Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Front roll hoops for protection by FIA


  • Please log in to reply
617 replies to this topic

#501 midgrid

midgrid
  • Member

  • 4,709 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 06 April 2013 - 23:10

A tinted visor does not improve vision into a glare source, it merely makes it feel more comfortable. Or if you know otherwise let's have a link. The ideal is direct vision with no surfaces, but a helmet visor with tearoffs has multiple layers each of which adds scatter and glare, and other than tearoffs there's no way of keeping the visor clean. A dirty surface adds scatter and glare, obviously.

So this line of argument is just adding weight to the case for a canopy, which has the minimum one surface and can keep that surface clean.


Yes, sorry, that was lazy wording on my part. But surely better comfort equals improved safety in any case?

In any case, I'm not arguing for or against a canopy at the moment: I just think that undersquare's reasoning doesn't make sense.

Advertisement

#502 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 06 April 2013 - 23:15

No. There´s only need for one: better head protection.

Yes.


Oh really. Of course driver safety is the issue. However for people wittering 'selfishly' about a canopy spoiling the show, I'm pointing out it can do the opposite.

#503 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 06 April 2013 - 23:25

Yes, sorry, that was lazy wording on my part. But surely better comfort equals improved safety in any case?

In any case, I'm not arguing for or against a canopy at the moment: I just think that undersquare's reasoning doesn't make sense.


Well you might think my reasoning doesn't make sense, but so far you haven't shown how. Comfort and safety don't have much of a relationship, in this context, or if they do it's inverse. Afaics drivers could just not wear shades while they're competing, like tennis players or footballers.

#504 R Soul

R Soul
  • Member

  • 588 posts
  • Joined: August 06

Posted 06 April 2013 - 23:26

If a driver gets dirt on his visor, he can remove one of the tear-offs. How would such a problem be dealt with if the cars had canopies?

#505 Skinnyguy

Skinnyguy
  • Member

  • 4,189 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 06 April 2013 - 23:29

However for people wittering 'selfishly' about a canopy spoiling the show, I'm pointing out it can do the opposite.


I think you´re all wrong. That´s my view on it.

A canopy doesn´t mean anything good or bad to the series. People fearing them as the end of single seater tradition are obtuse and selfish, putting their ridiculous and irrelevant dogmas about "how a car should look" and how "they´ve always been" over safety. People hailing how it opens a chance to see drivers face are hailing something that for me has no extra value at all.

C´mon, it´s just a piece of stuff added on top of cars that makes no difference at all in the sporting side of the series. It only affect aesthetics (for good or bad, I don´t know), and putting that over a potential safety gain is totally inmature.

#506 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 2,443 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 06 April 2013 - 23:30

There was some calculations done last year that showed a carbon fibre wheel and low profile tyre combination would weigh half the current solution. Half the weight, half the energy.


Most sensible post on this thread. In the last 20 years 50% of the fatalities in F1 have been marshalls not drivers. And the two driver fatalities were from accidents that would definitely not be fatal now. Yet the safety of marshalls and spectators has improved significantly less than driver safety.

The fronal roll hoop and canopy solutions might protect drivers but would do nothing to prevent the much more likely scenario of bystander injury. Reducing the weight of the wheels and tyres should reduce the hazard significantly, especially if it meant the wheel tethers would actually become capable of retaining the wheels in the vicinity of the cars.

On the issue of driver safety I don't tend towards either extreme in the debate - those who think any measure that improves driver safety has to be accepted regardless need to explain why they don't simply favour banning motorsport, which would eliminate the risk straight away. But those who say well, it's always been dangerous and it always will be who cares, need to remember that with that attitude we'd still be losing drivers and spectators and marshalls at the rate we were in the killer years, and that would be no good either.

So I think the proposals should be looked at, we need to ask what the effect on safety would be, and we also should listen to those who argue it would harm F1 in a sporting sense, because if we're not bothered about the sport and our enjoyment of it, then the safest thing would be to pack up and go home.

