Jump to content


Photo
* * - - - 17 votes

The necessity of head protection for drivers in open cockpit cars


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
3998 replies to this topic

#3951 ArchieTech

ArchieTech
  • Member

  • 3,341 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 30 April 2016 - 14:25

This is like the slowest dumbest knee jerk reaction I have seen F1 involved with.

Bianchi was killed becuse there was a crane in the damn run off of a fast corner in a wet race with extremely poor visibility, and somehow they think extra cockpit protection would have helped...

 

Only when halos and screens become capable of vaporizing cranes.

Research into frontal head protection has been going on for way longer than that, at least as far back as the Surtees and Massa accidents.

 

The FIA's own report acknowledges nothing would have saved Bianchi other than the crane not being there at all, so your assertion that these devices are a knee-jerk reaction to that accident makes no sense.


Edited by ArchieTech, 30 April 2016 - 14:59.


Advertisement

#3952 Radoye

Radoye
  • Member

  • 3,364 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 30 April 2016 - 15:06

What would not be half-arsed, in your opinion?

 

It has to be made integral to the car's safety cell, and strong enough to survive the same impact forces that are required from other parts of the safety cell.

 

It needs to be able to stop all types cockpit penetration large and small, be it a stationary tractor on the edge of a track or a piece of shrapnel fallen of a car.

 

It has to provide unimpeded access to / from the cockpit, at least to the same degree as it is now, under all circumstances (roll over etc).

 

Having said that, the Red Bull solution shows potential, but IMO needs to be even more substantial than this to be truly effective.

 

Aesthetics are totally unimportant, i don't care about how it looks as long as it does what it is supposed to do without introducing additional hazards.


Edited by Radoye, 30 April 2016 - 15:07.


#3953 RacingXO

RacingXO
  • Member

  • 903 posts
  • Joined: February 16

Posted 30 April 2016 - 15:09

Again:

 

DC/Wurz Australia

Grosean/Alonso Spa

Alonso/Kimi Austria

Senna

Wheldon

Surtees

Wilson

Massa

Bianchi

Schumacher/Liuzzi

 

In F1 that is....

 

and don't compare cars that many years old. Cars today are not like in Senna's time :)  Why not have a fair realistic dicussion?



#3954 ArchieTech

ArchieTech
  • Member

  • 3,341 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 30 April 2016 - 15:16

It has to be made integral to the car's safety cell, and strong enough to survive the same impact forces that are required from other parts of the safety cell.

 

It needs to be able to stop all types cockpit penetration large and small, be it a stationary tractor on the edge of a track or a piece of shrapnel fallen of a car.

 

It has to provide unimpeded access to / from the cockpit, at least to the same degree as it is now, under all circumstances (roll over etc).

 

Having said that, the Red Bull solution shows potential, but IMO needs to be even more substantial than this to be truly effective.

 

Aesthetics are totally unimportant, i don't care about how it looks as long as it does what it is supposed to do without introducing additional hazards.

Is you solution in the interim to do nothing then, despite the videos showing what these devices can already deflect significant pieces of debris? As has been repeatedly ignored in this thread, there is nothing that stops better solutions being introduced in future even if one of these solutions is introduced now.

 

Bianchi's accident even sheered off the roll-hoop of the car, so withstanding those kind of forces cannot be a realistic design consideration especially for something that needs to be in front of the driver - and if you could implement something, you'd then still have the problem of the forces transferring to the driver themselves such as what happened to Allan Simonsen at Le Mans.


Edited by ArchieTech, 30 April 2016 - 15:17.


#3955 AustinF1

AustinF1
  • Member

  • 20,436 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 30 April 2016 - 15:34

Just for the record, Simona de Silvestro alone had two fiery incidents in IndyCar relatively recently (before the current DW12 car).

 

 

This is her helmet after Texas:

 

7634796.capacete_de_simona_de_silvestro_

 

 

In the second crash she suffered serious burns to her hands:

 

9606388-large.jpg

 

As i'm sure you all know by now, i'm in full support of adding more protection against head strikes, but it has to be done properly. Half=arsed solutions just to give an appearance that something is being doen are a no-go as far as i'm concerned.

A canopy would have helped her immensely in that incident. The aeroscreen probably wouldn't have helped as much, but then again, it might have blocked some of the flames as they licked around toward her hand and helmet. I don't think it would have hindered her either. Her big problems were her difficulty with her harness and the fire crew's difficulty with their fire suppression gear.


Edited by AustinF1, 30 April 2016 - 15:53.


#3956 CountDooku

CountDooku
  • Member

  • 11,729 posts
  • Joined: March 15

Posted 30 April 2016 - 15:36

Just for the record, Simona de Silvestro alone had two fiery incidents in IndyCar relatively recently (before the current DW12 car).



