FIA considering closed cockpit F1 in the future?

Discussion in 'Motorsport' started by Hun200kmh, Jul 14, 2011.

  1. twitcher

    twitcher

    Messages:
    6,232
    I don't know if wipers would be necessary.

    I've heard and read that most drivers avoid turning wipers on mid race, as the windshield is covered in dirt, grime, and oil. Turning the wipers on before the windshield gets washed or has a tear away removed makes visibility worse than just looking through the water. Point is, the drivers can usually cope. Lots of guys have done wet races with broken/non-functioning wipers as well.

    I've also read that McLaren is working on a wiperless system for it's road cars, using sonic pulses or something like that. That sounds much more F1 than wipers. Anyone know more about that concept?

    Edit:
    http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/technol...iminate-windshield-wipers-from-cars-1.2467556
     
  2. Nessy

    Nessy

    Messages:
    3,979
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    The possibility of a driver having to cope during a wet race with no wiper, doesn't sound like a very good idea, to me.. even if drivers have done that in the past due to faults.

    Interesting article though. A vibrating/buzzing windscreen may just work. (I wonder what the weight of the oscillators/shakers would need to be, to shift the water/oil/grime?)
     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2016
  3. twitcher

    twitcher

    Messages:
    6,232
    It's not just "due to faults" though, as far as I understand. Leaving the wipers off is standard opperating procedure if it starts raining mid race. If the race starts wet, that's a different story. I remember Calvin Fish talking about not turning them on during one of the IMSA races at Watkins Glen last year.

    Not sure how much an ultra sonic system would weigh, but my guess is no more than a few pounds.


    I think a more troublesome issue than keeping the windshield clear during a wet race is keeping the driver's helmet visor clear. Right now, water beads off their visors pretty quick due to the wind. If they're behind a windscreen, but still have an open top, I would imagine the visors would still get wet, but wouldn't have the wind blowing over them to clear the water away. Or perhaps the opening in the top would be small enough that not much water would make its way into the cockpit at speed.
     
  4. GTPorsche

    GTPorsche

    Messages:
    21,245
    They could use something like Rain-X but I don't know how effective that would be at speed.
     
  5. Nessy

    Nessy

    Messages:
    3,979
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    I wonder whether they'd have to isolate the oscillation of the windscreen to a degree, (if they were to use that idea). As I imagine some of that buzzing would be felt through the steering wheel. Drivers do complain about vibration when flat-spotting a tyre, I doubt it would be that severe, but who knows?
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2016
  6. TenEightyOne

    TenEightyOne

    Messages:
    19,603
    The people who design fighter canopies? They undergo similar loads at runway speeds and beyond.
     
  7. Nessy

    Nessy

    Messages:
    3,979
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    I just imagine the control stick of a fighter plane to be more isolated from the canopy, than the tightly packaged steering assembly and windscreen of an F1 car.

    And we all know how moany F1 drivers can be. :D
     
  8. TenEightyOne

    TenEightyOne

    Messages:
    19,603
    That's not relevant, the fighter canopy isn't isolated from the body (which does vibrate quite heavily on runways) and which pulls more G than an F1 car.
     
  9. Nessy

    Nessy

    Messages:
    3,979
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Does the body of a fighter jet vibrate heavily when airborne? And are they operating within the same tolerances that an F1 car does on track?
     
  10. TenEightyOne

    TenEightyOne

    Messages:
    19,603
    Far beyond those tolerances. The comparison here is with a ground vehicle travelling at high speed. A fighter jet is exactly that at time in the TOL parts of the flight. Yes, the body of a fighter can vibrate heavily during certain manouevres or at the extents of the flight envelope. My point is that the problems with vibration when it comes to fixing a canopy to a high-envelope vehicle have already been addressed.
     
    twitcher likes this.
  11. twitcher

    twitcher

    Messages:
    6,232
    Yes, most high performance aircraft vibrate and buffet quite severely under certain conditions.
     
  12. Nessy

    Nessy

    Messages:
    3,979
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    When i say 'tolerances', i mean it in a kind of way as.. i dunno, like does a jet have to fly feet/ or inches away from another jet, yet still have the sensitivity and feel to not touch the other jet? It's kind of hard for me to explain (tbh). But the way i see it is, if there's any additional vibration, surely that would hinder the fine tool that it is.

    Another thing to remember is, we're talking about the confines of a tight twisty track, not wide open forgiving airspace.
     
  13. GTPorsche

    GTPorsche

    Messages:
    21,245
    [​IMG]
    Yes.
     
    twitcher likes this.
  14. Nessy

    Nessy

    Messages:
    3,979
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    No.

    Not as close as F1 cars. nice try though.
     
  15. TenEightyOne

    TenEightyOne

    Messages:
    19,603
    I'm not sure what your point is. By your own admission you're not either.