I recall somebody, I think it was Pat Symmonds, saying of the forward roll hoop that although one might think it would obscure the driver's view, it would end up being like the bulkhead in a road car - you would just get used to it. Problem is, if you pay attention to what happens when you approach a junction in your road car, sometimes the bulkhead does get in the way and so, unconsciously, you move your head forward or to the side so you can see around it. That's what the chap in that 70s single seater pictured earlier in this thread probably did, too, to see around his roll cage. Except F1 drivers can't do that now. If you put that roll hoop in front of an F1 driver's head he'll have two massive blind spots. I also note that the crash tests they've done have been with wheels that dont have suspension peices attached to them and pointing at the driver at the point of impact. That's not the scenario that faced Henry Surtees. So that's a disadvantage of the roll hoop as compared to the canopy.

Apparently the FIA is not favouring the canopy bacause, as things stand, it can't be made strong enough to give the sought after protection against intrusion and, whatever people think, it's not going to make cockpit evacuation any easier, is it? So I'd assume these ideas will need to be developed further before we'll see either of them used.

#507 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 06 April 2013 - 23:31

If a driver gets dirt on his visor, he can remove one of the tear-offs. How would such a problem be dealt with if the cars had canopies?


He'd operate the wash/wipe, as I said :)

#508 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 06 April 2013 - 23:38

I think you´re all wrong. That´s my view on it.

A canopy doesn´t mean anything good or bad to the series. People fearing them as the end of single seater tradition are obtuse and selfish, putting their ridiculous and irrelevant dogmas about "how a car should look" and how "they´ve always been" over safety. People hailing how it opens a chance to see drivers face are hailing something that for me has no extra value at all.

C´mon, it´s just a piece of stuff added on top of cars that makes no difference at all in the sporting side of the series. It only affect aesthetics (for good or bad, I don´t know), and putting that over a potential safety gain is totally inmature.


If you personally wouldn't get anything out of seeing drivers' faces then fair enough, but it's quite often mentioned in commentary when there's a wet or night race and the 'white visors' come out, so I think a lot of people would.

#509 Skinnyguy

Skinnyguy
  • Member

  • 4,189 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 06 April 2013 - 23:46

On the issue of driver safety I don't tend towards either extreme in the debate - those who think any measure that improves driver safety has to be accepted regardless need to explain why they don't simply favour banning motorsport, which would eliminate the risk straight away.


Sorry, but that´s nonsense. :lol: 1st class demagogy.

First of all, this case doesn´t need any explanation, it´s really easy. There´s a potential solution making an activity safer than it is currently. With no downside in the shape of an impact to the sporting side of the activity too. So it improves safety without hurting or changing that activity. It´s that easy.

If that´s the explanation you wanted, I think you could have figured out by yourself why this change is worth for some of us. Happy now?

#510 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 07 April 2013 - 00:00

Apparently the FIA is not favouring the canopy bacause, as things stand, it can't be made strong enough to give the sought after protection against intrusion and, whatever people think, it's not going to make cockpit evacuation any easier, is it? So I'd assume these ideas will need to be developed further before we'll see either of them used.


Yeah istr it was the extent of intrusion of the frozen chicken and visual distortion through the curves of the canopy that FIA weren't satisfied with. I don't know about the visual distortion but I though the level of protection was impressive and well worthwhile. I'm sure they checked the mood here too, and I bet it had an influence, unfortunately.

The forward hoop seems difficult for vision and a very partial solution with all the things that could get past. Though in theory if it's no more than about 6cm tubing drivers can always see 'round' it with one eye or the other.


#511 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 2,443 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 07 April 2013 - 00:13

Sorry, but that´s nonsense. :lol: 1st class demagogy.

First of all, this case doesn´t need any explanation, it´s really easy. There´s a potential solution making an activity safer than it is currently. With no downside in the shape of an impact to the sporting side of the activity too. So it improves safety without hurting or changing that activity. It´s that easy.

If that´s the explanation you wanted, I think you could have figured out by yourself why this change is worth for some of us. Happy now?


Calm down, mate. I didn't even say I was against this. If you're arguing that the roll hoop or canopy would improve safety and, in your opinion, there's no sporting downside, then you're not arguing that any measure that improves safety has to be accepted regardless, are you? So you're getting upset about something I said that doesn't even apply to you.

Edited by redreni, 07 April 2013 - 00:13.