This is her helmet after Texas:

7634796.capacete_de_simona_de_silvestro_



In the second crash she suffered serious burns to her hands:

9606388-large.jpg

As i'm sure you all know by now, i'm in full support of adding more protection against head strikes, but it has to be done properly. Half=arsed solutions just to give an appearance that something is being doen are a no-go as far as i'm concerned.


Thanks for that! And that's with a full open cockpit as well. Imagine the halo/aero screen death traps preventing her getting out? Especially if the car is upside down!

But of course I'm told that can never happen. :rolleyes:

#3957 AustinF1

AustinF1
  • Member

  • 20,436 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 30 April 2016 - 15:42

It has to be made integral to the car's safety cell, and strong enough to survive the same impact forces that are required from other parts of the safety cell.

 

It needs to be able to stop all types cockpit penetration large and small, be it a stationary tractor on the edge of a track or a piece of shrapnel fallen of a car.

 

It has to provide unimpeded access to / from the cockpit, at least to the same degree as it is now, under all circumstances (roll over etc).

 

Having said that, the Red Bull solution shows potential, but IMO needs to be even more substantial than this to be truly effective.

 

Aesthetics are totally unimportant, i don't care about how it looks as long as it does what it is supposed to do without introducing additional hazards.

- Of course the thing will have to be integrated into the safety cell and the design of the car. I've seen no indication that's not what's planned.

- If you're waiting for a canopy or screen that will protect someone from running into a tractor at speed, then I'm afraid you'll be waiting forever. That's not what this is about. Even if you could prevent contact between the driver's helmet and the tractor, the decelerative  (yes, my new word!) collision forces would likely still cause mortal injuries.

- Of course the thing will have to be more substantial than a bolt-on mockup fabricated to facilitate sightline testing.


Edited by AustinF1, 30 April 2016 - 15:44.


#3958 highdownforce

highdownforce
  • Member

  • 4,972 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 30 April 2016 - 16:26

 

Then we can put next to those events 3 columns: halo, windshield, and canopy, then put next to it if it would have saved the driver, made it worse, done nothing.

 

EVENT                                 | HALO | AEROSCREEN | CANOPY | CLOSED COCKPIT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cockpit Intr. - DC/Wurz Australia     | XXX  | XXX        | XXX    | XXX 
Cockpit Intr. - Grosean/Alonso Spa    | XXX  | XXX        | XXX    | XXX 
Cockpit Intr. - Alonso/Kimi Austria   | XXX  | XXX        | XXX    | XXX 
Cockpit Intr. - Senna (Wheel & Susp.) | XXX  | XXX        | XXX    | XXX 
Cockpit Intr. - Wheldon               | XXX  | XXX        | XXX    | XXX 
Cockpit Intr. - Surtees (Wheel)       | XXX  | XXX        | XXX    | XXX 
Cockpit Intr. - Wilson (Nosecone)     | XXX  | XXX        | XXX    | XXX 
Cockpit Intr. - Massa (Spring)        | XXX  | XXX        | XXX    | XXX 
Cockpit Intr. - Bianchi               | XXX  | XXX        | XXX    | XXX 
Cockpit Intr. - Schumacher/Liuzzi     | XXX  | XXX        | XXX    | XXX 
Fire - Kimi 2016                      | XXX  | XXX        | XXX    | XXX 
Fire - Kovalainon Singapore           | XXX  | XXX        | XXX    | XXX 
Fire - Webber Korea                   | XXX  | XXX        | XXX    | XXX 
Fire - Kimi Brazil 2009               | XXX  | XXX        | XXX    | XXX 
Fire - Verstappen Germany 1994        | XXX  | XXX        | XXX    | XXX 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YES = Protection works;
NO = Has no difference;
BAD = Causes a worse scenario.

Wish granted, use it as you please.



#3959 CountDooku

CountDooku
  • Member

  • 11,729 posts
  • Joined: March 15

Posted 30 April 2016 - 16:29

Now hod on a second, why is everyone adding head-strike near misses here? If you want to do that then we might as well add every single puff of oil smoke as a potential conflagration.

Advertisement

#3960 myattitude

myattitude
  • Member

  • 632 posts
  • Joined: October 15

Posted 30 April 2016 - 16:32

In F1 that is....

 

and don't compare cars that many years old. Cars today are not like in Senna's time :)  Why not have a fair realistic dicussion?

I'm not sure why, but I was going out of my way to help your side of the discussion by mentioning older events like Jos's fire and Senna's crash, even though the incidents won't even have to happen today regardless of cockpit protection. And honestly I really had to stretch any fire incidents I could remember that could have potentially caused an issue for a cockpit. On top of that, I even made clear I don't watch non-F1 series and invited everyone to add other incidents I'm not aware of into the case-pool. Somehow I'm not trying to have a fair discussion about this. Goodness me.



#3961 myattitude

myattitude
  • Member

  • 632 posts
  • Joined: October 15

Posted 30 April 2016 - 16:37

Now hod on a second, why is everyone adding head-strike near misses here? If you want to do that then we might as well add every single puff of oil smoke as a potential conflagration.

