Chris Beatty Veloctiy RPB-01 car proposal.

Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
adrianjordan
29
User avatar
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 10:34 am
Location: West Yorkshire, England

Re: Chris Beatty Veloctiy RPB-01 car proposal.

Post by adrianjordan » Sun Aug 13, 2017 9:24 am

But you're never going to be able to prevent a Bianchi style injury in that kind of accident, not in a car as compact as an F1 car, there sinply isn't space for the crumple zones you'd need on every crash structure. They've already introduced rules to mitigate the chances of it happening again (VSC) and, IMHO, that's the best they can do short of stopping the race whenever they need to bring a crane onto the circuit and telling all the drivers the stop on circuit wherever they are (not feasible).
Right now they're looking at protecting the driver's head from external objects and a rigid shield/halo/etc can be made strong enough not to deform and so will provide this protection.
In 2007 I had the chance to go to a meet-and-greet with an F1 test driver. I decided not to as I didn't think he'd even amount to much...he was the BMW Sauber test driver and his name was Sebastian Vettel...

Andres125sx
229
User avatar
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 9:15 am
Location: Madrid, Spain

Re: Chris Beatty Veloctiy RPB-01 car proposal.

Post by Andres125sx » Sun Aug 13, 2017 11:56 am

Just_a_fan wrote:
Sat Aug 12, 2017 5:29 pm
Except it doesn't protect the driver because there is no space between driver's head and the structure. Any impact will result in large acceleration being transmitted to the driver's head and thus brain.
Sorry but you´re confusing usual crash structures wich need to deform to absorb part of the energy, with a shield wich purpose is preventing external objects/debris to impact driver´s head. Apples to oranges.

Also, there can´t be any space between driver´s head and the structure. Have you ever heard about neck injuries? There´s a reason for HANS and also for the headrest, driver´s head should never have any big displacement, never, so sorry but your statement about no space between driver´s head and the structure is complete nosense. There should never be any space, with or without closed cockpit

Image


Just_a_fan wrote:
Sat Aug 12, 2017 5:29 pm
In a Bianchi style crash, this structure will mean the impact is just as fatal as his was.
Agree, and it will never prevent 11S style terrorist attacks neither, but that has never been its purpose so, what´s the point?

Just_a_fan wrote:
Sat Aug 12, 2017 5:29 pm
Providing space for the driver's head is one of the issues that has been raised time and time again on this forum when these schemes are discussed. Yet again it has been ignored in favour of things that look cool.

Probablly you didn´t notice, but the back part of the shield is detachable outwards, so driver´s helmet hitting that shield will not cause any dangerous deceleration, it will only detach the shield. About different directions, it´s the same as current cockpits, soft headrest at both sides and back, and free space in front (HANS). The only object the helmet can hit is the upper shield wich is detachable with any medium impact.

Sorry to say this, but your post looks like a hater post from someone who doesn´t like closed cockpits, so you didn´t bother to analyse it properly and jumped into the hate train quite fast, wich is surprising coming from you who I consider a very respectable member of F1T

jjn9128
19
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: Chris Beatty Veloctiy RPB-01 car proposal.

Post by jjn9128 » Sun Aug 13, 2017 1:12 pm

Andres125sx wrote:
Sun Aug 13, 2017 11:56 am
Also, there can´t be any space between driver´s head and the structure. Have you ever heard about neck injuries? There´s a reason for HANS and also for the headrest, driver´s head should never have any big displacement, never, so sorry but your statement about no space between driver´s head and the structure is complete nosense. There should never be any space, with or without closed cockpit
This plain wrong. The HANS and headrests are deceleration devices. There is a reason the headrest deformed when Hamilton pushed it back in Azerbaijan, because it's a thin layer of carbon over foam. If these devices immobilized the drivers head then the brain would hit the inside of the skull in an impact. The drivers head can almost hit the steering wheel in a head on still because the HANS belts are designed to stretch.

One of the reasons the Red Bull aeroscreen initially failed the FIA tests was the free air space around the driver, so the screen DEFINITELY needs to be offset from the helmet. From experience designing solar cars and the canopy I am aware how much of a pain it is complying with free air rules while still having a usable aerodynamic shape.

Manoah2u
232
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2013 1:07 pm

Re: Chris Beatty Veloctiy RPB-01 car proposal.