#512 midgrid

midgrid
  • Member

  • 4,709 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 07 April 2013 - 00:24

Well you might think my reasoning doesn't make sense, but so far you haven't shown how. Comfort and safety don't have much of a relationship, in this context, or if they do it's inverse. Afaics drivers could just not wear shades while they're competing, like tennis players or footballers.


Why don't they have a relationship? Surely a driver who is suffering from some form of discomfort - whether caused by being dazzled, or cramp from an ill-fitting seat, or dehydration from a failed water bottle - is more likely to be a danger on track? I suppose you could argue that a driver who is too comfortable will theoretically lose his sense of fear and drive dangerously, but I don't think that's realistic in this case.

Comparing F1 to tennis or football in this respect is also irrelevant, because whilst being dazzled in these sports may impair performance slightly and increase the chances of making an error, the danger that arises from such errors is insignificant to that which exists in F1. Tennis players and football goalkeepers occasionally wear baseball caps to reduce the effect of the sun in any case, and it's obvious why they don't wear full-face helmets. ;)

Edited by midgrid, 07 April 2013 - 00:26.


#513 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 07 April 2013 - 08:33

Why don't they have a relationship? Surely a driver who is suffering from some form of discomfort - whether caused by being dazzled, or cramp from an ill-fitting seat, or dehydration from a failed water bottle - is more likely to be a danger on track? I suppose you could argue that a driver who is too comfortable will theoretically lose his sense of fear and drive dangerously, but I don't think that's realistic in this case.

Comparing F1 to tennis or football in this respect is also irrelevant, because whilst being dazzled in these sports may impair performance slightly and increase the chances of making an error, the danger that arises from such errors is insignificant to that which exists in F1. Tennis players and football goalkeepers occasionally wear baseball caps to reduce the effect of the sun in any case, and it's obvious why they don't wear full-face helmets.;)


I know this is circuit racing we're discussing, but I'm gonna point out we've been round this loop before :) . If vision is the priority you would definitely not stay with helmets and tearoffs: drivers can only 'clean' the visor half a dozen times in a race and all the extra surfaces can only make dazzle worse. A colour filter reduces contrast and thus visual acuity. So trying to optimise driver vision quickly leads you to a nice clear canopy with F1 aircon/demisting and F1 wash/wipe with both bug-removing and dilute sprays a la Porsche :D.

You can speculate about comfort making safety better or making safety worse, but the reason it's so ambiguous is that there's no relationship and no data to indicate one.

On football - brain injury is an issue with headers, that's why they keep making the ball lighter. But helmets would be absurd would they not? Because fans want to watch people playing football, not helmets on legs....

#514 Rubens Hakkamacher

Rubens Hakkamacher
  • Member

  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 07 April 2013 - 18:32

If a driver gets dirt on his visor, he can remove one of the tear-offs. How would such a problem be dealt with if the cars had canopies?


How do you deal with that in your car with a windshield...?



#515 Rubens Hakkamacher

Rubens Hakkamacher
  • Member

  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 07 April 2013 - 18:37

If being trapped in a rolled over car is such a pressing issue (despite having not occurred recently), then it should already be mandated to have a way for the seat to come out of the bottom of the car - because the clearance between the roll hoop and the front of the car effectively would trap the driver now if such an incidence happened.

The cars remaining light enough for marshals to flip over is a more practical solution to that "problem". Which isn't as pressing as cockpit incursions (that would not be solved by roll bars).


Again, on the subject of visibility distortion: not an issue, if one has ever sat in the cockpit of a modern fighter you would know.



#516 Skinnyguy

Skinnyguy
  • Member

  • 4,189 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 07 April 2013 - 19:21

Calm down, mate. I didn't even say I was against this. If you're arguing that the roll hoop or canopy would improve safety and, in your opinion, there's no sporting downside, then you're not arguing that any measure that improves safety has to be accepted regardless, are you? So you're getting upset about something I said that doesn't even apply to you.


Of course I get upset. No one is even arguing that. If there are so many people not objecting to canopies is because they don´t disturb the sporting side. No one is asking for RC cars or other ridiculous measures to be accepted.

Safety measures that would make the sporting side of motoracing pointless (like 40 mph speed limit) have only been mentioned by anti-canopy lobby as reduction to absurd arguments.