Because they're visibly real incidents that came within literally inches of disaster with no other remaining protection left between luck and fate, so is relevant enough. If you have any near fire incidents that could be added, like somebody else has, please do include it and we can all analyse it.



#3962 CountDooku

CountDooku
  • Member

  • 11,729 posts
  • Joined: March 15

Posted 30 April 2016 - 16:38

I have terrible event memory so I'm only here as a critic :D

Still though, you can't have near misses if you want to objectively analyse stuff like that.

#3963 RacingXO

RacingXO
  • Member

  • 903 posts
  • Joined: February 16

Posted 30 April 2016 - 16:40

I'm not sure why, but I was going out of my way to help your side of the discussion by mentioning older events like Jos's fire and Senna's crash, even though the incidents won't even have to happen today regardless of cockpit protection. And honestly I really had to stretch any fire incidents I could remember that could have potentially caused an issue for a cockpit. On top of that, I even made clear I don't watch non-F1 series and invited everyone to add other incidents I'm not aware of into the case-pool. Somehow I'm not trying to have a fair discussion about this. Goodness me.

 

Well, in that case I completely misunderstood :)  Maybe because it was just the list, which has often been used by people with opposite opinion as an argument, to say.......these people would have been alive if the halo was there.

 

LOL

 

Edit: I must have seen only the beginning of your post......my bad. It was a good solid post.


Edited by RacingXO, 30 April 2016 - 16:43.


#3964 myattitude

myattitude
  • Member

  • 632 posts
  • Joined: October 15

Posted 30 April 2016 - 16:50

EVENT                                 | HALO | AEROSCREEN | CANOPY | CLOSED COCKPIT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cockpit Intr. - DC/Wurz Australia     | YES/BAD| YES        | YES    | XXX 
Cockpit Intr. - Grosean/Alonso Spa    | YES/BAD| YES        | YES    | XXX 
Cockpit Intr. - Alonso/Kimi Austria   | BAD    | YES/NO     | YES    | XXX 
Cockpit Intr. - Senna (Wheel & Susp.) | YES/NO | YES        | YES    | XXX 
Cockpit Intr. - Wheldon               | NO     | NO         | YES    | XXX 
Cockpit Intr. - Surtees (Wheel)       | NO     | NO         | YES    | XXX 
Cockpit Intr. - Wilson (Nosecone)     | NO     | NO         | YES    | XXX 
Cockpit Intr. - Massa (Spring)        | NO     | YES        | YES    | XXX 
Cockpit Intr. - Bianchi               | NO     | NO         | NO     | XXX 
Cockpit Intr. - Schumacher/Liuzzi     | YES/NO | YES        | YES    | XXX 
Fire - Kimi 2016                      | NO     | NO         | YES    | XXX 
Fire - Kovalainon Singapore           | NO     | NO         | NO     | XXX 
Fire - Webber Korea                   | NO     | NO         | NO     | XXX 
Fire - Kimi Brazil 2009               | NO     | YES        | NO     | XXX 
Fire - Verstappen Germany 1994        | NO     | NO         | NO/BAD | XXX 
Fire - Indycar Simone                 | NO     | NO         | BAD/YES | XXX
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YES = Protection works;
NO = Has no difference;
BAD = Causes a worse scenario.

Wish granted, use it as you please.

 

Here is what I have. I'm not sure what the difference between a closed cockpit and a canopy is so I just answered for canopy.

 

Some I've given two answers for, meaning I think either could have happened.

 

I've also added the Indycar Simone incidents to the list. She, like Jos would either have been stuck inside an enclosed fire or protected from it. It depends if the fire could get inside. Jos's was an external fuel fire, not sure where Simone's came from.

 

But overall I have a canopy as the winner. I don't think these latest solutions are very effective honestly, they're too low and as we saw in the Red Bull test, it just flips and hits the helmet anyway. Maybe raising them would do better.


Edited by myattitude, 30 April 2016 - 16:59.


#3965 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 7,292 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 30 April 2016 - 17:00

That chart is the most bizarre thing in this thread. I've no idea how you're going to back up any of the claims made there.

 

Fanciful pointless guess work at best.



#3966 DS27

DS27
  • Member

  • 4,674 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 30 April 2016 - 17:02

 

 She, like Jos would either have been stuck inside an enclosed fire or protected from it. It depends if the fire could get inside. Jos's was an external fuel fire

 

In many cases surely it is the danger of fumes, rather than the fire itself that is the biggest risk, and in saloon cars the fumes seem to fill the cockpit very quickly. Wouldn't take much smoke / combustion to cause asphyxiation under a closed cockpit.



#3967 Crafty

Crafty
  • Member

  • 4,151 posts
  • Joined: May 05

Posted 30 April 2016 - 17:21

No doubt this will be unpopular but personally halo / visor is a step too far.