Post by Manoah2u » Sun Aug 13, 2017 1:22 pm

Andres125sx wrote:
Sun Aug 13, 2017 11:56 am
Just_a_fan wrote:
Sat Aug 12, 2017 5:29 pm
Except it doesn't protect the driver because there is no space between driver's head and the structure. Any impact will result in large acceleration being transmitted to the driver's head and thus brain.
Sorry but you´re confusing usual crash structures wich need to deform to absorb part of the energy, with a shield wich purpose is preventing external objects/debris to impact driver´s head. Apples to oranges.

Also, there can´t be any space between driver´s head and the structure. Have you ever heard about neck injuries? There´s a reason for HANS and also for the headrest, driver´s head should never have any big displacement, never, so sorry but your statement about no space between driver´s head and the structure is complete nosense. There should never be any space, with or without closed cockpit

http://www.whtimes.co.uk/polopoly_fs/1. ... 788640.jpg


Just_a_fan wrote:
Sat Aug 12, 2017 5:29 pm
In a Bianchi style crash, this structure will mean the impact is just as fatal as his was.
Agree, and it will never prevent 11S style terrorist attacks neither, but that has never been its purpose so, what´s the point?

Just_a_fan wrote:
Sat Aug 12, 2017 5:29 pm
Providing space for the driver's head is one of the issues that has been raised time and time again on this forum when these schemes are discussed. Yet again it has been ignored in favour of things that look cool.

Probablly you didn´t notice, but the back part of the shield is detachable outwards, so driver´s helmet hitting that shield will not cause any dangerous deceleration, it will only detach the shield. About different directions, it´s the same as current cockpits, soft headrest at both sides and back, and free space in front (HANS). The only object the helmet can hit is the upper shield wich is detachable with any medium impact.

Sorry to say this, but your post looks like a hater post from someone who doesn´t like closed cockpits, so you didn´t bother to analyse it properly and jumped into the hate train quite fast
+1 agreed to everything.
Dumpster sounds so much more classy. It's the diamond of the cesspools.

Manoah2u
232
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2013 1:07 pm

Re: Chris Beatty Veloctiy RPB-01 car proposal.

Post by Manoah2u » Sun Aug 13, 2017 1:27 pm

jjn9128 wrote:
Sun Aug 13, 2017 1:12 pm
Andres125sx wrote:
Sun Aug 13, 2017 11:56 am
Also, there can´t be any space between driver´s head and the structure. Have you ever heard about neck injuries? There´s a reason for HANS and also for the headrest, driver´s head should never have any big displacement, never, so sorry but your statement about no space between driver´s head and the structure is complete nosense. There should never be any space, with or without closed cockpit
This plain wrong. The HANS and headrests are deceleration devices. There is a reason the headrest deformed when Hamilton pushed it back in Azerbaijan, because it's a thin layer of carbon over foam. If these devices immobilized the drivers head then the brain would hit the inside of the skull in an impact. The drivers head can almost hit the steering wheel in a head on still because the HANS belts are designed to stretch.
no, what you mention here is plain wrong.
they're devices prevented that the drivers head is able to move beyond its physical capacities meaning it prevents spinal injury. facts.

first of all if you look and read properly, you'll find that around the driver's helmet in the design here is PADDING. that means it's not a hard object, but similar to the headrest of hamilton which you mention but without an inner carbon layer. only difference, nothing else. it immobilizes the driver's head to a certain degree - it prevents it from moving TOO FAR. which is zero difference from the design and today.

'almost hit' the steering wheel does not equal hitting the steering wheel so i don't get why you have to mention this information.

as for the brain hitting the inside of the skull:

guess o guess what caused bianchi's injury? yes, rapid decelleration of the brains due to it hitting the skull and fragmenting/stretching the [soft] brain tissue beyond what it can handle.
One of the reasons the Red Bull aeroscreen initially failed the FIA tests was the free air space around the driver, so the screen DEFINITELY needs to be offset from the helmet. From experience designing solar cars and the canopy I am aware how much of a pain it is complying with free air rules while still having a usable aerodynamic shape.
what on earth are you talking about? what free air space and why did it fail? offset from the helmet? the screen is wider than the halo itself.
Dumpster sounds so much more classy. It's the diamond of the cesspools.

jjn9128
19
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: Chris Beatty Veloctiy RPB-01 car proposal.

Post by jjn9128 » Sun Aug 13, 2017 2:23 pm

Our point is that the canopy, as with a lot of these canopy and halo designs that are appearing of late, encroaches on the driver so in the event of a crash the helmet impacts the canopy/halo.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/124729
One of the issues that has come to light concerns the free air volume around a driver's helmet in relation to the rim of the aeroscreen.

It was discovered should a car fitted with an aeroscreen be involved in any kind of impact or accident, the helmet would collide with the rim, with the g-forces involved significantly higher.