#517 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,241 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 07 April 2013 - 20:21

How do you deal with that in your car with a windshield...?


Big difference between a car with a relatively flat screen and the canopies as discussed, plus on a road car they can put the functionality above the weight and drag penalties.


#518 R Soul

R Soul
  • Member

  • 588 posts
  • Joined: August 06

Posted 08 April 2013 - 00:04

Since drivers just put up with water streaming off their visors, they might just put up with water streaming off the canopies, but with visors being so close to the drivers' eyes, it might be easier for them to look through it. I admit that's just speculation though.

If wipers were used, they'd have to be very strong to withstand the aero and g forces. It would also not be allowed to impede the driver's quick escape from the car.

But rain is only one issue. Dirt would have to be removed, but a wiper on its own might just smear it around. Would the cars also have to have washer fluid and a little nozzle?

#519 Jackmancer

Jackmancer
  • Member

  • 2,800 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 13 April 2014 - 08:21

Just to revive this topic a bit;

 

During the start of the Indy Lights race at St. Petersburg, a driver came close to faceplanting a tyre; 

https://www.youtube....?v=mu25zY50Y7w#


Edited by Jackmancer, 13 April 2014 - 08:21.


Advertisement

#520 chipmcdonald

chipmcdonald
  • Member

  • 755 posts
  • Joined: November 06

Posted 13 April 2014 - 08:46

Just to revive this topic a bit;

 

During the start of the Indy Lights race at St. Petersburg, a driver came close to faceplanting a tyre; 

https://www.youtube....?v=mu25zY50Y7w#

 

 

We're going to wait until someone gets killed, don't you see?  That's how humans "work".  Make things as safe as possible, then insist the driver has to have his head out in the open - then argue that there is some technical problem to having a canopy EVEN THOUGH MOST NON-OPEN WHEEL RACE CARS ALREADY HAVE WINDSHIELDS.  

 

Someone has to die first before "it's obvious" F1 needs canopies.   It's ridiculous.   :mad:



#521 NotAPineapple

NotAPineapple
  • Member

  • 93 posts
  • Joined: July 13

Posted 13 April 2014 - 09:06

We're going to wait until someone gets killed, don't you see?  That's how humans "work".  Make things as safe as possible, then insist the driver has to have his head out in the open - then argue that there is some technical problem to having a canopy EVEN THOUGH MOST NON-OPEN WHEEL RACE CARS ALREADY HAVE WINDSHIELDS.  

 

Someone has to die first before "it's obvious" F1 needs canopies.   It's ridiculous.   :mad:

 

I've never understood this mentality...

 

Canopies may stop a direct hit from killing a driver... then another problem will become more prominent -

 

e.g. secondary impacts after the crash zones have broken off, will, given enough time, eventually kill a driver. Then it will be so obvious that the crash structures need to be made bigger and/or the cars made slower.

 

Then the next issue will be flying cars, after someone goes up and hits the bridge at Monza. Again, given enough time it will happen. Then it will be so obvious that the cars need to be made slower down that straight and/or be fitted with front rear bumpers...

 

Next issue will be vertical impacts (since there is no crash structure above the roll hoop. Eventually one day, this will also kill a driver who for some reason manages to roll over and hit something hard enough with the top of the car. Then again it wil be obvious that the cars need to be slowed down or given some ridiculous structure above the roll hoop.

 

Then after all of this, there will still be a driver killed because he simply has gone off the track at 300km/h and hit something hard. As long as the cars are capable of doing that speed, this will always be a possibility.

 

In the end the cars will be a closed cockpit, closed wheels, cotton wool ball doing speed limited to 130km/h...

 

Still, someone will find a way to be injured - after which the cars will be fitted with an ariel to allow the driver to control it via remote from the pits because its not safe to be inside.

 

Then the driver will retire from formula 1 and kill himself in a skiing incident.

 

Go figure...



#522 Crafty

Crafty
  • Member

  • 4,056 posts
  • Joined: May 05

Posted 13 April 2014 - 09:09

We're going to wait until someone gets killed, don't you see?  That's how humans "work".  Make things as safe as possible, then insist the driver has to have his head out in the open - then argue that there is some technical problem to having a canopy EVEN THOUGH MOST NON-OPEN WHEEL RACE CARS ALREADY HAVE WINDSHIELDS.  

