FIA considering closed cockpit F1 in the future?

[GTP_Ingram]

If I'm being picky, I think the aeroscreen looks a little wide from head-on, but it might look in better proportion with 2017's wider cars anyway. In all honesty, I quite like it. Looks infinitely better than the halo concept.

 

[IforceV8]

Probably not, but once you start introducing them, there's little to differentiate it from the WEC except for shorter races and a lack of driver changes - and I think that you will find that the sport loses a lot of followers.

You mean other than the teams, the drivers, the tracks, the rules, the broadcast production, the announcers, the worldwide media exposure, the history, and the overall completely different concept right?

 

[Liquid]

It looks infinitely better than the halo but it still looks clunky and out of place. That's probably because it's a bolted on bus-stop window rather than something which was incorporated with the original design of the car. I still maintain that this is an issue which does not necessarily need such a solution but this does look better aesthetically.

If a tyre is deflected which such little reduction in force and speed, is there then a possibility that the tyre would be sent upwards and to the side... out of the track limits and into the spectators/grandstands? What impact the windscreen has on flying debris and where that debris ends up must be considered in extraordinary detail.

 

[Nessy]

Can't be unseen.

 

[TenEightyOne]

If a tyre is deflected which such little reduction in force and speed, is there then a possibility that the tyre would be sent upwards and to the side... out of the track limits and into the spectators/grandstands? What impact the windscreen has on flying debris and where that debris ends up must be considered in extraordinary detail.

I see your point but surely that risk exists now if debris hits a front or rear tyre? That could actually add even more energy.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Wheels don't stop dead when they hit drivers heads either. The one that hit Surtees' helmet made it over the armco.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I see your point but surely that risk exists now if debris hits a front or rear tyre? That could actually add even more energy.

I don't think that's how physics works.

 

[RACECAR]

It doesn't look absolutely awful but it still looks out of place and bolted on, exactly what it is. Also for some reason it looks comically oversized for the car.

While this is nowhere near that hideous piece of crap the Halo was, am I the only one that thinks this looks like a driver's visor photoshopped on the car?

 

[JacoJa]

A photoshop edit I did to see how it would look on a 2017-style car:

I'm sure the cars will be designed and styled around the aeroscreen if they're required next year, so they should look better.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I don't think that's how physics works.

We've seen the dramatic effect that wheel-to-wheel contact has, a loose tyre hitting the wheel of an oncoming car could be launched quite some distance and may gain a lot of rotational energy.

 

[trustjab]

It's an improvement over the halo in terms of looks, but that's not much of an achievement imo. I'd rather they do a jet fighter canopy like Hamilton is saying. Just a quick google search and you get this for 2017 type rules

not the best looking photoshop, but a lot better than what RB are running.

 

[TenEightyOne]

It's an improvement over the halo in terms of looks, but that's not much of an achievement imo. I'd rather they do a jet fighter canopy like Hamilton is saying. Just a quick google search and you get this for 2017 type rules

Thank goodness Google isn't designing the 2017 cars, that's all I can say.

 

[mustafur]

It's an improvement over the halo in terms of looks, but that's not much of an achievement imo. I'd rather they do a jet fighter canopy like Hamilton is saying. Just a quick google search and you get this for 2017 type rules

not the best looking photoshop, but a lot better than what RB are running.

The problem I can see with this is visibility, that style canopy is suitable for aircraft because they don't have to deal with heavy traffic and have radar to tell them where it is if they don't see it.

 

[trustjab]

It's just a photoshop. Instead of these half measures they could just go for a fully enclosed cockpit. Numerous drivers agree thats the safest way. I just posted that for illustration purposes.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

The Red Bull solution would look great with a full canopy, accompanied by wider sidepods and perhaps LMP style snorkel air intakes on the sidepods to replace the intake on the top, which could in turn be replaced by a simple roll hoop.

Someone on F1technical brought up that this solution could also make way for a HUD somewhere down the line, whether that's really necessary is another question though.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Here's a radical idea: let's stop trying to turn Formula One into something that it's not - a lighter version of sports car racing. If additional cockpit protection is necessary, then explore ways to adopt it, but don't get so engrossed in it that we forget what Formula One is supposed to be.

Because the cynic in me sees it being a short step from enclosed cockpits to abandoning the idea of open-wheel racing entirely, creating a championship which is essentially the WEC, and therefore redundant, removing the need for it. That same cynic within me strongly suspects that some people (not necessarily anyone here) want exactly that: to get rid of Formula One entirely.

 

[Samus]

Even with a cockpit there would be a huge further jump required to take an F1 car to be like a WEC LMP car.

Even if it did happen, which I'm sure it won't, F1 would still be a sprint race in comparison to the WEC, it would hardly be redundant.

 

[MatskiMonk]

let's stop trying to turn Formula One into something that it's not

To be honest, I'm not sure there's even a consensus from within sport about what it should be, or even is.

I generally agree though, I'd rather F1 cars looked like the top of the open-wheel open cockpit food chain, and it should be a clear evolution from something like MSA Formula right up to the top....