 

F1 is/was an open cockpit, open wheel formula. To remove part of that removes its identity. 

 

No-one wants to see serious injury or death, but we need to acknowledge that part of the appeal is that danger.

 

I believe we should seek to mitigate risks where possible but where does it stop ? why don't we just remove drivers and have autonomous racing ? or put the drivers in the garages to control the cars remotely ? 

 

Why don't we just go closed cockpit and merge WEC with F1 and run double calendars with the same cars ? 

 

We can argue forever over the merits (or otherwise) of halo / visor forever, speed of egress, fires, escape from roll overs, exiting with an unsafe ERS system and so on but ultimately the FIA are going to force the issue and as far as I can see it will be to the detriment of the sport. 

 

It won't be F1 any more and after 25 years of watching pretty much every race I honestly see myself giving up. I've spoken to casual viewers and even those who only have a passing interest and they simply scoffed and rolled their eyes. 

 

You may disagree with me, but I know I'm not alone in this view and right now the last thing F1 needs is a further depletion of its fan base.



#3968 Turboflame

Turboflame
  • Member

  • 568 posts
  • Joined: October 14

Posted 30 April 2016 - 18:45

There are other extreme sports that are a LOT more dangerous than f1. There are motorsports that are a LOT more dangerous than f1. The European Hillclimbing Championship  for instance is also gonverned under FIA regulations. It has claimed many lives for the last ten years. But this class of motorsports is not as popular under the mainstream audience. That's the main reason (and yes i think it's hypocrit for a part), f1 is becoming more and more sanitized. The bigger audience you have, the more critics are possible when people get killed. Is it still allowed to organize a sport where people are killed every year? Apparently yes, otherwise there would no hillclimbing or Isle of Man. But ... F1 is the 'pinnacle' of motorsports. People can be killed in hillclimbing, irish road racing, even Indycar. But no, not in f1, because the more 'mainstream' something gets, the more critics will come, and one thing a billionair's sport does not want, is to be sanctionized and it's reason of existence questionned.



#3969 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 11,785 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 30 April 2016 - 18:56

There are other extreme sports that are a LOT more dangerous than f1. There are motorsports that are a LOT more dangerous than f1. The European Hillclimbing Championship  for instance is also gonverned under FIA regulations. It has claimed many lives for the last ten years. But this class of motorsports is not as popular under the mainstream audience. That's the main reason (and yes i think it's hypocrit for a part), f1 is becoming more and more sanitized. The bigger audience you have, the more critics are possible when people get killed. Is it still allowed to organize a sport where people are killed every year? Apparently yes, otherwise there would no hillclimbing or Isle of Man. But ... F1 is the 'pinnacle' of motorsports. People can be killed in hillclimbing, irish road racing, even Indycar. But no, not in f1, because the more 'mainstream' something gets, the more critics will come, and one thing a billionair's sport does not want, is to be sanctionized and it's reason of existence questionned.

 

There IS a legitimate difference if an event is on TV and the broadcaster does not want to have dead people in their Sunday afternoon program.



#3970 Turboflame

Turboflame
  • Member

  • 568 posts
  • Joined: October 14

Posted 30 April 2016 - 19:19

And where is the moral difference? Every human life is worth the same. So why not organize isle of man on a 3 mile-track (redesigned by Herman Tilke) that has massive runoff and tecpro barriers installed everywhere? Little children can also see riders killed there.



#3971 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 11,785 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 30 April 2016 - 19:30

And where is the moral difference? Every human life is worth the same. So why not organize isle of man on a 3 mile-track (redesigned by Herman Tilke) that has massive runoff and tecpro barriers installed everywhere? Little children can also see riders killed there.

 

 

I didn't say that there is a moral difference. Anyone is basically free to pursue activities of whatever danger level as long as they don't endanger others. Any broadcaster is partly free and partly bound by regulations regarding what they want to or may broadcast. If a sport wants the TV money they have to stay within these limits, regardless of whether they make much sense and/or change over time and in response to changing sensibilities. The FIA has different limits depending on the type of event, its exposure, and so on. I also don't think that the FIA is or should be the final moral instance, they are there to police the events partly in response to the participants' wishes and partly their own.


Edited by KnucklesAgain, 30 April 2016 - 19:33.


#3972 Radoye

Radoye
  • Member

  • 3,364 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 30 April 2016 - 20:02

Is you solution in the interim to do nothing then, despite the videos showing what these devices can already deflect significant pieces of debris? As has been repeatedly ignored in this thread, there is nothing that stops better solutions being introduced in future even if one of these solutions is introduced now.

 

What i see going on at the moment is that F1 is looking for the lowest common denominator here, something that will give an appearance that an effort is being made to remedy a problem but in such a way to change the least possible. I'm very concerned that they will stick with these bolt-on solutions (i read somewhere that one of the FIA requirements is to have these devices detachable) instead of having them as structural members of the survival cell, which is the only right way to go.