 

Someone has to die first before "it's obvious" F1 needs canopies.   It's ridiculous.   :mad:

 

Its not obvious at all. How many "near misses" have we had this year ? how many single seater races have taken place all over the world ?

 

Note that Indy driver headed directly for the debris field, everyone else stayed well clear. They also don't use wheel tethers IIRC.

 

If you want to watch enclosed cars LPM1 & other sportscar racing is available. 



#523 bourbon

bourbon
  • Member

  • 6,437 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 13 April 2014 - 09:42

We need these.  :up:



#524 muramasa

muramasa
  • Member

  • 3,025 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 13 April 2014 - 10:08

same argument repeating again and again.

 

"Canopies may make some aspect safer but another issue would arise"

> "motorsport is dangerous, nothing is 100% safe."

>> "why not just go round circuit in 100km/h or race by remote control from simulator then"

 

well i wonder that's exactly what people in 50s or 60s, or even 70s or 80s, would have said if proposed "head protection structure", "side/front/rear impact standard", "current track safety equipment/measure/standard for marshalls and spectators", etc etc.

 

Thankfully techies are not type of people who only moan, but are the people who assess and pursue any possibilities. Thanks to their cumulative and collective effort, basically EVERYTHING in our lives gets safer and safer.

 

driver retire safely from F1 but may die in ski? well, you may well survive without causing any accident by ignoring red signal on street but die at home by slipping. What's the point in comparing sth completely unrelated?

 



#525 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 13 April 2014 - 10:26

Just to revive this topic a bit;

 

During the start of the Indy Lights race at St. Petersburg, a driver came close to faceplanting a tyre; 

https://www.youtube....?v=mu25zY50Y7w#

Wow that is scary.

 

It missed, so nothing will change.  If it had hit and killed the driver, canopies would be back on the table.



#526 Skinnyguy

Skinnyguy
  • Member

  • 4,189 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 13 April 2014 - 10:33

I've never understood this mentality...

Canopies may stop a direct hit from killing a driver... then another problem will become more prominent -

e.g. secondary impacts after the crash zones have broken off, will, given enough time, eventually kill a driver. Then it will be so obvious that the crash structures need to be made bigger and/or the cars made slower.

Then the next issue will be flying cars, after someone goes up and hits the bridge at Monza. Again, given enough time it will happen. Then it will be so obvious that the cars need to be made slower down that straight and/or be fitted with front rear bumpers...

Next issue will be vertical impacts (since there is no crash structure above the roll hoop. Eventually one day, this will also kill a driver who for some reason manages to roll over and hit something hard enough with the top of the car. Then again it wil be obvious that the cars need to be slowed down or given some ridiculous structure above the roll hoop.

Then after all of this, there will still be a driver killed because he simply has gone off the track at 300km/h and hit something hard. As long as the cars are capable of doing that speed, this will always be a possibility.

In the end the cars will be a closed cockpit, closed wheels, cotton wool ball doing speed limited to 130km/h...

Still, someone will find a way to be injured - after which the cars will be fitted with an ariel to allow the driver to control it via remote from the pits because its not safe to be inside.

Then the driver will retire from formula 1 and kill himself in a skiing incident.

Go figure...


Worst strawman ever on this forum. And the bar was quite high recently. Congratulations.

#527 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 13 April 2014 - 10:36

I've never understood this mentality...

 

Canopies may stop a direct hit from killing a driver... then another problem will become more prominent -

 

e.g. secondary impacts after the crash zones have broken off, will, given enough time, eventually kill a driver. Then it will be so obvious that the crash structures need to be made bigger and/or the cars made slower.

 

Then the next issue will be flying cars, after someone goes up and hits the bridge at Monza. Again, given enough time it will happen. Then it will be so obvious that the cars need to be made slower down that straight and/or be fitted with front rear bumpers...

 

Next issue will be vertical impacts (since there is no crash structure above the roll hoop. Eventually one day, this will also kill a driver who for some reason manages to roll over and hit something hard enough with the top of the car. Then again it wil be obvious that the cars need to be slowed down or given some ridiculous structure above the roll hoop.

