I work on ejection seats for the United States Marines on F/A-18s. I think I know a shitload more about explosives on jets, and especially canopies than you ever hope to. They are dangerous no matter what they are on. Like I said, what if that 'pop cap' was set off on the track by mistake? The pressure difference would pull the canopy off and it would land on the track. It's not a safe, nor sound idea.ISLAMATRON wrote:You obviously have no idea about modern explosives, which are designed to be extremely stable and most require a chemical reaction to initiate. They operate more like the fuse of a warhead then TNT. Much less volatile than the fuel in the cars, and like I said they don't need to eject the canopy(which can be tethered to the car) it just needs to release it to give access to the driver. Explosions don't need to be big, think of the pop caps you used to throw as a child. It is not the only solution but just an idea i put out there for discussion.Ray wrote:That is a very very bad idea. Those can be accidentally set off by a mechanic in the pits, and for cripes sake it's an explosive! You cannot have them in a closed environment without an disproportionate increase in risk. What if it was tripped on the race track and you have a canopy either flying through the air or laying on the track around a blind corner. Why increase the risk for miniscule gain?!? It makes no sense. I'll go back to what I said in another thread, why put a FOD screen on a passenger jet engine and increase your risk of it coming loose and going into an engine to prevent a very small risk of a bird strike? With that screen over the engine during all times it is operating, you have increased the risk of something being ingested to takeoff and landing to whenever the engine is running. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. What if the canopy got stuck and the car was on fire? Since we are talking about the very rare happening here, that's a very valid thing to point out.ISLAMATRON wrote:the explosion in an exploding bolt can easily be self contained, it wouldn't even have to blow off the canopy like in a jet, but merely release the canopy.
Why do you think that explosive bolts would be so much more dangerous in a racecar than in a jet plane with military bombs on board?
Jet planes are under way more stress than an F1 car would ever be. They are more dangerous on racecars because people are TRAINED in the military to handle explosives and they are VERY strict about that training. The MOS I had in the Marines could not be cross trained into. Ejection seat and canopy mechanic. Not even the ordnancemen who loaded bombs could be cross trained into my MOS. ALL ordnance rules are written in blood, not merely broken parts.timbo wrote:Jetplanes are never ever exposed to such vibrations as F1 cars.ISLAMATRON wrote:Why do you think that explosive bolts would be so much more dangerous in a racecar than in a jet plane with military bombs on board?
its the relative velocity of car and the spring causing the huge forcen smikle wrote:800g! that is freaking heavy!!![]()
Could this be Proof that Barichello's car is not as well prepared as Button's?
You make it sound like I want to put a catchers mask on his existing race helmet with glue and duct tape.Ray wrote:How would you mount it? Screws? Epoxy? If it came dislodged it could bend around his helmet and pierce his neck. Airbags are not an apples to apples comparison. Airbags absorb impacts without any sharp edges and no risk of penetrating any part of your body, plus they aren't always going to go off. Plus Massas' head had a massive impact with the steering wheel, how would a cage do in that situation? I think having something metal directly attached to the front of a helmet is more of a risk than it mitigates for simple reasons about how it would be mounted and what kind of damage it would do to a helmet in an impact with a steering wheel.Giblet wrote:Saying that a metal face mask over the visor could be more dangerous to other cars is a negative way to look at it.
For the mask to come dislodged, the driver would have to be hit in the face with something very strong. It is about harm reduction. Massa with no broken face, vs a metal face mask on the track that just saved his face? They wouldn't come off willy nilly, just like visors don't.
Your argument is like saying airbags should be outlawed because of an occasional boken nose, and very few deaths even though they save countless lives.
Is that you in your avatar? Hitting an explosive bolt with a sledge hammer? I know quite a bit about military(navy & MC) explosives & weapon systems being an ex-Navy military officer, but I did not physically handle them, so I defer to your experience.Ray wrote:I work on ejection seats for the United States Marines on F/A-18s. I think I know a shitload more about explosives on jets, and especially canopies than you ever hope to. They are dangerous no matter what they are on. Like I said, what if that 'pop cap' was set off on the track by mistake? The pressure difference would pull the canopy off and it would land on the track. It's not a safe, nor sound idea.
yep, but that is sustained load not a crash like - ever seen jetplane jumping on curbs?Ray wrote:Jet planes are under way more stress than an F1 car would ever be.
Well that makes alot more sense! If it is integrated into the helmet I would very much agree with you. But I would have to disagree about something 'attached' to the helmet per se. Something shaped where it would effectively deflect something would be ideal, but I'm no engineer so I wouldn't know how to make it sturdy enough to withstand something impacting it, something possibly pointy. Obviously my dumbass misunderstood you!Giblet wrote:You make it sound like I want to put a catchers mask on his existing race helmet with glue and duct tape.
Im talking about an integral, shock absorbing, new design for a helmet, that could be worth a proof of concept.
Steel, hitting carbon fibre, should win, should it not in a "smash off"? I would rather have a helmet with steel bars in it (Much like the proven tech of beams in car doors, or rebar reinforcing concrete).
Maybe the drivers helmets should be more like the sword dueling knight helmets of old. Oblique surfaces that deflect damage away. A round helmet, pretty much makes getting hit by something the worst, as every angle has a "broadside".
This pic is a little extreme, but maybe a shape more like this could deflect debris past the drivers head, creating less impact, and the HANS device should keep the head from twisting too far to the side in that kind of impact.
It's a crappy situation that might have no solution. Racing is dangerous, and that is why racing drivers are the ultimate athletic heroes. They literally risk their lives, bodies, and minds every race.
This may protect against a spring very well, but it won't make a difference when hit by a tire.Ray wrote:Well that makes alot more sense! If it is integrated into the helmet I would very much agree with you. But I would have to disagree about something 'attached' to the helmet per se. Something shaped where it would effectively deflect something would be ideal, but I'm no engineer so I wouldn't know how to make it sturdy enough to withstand something impacting it, something possibly pointy. Obviously my dumbass misunderstood you!That being said it would be kinda neat looking. Maybe a Darth Vader helmet?
Honestly, I have no clue what's going on in that picture. I just thought it was funny!ISLAMATRON wrote:Is that you in your avatar? Hitting an explosive bolt with a sledge hammer? I know quite a bit about military(navy & MC) explosives & weapon systems being an ex-Navy military officer, but I did not physically handle them, so I defer to your experience.Ray wrote:I work on ejection seats for the United States Marines on F/A-18s. I think I know a shitload more about explosives on jets, and especially canopies than you ever hope to. They are dangerous no matter what they are on. Like I said, what if that 'pop cap' was set off on the track by mistake? The pressure difference would pull the canopy off and it would land on the track. It's not a safe, nor sound idea.
you mean like landing? on a carrier? they take a good pounding, even just sitting in the hanger bay of the carriers.timbo wrote:yep, but that is sustained load not a crash like - ever seen jetplane jumping on curbs?Ray wrote:Jet planes are under way more stress than an F1 car would ever be.