    Canopies already exist on vehicles that travel along roads at very high speeds. LMP cars, Land Speed Record cars, fighter jets taking off, all equally good examples. Fighters, the example I used earlier, suffer extreme vibration and buffeting both on the ground and off it. The proximity of other aircraft does little to change (or to add to) that and is irrelevant. And yes, they maintain the accuracy of vision required to fly at 50ft at supersonic speeds. And that's a lot of buffeting. I can assure you that a Cessna cruising at 3000ft feels the ground effect, a fighter at 50ft covering much more airspace feels a lot more.
     
    twitcher likes this.
  16. Nessy

    Nessy

    Messages:
    3,979
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    For a start. The Redbull windscreen is not a Canopy, i doubt it has the same rigidity and doesn't have the structure of an aircraft canopy, so to compare the two is kind of different to begin with. If you will,- it's kind of like trying to compare a coupe to a convertible (scuttle shake).

    Secondly. from what i can gather, you're suggesting an aircraft is just one big vibration machine. So really, having a buzzing canopy on an aircraft isn't going to affect the feel of the overall existing vibration, is it? Where as, drivers of F1 cars complain about the vibration felt from a flat spot. Granted, any vibration felt through the steering wheel (or surrounding tightly packed cockpit) from this oscillating windscreen, may not be as severe as a flat-spot, but who's to say it won't affect the handling feel of a racing (not formation flying) car, that is racing with inches, even cm's to spare?
     
  17. twitcher

    twitcher

    Messages:
    6,232
    Not to be rude, but you need to do a little research on advanced precision flying and high performance aircraft.

    Aircraft are not "vibrating machines" (although all machines vibrate at various frequencies. The human body is just not sensitive to all frequencies), but they do go through various conditions, depending on turbine speed, airspeed, altitude, atmospheric conditions, and manuever being executed, which cause severe vibrations and buffeting.

    Formation flying requires extremely precise control, as certain formations require flying within a couple feet one one another for extended periods of time, at speeds faster than F1 cars travel, while pulling more Gs, all while dealing with correcting movement in 3 dimensions as opposed to just 2. In a close battle in an F1 car, at any given point, either of the drivers has the option of tapping the brakes and yielding. That option doesn't really exist in multi plane formation flying.

    I'm regards to a "vibrating windscreen", my guess is that the vibrations would be at a frequency higher than what is detectable by the human body, so I doubt it would effect the drivers. I'd say there is most of a chance if it effecting the onboard electronics and gizmos....but the aviation industry requires avionics far beyond what F1 requires, and they figured out how to have their avionics not be effected by the windscreen, so I'm pretty sure F1 could figure it out.
     
  18. Nessy

    Nessy

    Messages:
    3,979
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    You're comparing something air based with a canopy to something land based with a windscreen.
     
  19. TenEightyOne

    TenEightyOne

    Messages:
    19,603
    Source required.

    I suspect that you'd be mistaken if you thought they'd just bend a bit of plexi round the halo.
     
  20. Nessy

    Nessy

    Messages:
    3,979
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    A canopy is something that goes over the top of the cockpit. Are we looking at different pictures or something?
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2016
  21. Samus

    Samus

    Messages:
    18,514
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Red Bull tweeted a render of their real concept, quite a bit different from the Piolo impression

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
    Telstar, LMSCorvetteGT2, DK and 2 others like this.
  22. AudiMan2011

    AudiMan2011 Contributing Writer

    Messages:
    12,010
    Location:
    Scotland
    ^ That looks like a much better design than the halo.
     
    catamount39 likes this.
  23. Greycap

    Greycap Premium

    Messages:
    5,581
    Location:
    Finland
    I actually wonder why it needs those "structural" parts at all. Unless it's impossible to make the screen strong enough but seeing how big hits even a helmet visor can take one would think that a thicker layer would do the job quite easily.
     
  24. Samus

    Samus

    Messages:
    18,514
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    See the first post of this thread. It seems it wouldn't be structurally strong enough unless it was a complete canopy.
     
  25. Tired Tyres

    Tired Tyres

    Messages:
    10,640
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    That looks plausible. :tup:
     
  26. TenEightyOne

    TenEightyOne

    Messages:
    19,603
    I've said many times that the number of incidents where a closed canopy might be detrimental to driver escape is vanishingly small. I might have to stand corrected.

    1d7af655-5bf0-467b-b17a-e1e330b054d2.jpg
     
  27. ukfan758

    ukfan758

    Messages:
    4,221
    Location:
    United States
    And if a fire happened with that canopy on the top... I don't even want to think about what could have happened.
     
    TenEightyOne likes this.
  28. prisonermonkeys

    prisonermonkeys Premium

    Messages:
    33,155
    Location:
    Peru
    My concern is what happens if the halo takes a hit with enough force to break it. Ayrton Senna was killed by a suspension rod that punctured his helmet - a broken halo is going to go straight into a driver's face.
     
    DK, Liquid, Grand Prix and 2 others like this.
  29. Nessy

    Nessy

    Messages:
    3,979
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    That is a worrying prospect, but at the same time, wouldn't the halo have absorbed/slowed down some of the impact, for it to have even broke in the first place? If I were an F1 driver in that situation, I'd rather have it than not have it.
     
  30. ukfan758

    ukfan758

    Messages:
    4,221
    Location:
    United States
    What I also worry about if if the Halo caved in, which could happen if the car lands at an angle with the cockpit making the first impact.

    In the accident below, the car landed onto the top of a wall, which smashed down the roll cage. Thankfully the driver was fine after the crash.
    image.jpeg