 

Then after all of this, there will still be a driver killed because he simply has gone off the track at 300km/h and hit something hard. As long as the cars are capable of doing that speed, this will always be a possibility.

 

In the end the cars will be a closed cockpit, closed wheels, cotton wool ball doing speed limited to 130km/h...

 

Still, someone will find a way to be injured - after which the cars will be fitted with an ariel to allow the driver to control it via remote from the pits because its not safe to be inside.

 

Then the driver will retire from formula 1 and kill himself in a skiing incident.

 

Go figure...

Just because you can't remove all risk doesn't mean you shouldn't reduce it.

 

People used to survive road car crashes before seat belts...and some use to argue they'd rather "be thrown clear" even though the data showed they'd be 4x as likely to die if they were.

 

And it's not really an honest argument to pretend that any improvement has to lead to some stupid extreme.



#528 jez6363

jez6363
  • Member

  • 573 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 13 April 2014 - 15:00

Nice to see the variety of replies, and nice to see that people are more positive towards canopies than they used to be. There are probably other advantages, to do with visibility and condensation, and wet racing - especially if eg we get some decent rear view mirror tech in there with infrared cameras, to allow people to see better when its raining.  Maybe even forward vision improvements - F1 speeds are quite demanding, and while sports cars can use wipers, I guess F1 would have to be more innovative. That said, visibility is obviously not a big problem for the other types of racing which already use cockpits so I can't see why F1 would have a bigger problem.

The visibility argument, as in seeing the drivers faces, is also becoming irrelevant now - face cams are improving this, and a canopy would actually make it easier to see the driver in bad conditions. Also I don't think many people who watch F1 spend their time peering at the faces of the drivers...

 

That said, a forward roll hoop and bars forwards to provide a deflection ramp, and backwards to the rear roll hoop is my preferred solution, to allow a fast exit for the driver and provide greater strength than a canopy, especially after seeing the Gutierrez flipover at the Bahrain F1 race.



#529 morrino

morrino
  • Member

  • 141 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 13 April 2014 - 17:20

I would love to see jetfighter canopies in F1.



#530 Myrvold

Myrvold
  • Member

  • 2,695 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 13 April 2014 - 18:17

Then you have a hard crash, ending upside down, the car catches fire and you are stuck.

#531 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 13 April 2014 - 19:45

Then you have a hard crash, ending upside down, the car catches fire and you are stuck.

You are safe inside your bubble and within the mandated two minutes rescue arrives.

 

Much better than perhaps being trapped or unconscious while the fire burns on your race suit, gloves and visor.



#532 NotAPineapple

NotAPineapple
  • Member

  • 93 posts
  • Joined: July 13

Posted 13 April 2014 - 20:45

You are safe inside your bubble and within the mandated two minutes rescue arrives.

 

Much better than perhaps being trapped or unconscious while the fire burns on your race suit, gloves and visor.

 

Not to mention, only yesterday Marco Sorensen said he was trapped in his Formula Renault cockpit after it overturned on the Monza straight...



#533 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,241 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 13 April 2014 - 20:46

You are safe inside your bubble and within the mandated two minutes rescue arrives.

 

Much better than perhaps being trapped or unconscious while the fire burns on your race suit, gloves and visor.

What if the fire manages to get inside the cockpit?



#534 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,241 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 13 April 2014 - 20:49

In that clip why did the driver just keep driving at the wheel? looked like he had plenty of time to brake and/or steer away.



#535 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 13 April 2014 - 20:51

What if the fire manages to get inside the cockpit?

That would be bad of course.

It's natural to fear being trapped, but we have to weigh the probabilities of the different events and outcomes.

#536 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 2,163 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 13 April 2014 - 21:48

Its not obvious at all. How many "near misses" have we had this year ? how many single seater races have taken place all over the world ?

 

Note that Indy driver headed directly for the debris field, everyone else stayed well clear. They also don't use wheel tethers IIRC.

 

If you want to watch enclosed cars LPM1 & other sportscar racing is available. 

 

As far as I know IndyCar and Indy Lights both use wheel tethers now. Not sure why it didn't work in this case though.