 

But i guess ~something~ even if not fully effective is still better than absolutely nothing.

 

Bianchi's accident even sheered off the roll-hoop of the car, so withstanding those kind of forces cannot be a realistic design consideration especially for something that needs to be in front of the driver - and if you could implement something, you'd then still have the problem of the forces transferring to the driver themselves such as what happened to Allan Simonsen at Le Mans.

 

True, but there are ways to do things to go around these problems. Bianchi situation - the rolhoop would not have been sheared off if the impact was not perpendicular to it; if the new roll structure is shaped in such way to not allow a perpendicular frontal impact, it would've sustained the crash without collapsing (besides, having more mounting points with the chassis than the current rollhoop has would also help). If it was shaped so that it would come in at an angle, it would nudge the car (or the tractor) away altering the trajectory of the crash, preventing the helmet from getting into direct contact and having to deal with the major portion of the impact force.

 

Also, ideally the structure can be made ~somewhat~ deformable to absorb some of the impact forces.


Edited by Radoye, 30 April 2016 - 23:58.


#3973 Radoye

Radoye
  • Member

  • 3,364 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 30 April 2016 - 20:12

Thanks for that! And that's with a full open cockpit as well. Imagine the halo/aero screen death traps preventing her getting out? Especially if the car is upside down!

But of course I'm told that can never happen. :rolleyes:

 

Not so fast my friend - with the first crash, having a canopy or even a screen would likely help to keep the flames away from the driver. I only posted those two videos for the sake of truth, because it was being said there were no recent single-seater crashes which caused a major fire. I am actually in favor of adding head protection to open-cockpit cars. :)

 

However, a full jet fighter type canopy would not help Kimi with his KERS fire in Malaysia 2009:

 

3409369306_9099914156.jpg

 

It would likely made things even worse, with fumes being trapped in the cockpit.

 

So far the RBR solution seems to be the way to go, but it must be made more substantial, it must not stop there.



#3974 ANF

ANF
  • Member

  • 29,055 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 30 April 2016 - 20:23

Thanks for that! And that's with a full open cockpit as well. Imagine the halo/aero screen death traps preventing her getting out? Especially if the car is upside down!

But of course I'm told that can never happen. :rolleyes:

It's not really a fully open cockpit: there's the foam headrest which seems to have caused some troubles getting her out of the car in the first accident. That wouldn't have happened in the Lotus 25, because the Lotus 25 didn't have foam headrests, so it must have been a lot safer car.

#3975 AustinF1

AustinF1
  • Member

  • 20,436 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 30 April 2016 - 23:09

 

I've also added the Indycar Simone incidents to the list. She, like Jos would either have been stuck inside an enclosed fire or protected from it. It depends if the fire could get inside. Jos's was an external fuel fire, not sure where Simone's came from.

Fire can always get inside eventually, but any barrier will buy time. In fact, that's how fire resistive barriers are rated - by how long they can stand up to a fire before failing and allowing fire and hot products of combustion to pass through. In other words, their entire intent is to buy time.

In many cases surely it is the danger of fumes, rather than the fire itself that is the biggest risk, and in saloon cars the fumes seem to fill the cockpit very quickly. Wouldn't take much smoke / combustion to cause asphyxiation under a closed cockpit.

Any fumes or flames that could get to a driver with a closed canopy could get to them much more quickly and to a greater magnitude with no barrier there. A canopy would have bought Simona valuable time to slow down and more easily get her harness undone, and for the fire crew to manage their gear better. 


Edited by AustinF1, 01 May 2016 - 01:26.


#3976 AustinF1

AustinF1
  • Member

  • 20,436 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 30 April 2016 - 23:21

Not so fast my friend - with the first crash, having a canopy or even a screen would likely help to keep the flames away from the driver. I only posted those two videos for the sake of truth, because it was being said there were no recent single-seater crashes which caused a major fire. I am actually in favor of adding head protection to open-cockpit cars. :)

 

However, a full jet fighter type canopy would not help Kimi with his KERS fire in Malaysia 2009:

 

3409369306_9099914156.jpg

 

It would likely made things even worse, with fumes being trapped in the cockpit.

 

So far the RBR solution seems to be the way to go, but it must be made more substantial, it must not stop there.

That's dependent on the canopy design. In fact, I'm having trouble envisioning a canopy design that wouldn't have resulted in a benefit for Kimi in that fire in terms of keeping fuel/fire off of him. Kimi wasn't hurt or burned iirc, but more than likely a canopy would have prevented most or all of that fuel from getting to Kimi the way it did. 


Edited by AustinF1, 30 April 2016 - 23:24.


