i would applaud a system where the FIA and the Teams would gather information from real life sources like fighter jet canopies, stunt canopies, raceboat canopies, and making decent computer simulations from it from experienced enterprises, and make a decent testing rig instead of something that quite honestly, anybody with a high-pressure device can make in their own friggin backyard, and use the measured results.
You need a mule only for cockpit protection device, rest can be done with lab testsManoah2u wrote:how, it has zero comparability with current f1 regulations.
gathering information from current canopies does not equal turning a f1 car into a closed shell. it means gathering information,
structural stability, strenght, breaking points, thickness of materials, maximum or minimum neccesity of flexibility, and aerodynamic effects.
Static car vs. wheel moving at 270 km/h or static wheel vs. car moving at 270 km/h really should be the same thing. It is only the relative speed that matters, even for air, which is too thin anyways. In real life, if the car is moving at 270 or more and the wheel is in the air, you can bet that the wheel would also be moving forward, very different from your football analogy where both speeds can add up. So a 270 km/h speed differential is pretty close to a worst case scenario for F1, but realistic.Manoah2u wrote:a touch mark that could come indeed from the tire, or if one looks in the slowmotion, almost looks like it was the attachment to the wheel instead of the actual tire that made that mark. besides, it was the first test, and RB learned from it. IF they actually make a 2.0 version of it, i'm sure the screen is stretched out slightly further forward and sidewards, and put a bit higher too.domh245 wrote:Fair enough FW17, although, that video from Red Bull does show the helmet getting hit by the tyre and leaving very visible evidence of it.
personally, i think the test lacks a certain aspect, it obviously is hard to make real life simulations with static objects, but though the tire may travel at a realistic speed, the actual 'halo' isnt - which actually is a significant thing to miss in the test,
since a) a car on the move creates - even a f1 car - 'bubble' of air around it pushed forwards that also has an effect on its surroundings. b) because it's static, it can't impose a more realistic 'bump' - paired with the effects of the vehicle speeding.
i know they more or less took this by sending the wheel with 270k, which is a tad high velocity, but dont forget that this one is static and when hit, cant 'push' the object. if the car is moving, it will 'push' the object, which would see it get actual force pushing energy into it which would see it send off into another direction.
personally, im fairly confident that if they moved the halo with a contineous speed of about 60mph (perhaps lower the velocity of the wheel whilst at it) then you would see a totally different effect immediately upon impact.
for example: hitting a football to the leg of a non-moving opponent (into the goal) or hitting a football to the leg of a upcoming opponent (far away from the goal). it will have massive different results, so i think personally, though the intentions are good and its a good basic test, it is far from being actually a 'trustworthy' source and therefor i really am troubled by the conclusions of it being 'paramount' in judgement, instead of taking time to develop both the canopy aswell as the testing equipment decently.
time is of the essence, offcourse, as simply put, every upcoming race is a potential hazard. however, rushing things has proven to be one of the worst decisions in all of history.
i would applaud a system where the FIA and the Teams would gather information from real life sources like fighter jet canopies, stunt canopies, raceboat canopies, and making decent computer simulations from it from experienced enterprises, and make a decent testing rig instead of something that quite honestly, anybody with a high-pressure device can make in their own friggin backyard, and use the measured results.
Now that looks good!!FW17 wrote:You need a mule only for cockpit protection device, rest can be done with lab testsManoah2u wrote:how, it has zero comparability with current f1 regulations.
gathering information from current canopies does not equal turning a f1 car into a closed shell. it means gathering information,
structural stability, strenght, breaking points, thickness of materials, maximum or minimum neccesity of flexibility, and aerodynamic effects.
Possible next Formula E car
http://cdn-3.motorsport.com/static/img/ ... %A1%88.jpg
That's actually a terrifying accident and considering it was at relatively low speed.
If we would rate all of the accidents and almost accidents with: areo screen, Halo, both or none, this would be one for Halo. He was lucky.j2004p wrote:That's actually a terrifying accident and considering it was at relatively low speed.
halo would have gotten this one too. indycar is still crazy and dangerous, they have improved safety enormeously over the past decade or what, but it's still rather completely different to f1 and safety is far from f1 standards.Jolle wrote:If we would rate all of the accidents and almost accidents with: areo screen, Halo, both or none, this would be one for Halo. He was lucky.j2004p wrote:That's actually a terrifying accident and considering it was at relatively low speed.
No, this would be one for fully closed cockpit. I can imagine some broken carbon part of the floor causing some serious injury to the driver after the crash, halo and aeroscreen will never stop some sharp carbon piece entering the cockpitJolle wrote:If we would rate all of the accidents and almost accidents with: areo screen, Halo, both or none, this would be one for Halo. He was lucky.j2004p wrote:That's actually a terrifying accident and considering it was at relatively low speed.
#aerogollumturbof1 wrote: YOU SHALL NOT......STALLLLL!!!
Not if some car fall over drivers head like on that accidentturbof1 wrote:It can at the very least take some kynetic energy out of it. Depending on material density and velocity, the carbon piece might infact be deflected by a well constructed aero screen, even if sharp.
Kinetic energy can be "taken out" by deforming. That's not a thing you want, what you probably meant was deflecting the energy.Andres125sx wrote:Not if some car fall over drivers head like on that accidentturbof1 wrote:It can at the very least take some kynetic energy out of it. Depending on material density and velocity, the carbon piece might infact be deflected by a well constructed aero screen, even if sharp.
Ok that´s a freak accident, but if we analyse what solution would have been better in that case, it´s a closed cockpit hands down
Strongly disagree, a canopy would be as resistant as the survival cell, because it IS part of the survival cell. If it did not crush on that accident, a closed cockpit wouldn´t either, but with extra protection from broken and sharp carbon piecesJolle wrote: A canopy could take a tire, or a nose cone, but it can't take the weight of a car landing on top of it or worse,