Edited by johnmhinds, 13 April 2014 - 21:50.


#537 Boxerevo

Boxerevo
  • Member

  • 1,934 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 13 April 2014 - 22:09

I would love to see jetfighter canopies in F1.

Me too.



#538 Retrofly

Retrofly
  • Member

  • 452 posts
  • Joined: July 13

Posted 13 April 2014 - 22:17

I don't understand this talk of upside down cars on fire.

For starters an F1 car is difficult to get out of upside down, canopy or no canopy.

 

How often do F1 cars catch fire due to a crash? Not very often, can't actually remember the last time that happened. All other fires were malfunctions.

 

More closed top racers are raced than open top and I dont recall a recent incident of a driver getting stuck in the car on fire.

 

Then you have Henry Surtees and to a less extent Massa. If the guy above was 1 foot to the right, then him too.



#539 mikerally

mikerally
  • Member

  • 84 posts
  • Joined: January 14

Posted 13 April 2014 - 23:00

they have onboard fire extinguishers in rally cars that spray the driver and co-driver via the vents in the cockpit. so i think something similar could be done and anyways as i said they have extinguishers even in F1 cars. so the fire wouldn't be such a problem.



Advertisement

#540 Fulcrum

Fulcrum
  • Member

  • 201 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 14 April 2014 - 10:11

As far as I know IndyCar and Indy Lights both use wheel tethers now. Not sure why it didn't work in this case though.

IndyCar use wheel tethers since 1999. Indy Lights start using in 2002.


Edited by Fulcrum, 14 April 2014 - 10:14.


#541 Longtimefan

Longtimefan
  • Member

  • 2,885 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 14 April 2014 - 10:37

I'm personally against canopies as I fear for a driver trapped inside, I never want to see another Roger Williamson incident in my lifetime.

also the front roll hoop?  totally ridiculous.

 

I think they have done wonders with safety in the last 40 years, its amazing how much its changed and how safe F1 now is but unless the cars pootle around the track at 30 mph, F1 will never be totally safe, of course nobody ever wants to see another driver lose their life but there has to be a point where you say F1 is as safe as its going to get, adding gimmicks like canopies or front roll hoops will cause other issues and its simple.. if a driver doesn't want to accept the risk, they don't have to drive, there will be dozens that would happily jump into the car.



#542 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 14 April 2014 - 11:17

I'm personally against canopies as I fear for a driver trapped inside, I never want to see another Roger Williamson incident in my lifetime.

also the front roll hoop?  totally ridiculous.

 

I think they have done wonders with safety in the last 40 years, its amazing how much its changed and how safe F1 now is but unless the cars pootle around the track at 30 mph, F1 will never be totally safe, of course nobody ever wants to see another driver lose their life but there has to be a point where you say F1 is as safe as its going to get, adding gimmicks like canopies or front roll hoops will cause other issues and its simple.. if a driver doesn't want to accept the risk, they don't have to drive, there will be dozens that would happily jump into the car.

I don't think it's helpful to invoke the Roger Williamson tragedy, that's just emoting about the issue.  Hardly any of the factors that contributed in 1973 would apply now, and he was trapped without a canopy, not with.

 

A canopy as I've pointed out would isolate the driver from the fire long enough for rescue to arrive.  If anything the Roger Williamson crash is an example of why a canopy would be a good thing.

 

As for stopping safety development because "it's as good as it's going to get", I think that's indefensible.  And inconsistent with your stated fear about a driver being trapped - which fortunately suggests you do care after all!!  

 

Mercifully that is also inconsistent with your idea that if exceptional young men want to take an unnecessary risk that's fine the rest of us can all stand around and watch them get maimed or killed.  After all the drivers would still be driving 1960's death-traps if that was all there was to drive.  The rest of us have to look after them.



#543 sabjit

sabjit
  • Member

  • 341 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 14 April 2014 - 11:20

Canopies would be fine.

 

I am against the roll hoop though.



#544 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,463 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 14 April 2014 - 12:19

What if the fire manages to get inside the cockpit?

They should invent some sort of crash foam like they had in Demolition Man which goes off and fills the cockpit and protect the occupant!