#3977 CountDooku

CountDooku
  • Member

  • 11,729 posts
  • Joined: March 15

Posted 30 April 2016 - 23:50

It's not really a fully open cockpit: there's the foam headrest which seems to have caused some troubles getting her out of the car in the first accident. That wouldn't have happened in the Lotus 25, because the Lotus 25 didn't have foam headrests, so it must have been a lot safer car.


I know right! Much safer to give up this F1 lark. It's not like anyone should ever do something dangerous.

#3978 CountDooku

CountDooku
  • Member

  • 11,729 posts
  • Joined: March 15

Posted 30 April 2016 - 23:54

Not so fast my friend - with the first crash, having a canopy or even a screen would likely help to keep the flames away from the driver. I only posted those two videos for the sake of truth, because it was being said there were no recent single-seater crashes which caused a major fire. I am actually in favor of adding head protection to open-cockpit cars. :)

However, a full jet fighter type canopy would not help Kimi with his KERS fire in Malaysia 2009:

3409369306_9099914156.jpg

It would likely made things even worse, with fumes being trapped in the cockpit.

So far the RBR solution seems to be the way to go, but it must be made more substantial, it must not stop there.


Yeah I gathered from your post that you were for it, but :up: for posting the photos anyway!

Others are adding and even where the tiniest smidgen of carbon fibre touched a driver's helmet into the "halo would have prevented" column, so it's only fair that I say any puff of smoke could have been a massive fire that could toast a driver. Especially if they are upside down like Simona.

#3979 Radoye

Radoye
  • Member

  • 3,364 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 01 May 2016 - 00:00

That's dependent on the canopy design. In fact, I'm having trouble envisioning a canopy design that wouldn't have resulted in a benefit for Kimi in that fire in terms of keeping fuel/fire off of him. Kimi wasn't hurt or burned iirc, but more than likely a canopy would have prevented most or all of that fuel from getting to Kimi the way it did. 

 

What i understand, the fumes were coming from inside the cockpit, or am i mistaken? Having a canopy would prevent them from venting to the outside if this was indeed the case.



Advertisement

#3980 AustinF1

AustinF1
  • Member

  • 20,436 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 01 May 2016 - 01:23

OBTW , Regarding the rain worries ... it rained early this morning just before I headed home from work, so I took the opportunity to do a little unscientific test. When we got in the car the rain had cleared but my windshield was still pretty well covered. So I took a photo when I got in and then had my buddy snap a few as we got up to speed.
 
In the parking lot:
6vfn8s3.jpg
 
On the road to the highway, before I ever exceeded 30 mph...
Some of the water you see here actually sprayed off of the hood.
Avf94vO.jpg
 
On the freeway when I hadn't yet exceeded 60 mph...it's almost completely clear, and much of what's there blew up from the hood.
90AxY4r.jpg
 
Went 65 mph the rest of the way home...
KYb5ryz.jpg


#3981 AustinF1

AustinF1
  • Member

  • 20,436 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 01 May 2016 - 01:25

What i understand, the fumes were coming from inside the cockpit, or am i mistaken? Having a canopy would prevent them from venting to the outside if this was indeed the case.

(I was referring to the Texas incident btw. I was there that night and took special interest) I don't know for a fact that there weren't fumes coming from the inside, but she seemed to be in the greatest peril from hot gases, smoke and fire coming from behind and advancing into the passenger compartment, mostly on her right side. I believe she burned her right hand in that fire.


Edited by AustinF1, 01 May 2016 - 01:30.


#3982 Radoye

Radoye
  • Member

  • 3,364 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 01 May 2016 - 01:34

Agreed for the Texas Simona incident, there a full canopy would certainly help.

 

The KERS fire on Kimi's car in Malaysia 2009 was different, i was looking for a video to confirm what i remember but there is none to be found, all i could find was that small photo. In that case, if i'm not mistaken, smoke and noxious fumes were coming from somewhere inside the cockpit.

 

(Actually, scratch that - i found a video! http://www.dailymoti...erheating_auto)

 

Here a full canopy would likely made things worse.



#3983 AustinF1

AustinF1
  • Member

  • 20,436 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 01 May 2016 - 01:41

Agreed for the Texas Simona incident, there a full canopy would certainly help.

 

The KERS fire on Kimi's car in Malaysia 2009 was different, i was looking for a video to confirm what i remember but there is none to be found, all i could find was that small photo. In that case, if i'm not mistaken, smoke and noxious fumes were coming from somewhere inside the cockpit.

 

(Actually, scratch that - i found a video! http://www.dailymoti...erheating_auto)

 

Here a full canopy would likely made things worse.

Ah, yes...My bad! I thought you were referring to the fire in the pit lane when KOV ripped off his fuel rig and sprayed fuel all over Kimi. I can see what you mean in that video. The way I envision them doing a canopy would be designing and constructing more of a survival cell that would keep out such noxious fumes, and would have natural or even forced ventilation for coolling, etc. You could probably even make it a positive pressure space, working on the same principle as a firefighter's air mask. That could actively force outside smoke, etc away from the openings in case of a fire outside the compartment.


