wherever on the track, so that if its short duration it doesn't just disadvantage those who pass through it). Essentially make it like a safety car, but without the actual safety car - use the systems to slow the whole race down until it is cleared, but be able to quickly get it going again.

[Sash1]

You are correct, I calculated with the wrong mass. 

[TimRTC]

If they bring anything in, I would anticipate a canopy before anything else.

 

The NHRA have allowed their introduction in TF Dragster, although not made it mandatory and having now seen them in person, they look very sleek and well integrated - indeed the older open cockpit rails look rather dated in comparison.

 

[sabjit]

In my opinion, altering the designs of the cars should be a last resort. This can be easily dealt with without altering the cars design (or other more aesthetically pleasing solutions), crashing into trucks/tractors can be solved by parking the truck somewhere else or using a different type of tractor with lower ground clearance (or using cranes where possible).

 

The for debris flying debris, take measures to stop parts falling off cars. And we have seen this happen, casings around exposed parts to prevent them falling off and tethers on wheels.

 

Prevention is always better than the cure

[TimRTC]

Interesting to note that in the WEC, closed cockpits will be mandatory after 2017 in the prototype classes, something that seems to have slipped through without much fanfare.

[morrino]

Jet-fighter's style canopies would look really nice IMO. I don't think too many people would complain about aesthetics this time.

[redreni]

Would the shape of the front impact structure have mattered in the Bianchi crash? What I mean is, the vertical roll hoop was just ripped off, so a similar structure in front of the cockpit would presumably have just been ripped off as well and would have struck the driver. But metal bars running forward from the rear roll hoop and joining the chassis in front of the cockpit would presumably have had some effect in deflecting the tractor counterweight upwards and away from the driver's head? Maybe it wouldn't have been strong enough to prevent contact between the driver's helment and the tractor altogether, but even if it failed it would surely have pushed the intruding lump of metal up and away from the driver to some extent?

[Tenmantaylor]

It's really hard to answer if a canopy could have protected Bianchi in this situation; probably the worst crash situation imaginable. It might have helped lift the tractor slightly earlier and stopped his helmet taking the initial impact. On the other hand it might have acted as a ramp that wedged the car under the tractor and made it worse. The height of the rear of the tractor, the angle he went in, everything was against an F1, nay any, low racing car protecting the driver in that impact. The roll structure is super strong yet it was wiped off and the car kept going as it skewed off to the right. As the roll structure wedges under the tractor the car grounds, sparks fly off the underbody and force of the impact fully transfers into the tractor, lifting the rear of it off the ground and simultaneously removing the roll structure. The fact that the Sauber was hanging off the front of the tractor contributed to the lifting of the rear of the tractor as it see sawed on it's front axle and potentially made the impact ever so slightly less than it would have been had it not been carrying Sutil's car. Having watched the clip a few times now (with a heavy, heavy heart) it get's worse every time  . Jules' Helmet clearly takes the initial hit on the lower edge of the tractor's rear engine cover before the roll structure takes the rest of the brunt. The nose also takes some of the forces as it wedges under the sloped bodywork and contributes to spitting car sideways. I hope that somehow, by some miracle, that there was enough give in his seat position, straps (and body to an extent) to allow his head to get pushed down into the cockpit and avoid some of the massive front-left force. The only lucky thing that happened was that all of the brave and committed marshals were unharmed. Could easily have been a couple fatalities on top of Jules' injuries.

 

I've said it before many times in crash/near miss/helmet strike/canopy threads of recent years, there are many more types of accidents that are yet to happen than have happened... and it's shame we only seem to learn from the ones that have happened rather than predict what can and quite frankly is likely to happen given time. The chance of this happening is quite high in extreme wet conditions like this. Remember Brazil when about 5 cars crashed in the same spot due to a river? There are only 18 corners at Suzuka and the chances of two cars crashing in same spot in two laps during 5 or so laps of extreme weather is still pretty high in the grand scheme of probability.

[pingu666]

i think the main advantage of the canopy is if its smooth then stuff can "glide" along it and you have really good any angle protection from random things

[neog]

If the think fans are losing interest in F1 now, wait until they close off the cockpits. Carpark circuits, no noise, closed off cockpits, zero risk, danger, bye bye F1.

Edited by neog, 07 October 2014 - 01:44.

[Gorma]

Would the shape of the front impact structure have mattered in the Bianchi crash? What I mean is, the vertical roll hoop was just ripped off, so a similar structure in front of the cockpit would presumably have just been ripped off as well and would have struck the driver. But metal bars running forward from the rear roll hoop and joining the chassis in front of the cockpit would presumably have had some effect in deflecting the tractor counterweight upwards and away from the driver's head? Maybe it wouldn't have been strong enough to prevent contact between the driver's helment and the tractor altogether, but even if it failed it would surely have pushed the intruding lump of metal up and away from the driver to some extent?

At least it would slowed down the car and acted as a deforming crash structure.