 

As you know, the drivers also wear fireproof overalls, balaclava's etc and while I'm sure that this can't remove the risk I would still suggest that having a cockpit is better, overall, than not having one since the number of incidents which involve fires are really very low these days.



#545 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Member

  • 7,451 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 14 April 2014 - 13:30

As far as I know IndyCar and Indy Lights both use wheel tethers now. Not sure why it didn't work in this case though.

 

This always seems to come up in topics like this. The wheel tether is only as strong as it's mounting, or indeed, the chassis. Something has to give in a big enough impact.



#546 Ali_G

Ali_G
  • Member

  • 18,157 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 14 April 2014 - 15:32

What has to be asked is

 

1.  Just how likely is it that a sizeable amount of fuel leaked from the tank will catch fire and

2.  How difficult would it be to fully seal off the engine compartment from the drivers compartment to ensure flames simply cannot reach the driver. 

 

I'd imagine in this day and age, a rogue items hitting the driver at speed is a much more dangerous prospect than what fire presents.  If anything, a canopy will probably protect the driver from the flames which are likely to be burning outside of the canopy.


Edited by Ali_G, 14 April 2014 - 15:33.


#547 smitten

smitten
  • Member

  • 1,437 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 14 April 2014 - 15:43

What has to be asked is

 

1.  Just how likely is it that a sizeable amount of fuel leaked from the tank will catch fire and

2.  How difficult would it be to fully seal off the engine compartment from the drivers compartment to ensure flames simply cannot reach the driver. 

 

I'd imagine in this day and age, a rogue items hitting the driver at speed is a much more dangerous prospect than what fire presents.  If anything, a canopy will probably protect the driver from the flames which are likely to be burning outside of the canopy.

 

1) High

2) Impossible

 

but you are asking the wrong questions, IMO.  A sizeable fuel leak is always likely to catch fire, but fire is not the only fuel risk: taken in the context of the above, how likely is a leak not how likely are the possible effects?

 

There are additional risks from canopies, all of which are fixable with weight.  They steam up, they are dangerous whilst inverted, they are difficult to see through when raining, they are potentially hard to remove a driver "in seat", and they are hard to engineer to guarantee driver egress in the mandated 5(?) seconds.  Throw weight and size at them, and some of these problems are trivial, but they all add risk to mitigate cockpit intrusions which are rare but well publicised.



#548 jez6363

jez6363
  • Member

  • 573 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 14 April 2014 - 17:23

Longtimefan, Subjit - any chance you could share your reasoning why you are against a front roll hoop? Roll cages are absolutely standard stuff in racing, for very good reasons. I don't see any reason why F1 is different. It is a stronger crash structure than a canopy, maintains open top racing, is much safer than the current system, and avoids all the problems with fire (though I agree with the various posters that its a non-problem with a canopy).

 

A canopy would help with small items impacting the driver, unlike a roll hoop - but the helmet would be the primary protection against that. However, you could also add a small deflector / windscreen, I guess, instead of a full canopy.

 

A front roll hoop is also a known quantity than a canopy, is cheaper, and would make it easier to get out of an upside down car, unlike a canopy.



#549 uffen

uffen
  • Member

  • 897 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 14 April 2014 - 17:33

I have a question from a slightly different angle. I recall that drivers must be able to exit the (upright) car in 5 seconds. This was put in place to help ensure driver safety. He can get out and get clear of the on-track action as quickly as possible.

When I watch current races the drivers must unclip the side padding and then fiddle with the cable (radio?) connected to his helmet. Then the steering wheel comes off and he climbs out. Can all this be done in 5 seconds?



#550 smitten

smitten
  • Member

  • 1,437 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 14 April 2014 - 18:37

I have a question from a slightly different angle. I recall that drivers must be able to exit the (upright) car in 5 seconds. This was put in place to help ensure driver safety. He can get out and get clear of the on-track action as quickly as possible.

When I watch current races the drivers must unclip the side padding and then fiddle with the cable (radio?) connected to his helmet. Then the steering wheel comes off and he climbs out. Can all this be done in 5 seconds?

 

Yes - they have to demonstrate it at the beginning of the season (I think each driver, but certainly each car design).