Edited by AustinF1, 01 May 2016 - 01:50.


#3984 Archer

Archer
  • Member

  • 520 posts
  • Joined: March 16

Posted 01 May 2016 - 01:53

There IS a legitimate difference if an event is on TV and the broadcaster does not want to have dead people in their Sunday afternoon program.

There may be other reasons, but not the TV broadcasters. The wettest dream TV broadcasters can have is to show a catastrophe live, because TV audiences would be huge,but they can't say it out loud publicly because even they would feel shame of themselves. You can be sure that in the 9/11 catastrophy all the broadcasters had a dream come true. The media, like the politics don't know the morals or the shame.

So there has to be other reasons, I don't know, maybe they fear a ban of the sport in Europe like in Swiss after the Le Mans dissaster.



#3985 BellisEndis

BellisEndis
  • Member

  • 163 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 01 May 2016 - 04:06

 

OBTW , Regarding the rain worries ... it rained early this morning just before I headed home from work, so I took the opportunity to do a little unscientific test. When we got in the car the rain had cleared but my windshield was still pretty well covered. So I took a photo when I got in and then had my buddy snap a few as we got up to speed.
 
In the parking lot:
6vfn8s3.jpg
 
On the road to the highway, before I ever exceeded 30 mph...
Some of the water you see here actually sprayed off of the hood.
Avf94vO.jpg
 
On the freeway when I hadn't yet exceeded 60 mph...it's almost completely clear, and much of what's there blew up from the hood.
90AxY4r.jpg
 
Went 65 mph the rest of the way home...
KYb5ryz.jpg

 

 

 

All good when you are in a closed roof car, what about all the water that will collect inside the open roof cockpit on that side of the screen??


Edited by BellisEndis, 01 May 2016 - 04:07.


#3986 AustinF1

AustinF1
  • Member

  • 20,436 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 01 May 2016 - 04:15

All good when you are in a closed roof car, what about all the water that will collect inside the open roof cockpit on that side of the screen??

Our moto riding friends might know more about that than I would, but from what I've seen it's not an issue on motorbikes in the rain. Maybe some of the moto riders will let us know if water on the inside of windscreens a big problem? I've also driven convertibles in the rain (not by choice!). Water goes right over the top. Doesn't come inside the car at all until you go really slowly, and then it doesn't get inside the windscreen. It gets all over everything else though.


Edited by AustinF1, 01 May 2016 - 04:20.


#3987 Radoye

Radoye
  • Member

  • 3,364 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 01 May 2016 - 04:22

http://mythresults.com/car-vs-rain

 

 

Driving a convertible with the top down in the rain at a high speed will ensure that no water can enter the driver compartment.

plausible (but not recommended)

 

The MythBusters first performed several small scale tests, using a model car and a wind tunnel, and found that at higher speeds, a sort of air bubble seemed to form around the driver compartment, giving credence to the myth. In their full scale test, they used an actual convertible as well as a 200 foot rain bar to provide the rain. In a control test, they stopped the convertible in the middle of the rain to put up the top, and the interior was soaked. Then they drove through the rain at 70 mph (113km/hr), and saw that the interior was significantly less wet than the control. Next, they then drove the car through the rain at 90 mph (145km/hr) and saw that the interior was not wet at all. The MythBusters attributed this to the car’s windshield, which served its function as well as creating an air bubble over the interior of the car. However, they decided to declare the myth “plausible, but not recommended” due to the inherent danger of driving at such high speeds on wet roads.



#3988 Rocket73

Rocket73
  • Member

  • 2,285 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 01 May 2016 - 05:09

Nice bit of scientific research there Austin...surely though constant rain would be much more valid?

You can get coatings like Rainex which do a great job of repelling water and with the aerodynamic design of the aeroscreen I think moderate rain probably wouldn't be a problem but what about spray from 10 cars in front of you? It's bad enough as it is and a screen isn't going to help.

In fact you'd probably end up with the FIA deeming it to unsafe to race and we'd be stuck with dry races only.

Edited by Rocket73, 01 May 2016 - 05:12.


#3989 Ruusperi

Ruusperi
  • Member

  • 2,773 posts
  • Joined: July 15

Posted 01 May 2016 - 06:44

In fact you'd probably end up with the FIA deeming it to unsafe to race and we'd be stuck with dry races only.

That can't happen. Even though we haven't seen many wet races recently, there could be more than 5 rain-affected races per season. Cancelling 25% of the races in the season isn't an option, so they have to come up with a solution (if it means even removing the aeroscreen/canopy for wet race).



#3990 Rocket73

Rocket73
  • Member

  • 2,285 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 01 May 2016 - 06:47

Well if it means that means that drivers and spectators are safer then it has to be implemented!