Manoah2u
232
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2013 1:07 pm

Re: Chris Beatty Veloctiy RPB-01 car proposal.

Post by Manoah2u » Sun Aug 13, 2017 2:51 pm

as far as i'm aware the aeroscreen rim is the same as the halo, so that never made any sense to me except if the impact would deform the aerscreen rim more because of the missing vertical strut.

in the case of this desing, the rim is not similar around the driver but in front of it, like a roll hoop, and the helmet would not be able to hit that roll hoop. at the very worst, it could hit the canopy, but as mentioned above, surely it can be designed to break under the neccesary force, or simply 'enlarge' the area by a minute margin.

if you'd look at the halo itself, you'd be sure it would hit the rim, FIA claims it doesnt. somehow the aeroscreen would - atleast the first one RB proposed.
Supposedly the ferrari version didnt but cause distorted view due to the curved glass but i'm confident that can be overcome with correct use of material and molding, not the least demirrorizing the material.
Dumpster sounds so much more classy. It's the diamond of the cesspools.

Andres125sx
229
User avatar
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 9:15 am
Location: Madrid, Spain

Re: Chris Beatty Veloctiy RPB-01 car proposal.

Post by Andres125sx » Mon Aug 14, 2017 10:13 am

jjn9128 wrote:
Sun Aug 13, 2017 1:12 pm
Andres125sx wrote:
Sun Aug 13, 2017 11:56 am
Also, there can´t be any space between driver´s head and the structure. Have you ever heard about neck injuries? There´s a reason for HANS and also for the headrest, driver´s head should never have any big displacement, never, so sorry but your statement about no space between driver´s head and the structure is complete nosense. There should never be any space, with or without closed cockpit
This plain wrong. The HANS and headrests are deceleration devices. There is a reason the headrest deformed when Hamilton pushed it back in Azerbaijan, because it's a thin layer of carbon over foam. If these devices immobilized the drivers head then the brain would hit the inside of the skull in an impact. The drivers head can almost hit the steering wheel in a head on still because the HANS belts are designed to stretch.

One of the reasons the Red Bull aeroscreen initially failed the FIA tests was the free air space around the driver, so the screen DEFINITELY needs to be offset from the helmet. From experience designing solar cars and the canopy I am aware how much of a pain it is complying with free air rules while still having a usable aerodynamic shape.
You should have realized at this point it is not free air what should be around driver´s helmet, but, as you mention yourself, deceleration devices :wink:

Did you watch this picture wich is in the OP?

Image

I´d say that wich is represented green is exactly the same as a headrest, a deceleration device, and the canopy/cockpit/screen/whatever is only past that deceleration zone, out of the zone wich the helmet can move around on a crash so there´s no problem, there´s nothing solid wich the helmet can hit on a crash, and even if it reach the sceen, it is detachable outwards

Basically this cockpit is exactly the same as a current F1 cockpit, but with a canopy covering driver´s head, so since that is detachable outwards, can you please explain to me what is making this so useless when it is basically the same as any current cockpit with nothing solid into the helmet safety zone?

Shakeman
38
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 12:31 pm
Location: UK

Re: Chris Beatty Veloctiy RPB-01 car proposal.

Post by Shakeman » Mon Aug 14, 2017 11:48 am

I'm late to the thread and it's veered off into head protection but I think Chris Beatty's proposal has a lot of merit and an excellent kicking off point for a discussion.

I think F1 should follow Indy Car's lead and radically reduce the amount of down force generated by the upper body and wings and increase the ground effect. What little wings are left should be active, we've had moveable aero front wings and now DRS so the logical next step is active aero front and back. Given the majority of the DF is generated under car the aero would be used to tune balance to keep the racing as close as possible while following a car or as the tyre balance changes. With active aero we should have active suspension back again.

Current F1 racing is poor despite the driver talent available, the cars don't look next level or next gen, they're enormous, the extra speed of this year's cars have done absolutely nothing for the racing spectacle and their aero regs has been a massive backward step. The T-wing stands as a testament to how bad F1 has become.

The engine talk would completely disappear if F1 cars looked better, had a wider mix of technology, had much closer racing and had the absolute best driver protection possible. I'm sure it's possible to create a halo/cockpit that has great aesthetics unlike next year's eyesore.

To keep tinkering with rule changes and not addressing the fundamentals of why race day entertainment is actually quite poor is going to end with people switching off so I hope Brawn delivers a revolution to the F1 formula rather than an evolution.



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CCBot [Bot] and 1 guest