;)

#3991 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 11,785 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 01 May 2016 - 09:28

There may be other reasons, but not the TV broadcasters. The wettest dream TV broadcasters can have is to show a catastrophe live, because TV audiences would be huge,but they can't say it out loud publicly because even they would feel shame of themselves. You can be sure that in the 9/11 catastrophy all the broadcasters had a dream come true. The media, like the politics don't know the morals or the shame.

So there has to be other reasons, I don't know, maybe they fear a ban of the sport in Europe like in Swiss after the Le Mans dissaster.

 

I think it depends on the type of broadcaster, public stations like BBC or ARD in Germany are probably more sensitive than private stations. And while marketing people may be happy in the back of their mind if there is a catastrophe to cover from a news angle, many stations *would* have a problem if serious accidents are foreseeable. E.g., there have been quite many accidents in alpine skiing recently, not even deaths but participants in agony, race suspended, helicopters flying, and ARD was not too happy about it.



#3992 Marklar

Marklar
  • Member

  • 44,257 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 01 May 2016 - 09:45

Ecclestone thinks F1 should do "nothing" about cockpit protection: http://bit.ly/24eRYqB  #F1

 

Pablo Elizalde Retweeted Motorsport.com

That will be a popular view, I'm sure.


Edited by Marklar, 01 May 2016 - 09:45.


#3993 Nonesuch

Nonesuch
  • Member

  • 15,870 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 01 May 2016 - 09:53

 

OBTW , Regarding the rain worries ... it rained early this morning just before I headed home from work, so I took the opportunity to do a little unscientific test.

 

JD Earl Waterworks should participate in next year's livery contest. :up:

 

I was wondering the same thing yesterday, but since we've gone from night frost ( :stoned: ) to shiny springtime weather in the last few days there hasn't yet been an opportunity to test it.

 

One thing to keep in mind of course is the speeds these F1 cars actually reach. It all looks fairly tame, but that's only because the circuits are properly huge. I wouldn't give water a lot of chance of sticking on a window or canopy at 250km/h.



#3994 Szoelloe

Szoelloe
  • Member

  • 7,054 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 01 May 2016 - 09:56

 

OBTW , Regarding the rain worries ... it rained early th

 

 

is morning just before I headed home from work, so I took the opportunity to do a little unscientific test. When we got in the car the rain had cleared but my windshield was still pretty well covered. So I took a photo when I got in and then had my buddy snap a few as we got up to speed.
 
In the parking lot:
 
 
On the road to the highway, before I ever exceeded 30 mph...
Some of the water you see here actually sprayed off of the hood.
 
 
On the freeway when I hadn't yet exceeded 60 mph...it's almost completely clear, and much of what's there blew up from the hood.
 
 
Went 65 mph the rest of the way home...
 

 

 

 

Seriously, you posted pictures of your windshield drying faster under 65 Mph after it rained  as evidence???? That's not even funny.


Edited by Szoelloe, 01 May 2016 - 09:57.


#3995 RainyAfterlifeDaylight

RainyAfterlifeDaylight
  • Member

  • 4,684 posts
  • Joined: February 15

Posted 01 May 2016 - 10:55

F1 sets July deadline to choose cockpit halo or aeroscreen for 2017

http://www.autosport...ection-decision

 

 

So, introduction of head protection is imminent.

 

Despite some disagreement over head protection, I think all in all it was a smooth and straightforward process.

 

All parties really deserve admiration:

  • ​WMSC and FIA, for giving priority to head protection.
  • Mercedes, for proposing halo solution.
  • Ferrari, for testing halo solution.
  • RedBull, for proposing and testing their aeroscreen solution.
  • Drivers and fans that have given a chance for head protection.

Edited by RYARLE, 01 May 2016 - 10:55.


#3996 ANF

ANF
  • Member

  • 29,055 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 01 May 2016 - 11:00

Motorsport.com ‏@Motorsport  4s4 seconds ago

Ecclestone thinks F1 should do "nothing" about cockpit protection: http://bit.ly/24eRYqB  #F1

Is Bernie questioning FIA crash testing now? I'm beginning to think he's really lost it.

#3997 smitten

smitten
  • Member

  • 4,982 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 01 May 2016 - 11:09

 

So, introduction of head protection is imminent.

 

Despite some disagreement over head protection, I think all in all it was a smooth and straightforward process.

 

 

a) This is not the introduction of head protection, this is an increase in head protection. 

b) It has not been smooth, it has been simply railroaded.

 

RIP.



#3998 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 11,785 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 01 May 2016 - 11:10

Is Bernie questioning FIA crash testing now? I'm beginning to think he's really lost it.

 

He is right in so far as the test we have seen tested for a very specific scenario and not others.  There are far more juicy quotes in this article :lol:



#3999 SophieB

SophieB
  • RC Forum Host

  • 24,465 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 02 May 2016 - 10:02

Thread limit reached, new thread continues here: http://forums.autosp...i/#entry7523132