.. but on the flipside, I think the cars have looked like garbage ever since 2009 anyway, so I'm far less offended by either the Halo, or the RBR screen than some appear to be.

 

[Samus]

F1 cockpit protection decision set for July

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/36181514

Formula 1 bosses have a set a deadline of 1 July for a decision on the introduction of cockpit head protection for the 2017 season.

"It would be unreasonable if we didn't have a clear path by that time," said Charlie Whiting, F1 director at motorsport's governing body the FIA.

The 'aeroscreen' tested by Red Bull on Friday and the 'halo' run by Ferrari pre-season are concepts in contention.

 

[Dotini]

http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/story/_/id/15473928/enclosed-f1-cockpits-pain-backside

Sutton Images

The Brabham BT24 with a cockpit screen during practice for the 1967 Italian Grand Prix Sutton Images

Brian Hart tests a cockpit screen at Hockenheim in 1967 Sutton Images

 

[TenEightyOne]

http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/story/_/id/15473928/enclosed-f1-cockpits-pain-backside

Sutton Images

The Brabham BT24 with a cockpit screen during practice for the 1967 Italian Grand Prix Sutton Images

Brian Hart tests a cockpit screen at Hockenheim in 1967 Sutton Images

Interesting that a viewing slit was needed in the canopy.

A worry I have about the new "aeroscreen" if it's introduced is pit-lane safety. Somebody is going to have to be between the wheels removing the screen's tear-off (according to Ricciardo, at least), that's surely a Bad Thing. Multiply that activity by the number of stops in a season and combine that with the number of "false starts" from a pit-stop... hmmm.

 

[Nessy]

Interesting that a viewing slit was needed in the canopy.

A worry I have about the new "aeroscreen" if it's introduced is pit-lane safety. Somebody is going to have to be between the wheels removing the screen's tear-off (according to Ricciardo, at least), that's surely a Bad Thing. Multiply that activity by the number of stops in a season and combine that with the number of "false starts" from a pit-stop... hmmm.

Couldn't they just develop some kind of stick/paddle that has a highly adhesive surface? Slap it on (from a distance), yank it off.

Could even make it look like a comedy sized hand shape.

 

[A2K78]

Closed cockpits make more sense in IndyCar(given the fact the cars are basically missiles on ovals, not road courses) than F1; Not even a shield would've saved JB given the nature of his accident.

I'm all for safety but closed cockpits, shields, etc are nothing but a safety overreaction just the current use of crash bags in MotoGP is a safety overraction. Overral this is more about selling technology.

 

[AudiMan2011]

Halo confirmed for 2017.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/36404898

 

[TenEightyOne]

Halo confirmed for 2017.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/36404898

Ah, I put it in the Technical thread, rats

For reference; the "aeroscreen" is to be further tested with a view to that appearing on the cars in 2018.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

I'm even more concerned than I was during winter testing that this is being rushed through. From Autosport's article:

It has been determined that while the aeroscreen is a robust device, and preferred by fans over the halo, the time constraints now pressing on the teams make the halo the way to go.

With a deadline of July 1 imposed for confirmation of which device would be given the go ahead, the lack of testing of the aeroscreen over the halo was one of the deciding factors.

Which implies that since the FIA are set on introducing cockpit protection in 2017 no matter what, they have to forget the aeroscreen because they've run out of time to test it. I really hope they haven't actually foregone development of a possible solution because for some reason waiting until you've made sure you've got the best solution just isn't an option. At least the article also says that the aeroscreen isn't "off the table" for the future.

Bob Fernley has also suggested this is being rushed, and that it would be better to wait until the options have been fully evaluated. I know TPs have ulterior motives for saying anything, but I haven't thought of one yet for this so I'm inclined to agree.

What's really frustrating as well is the FIA's lack of transparency. For all we know they've looked really extensively at the halo, done boatloads of testing and evaluation with it, have had for some time good reasons why it's a more promising concept to develop and take forward than the aeroscreen, and hence it's only logical they bring it in for 2017. But we don't know because FIA has been scarce on public detail. From the outside, I think we've seen Mercedes' graphical proposal, a single projectile test, and a single on-track test? Then the FIA have gone "yep we'll have to go with that - no time to look at the other design for now. Trust us!". It doesn't sit terribly well with me really.

 

[TenEightyOne]

for some reason waiting until you've made sure you've got the best solution just isn't an option

I disagree; as you note yourself the aeroscreen option (if that's the best) is being tested with a view to its introduction in 2018.

Given the concerns about the dirt on the screen (very real according to Ricciardo and Red Bull after the test) it seems that the first option (halo) is actually the best right now. There's a natural need, if a device is to be used in 2017, for the teams to work it into their aero tests. The aeroscreen isn't going to be fully formulated by July, and that's the cutoff period for the teams if they're to develop it into their 2017 cars.

 

[Imari]

Given the concerns about the dirt on the screen (very real according to Ricciardo and Red Bull after the test)...

How do LMPs and the like deal with dirt? I always assumed that there must be either some coating or some fancy equivalent of a full screen tear off, but I don't remember ever actually seeing it.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

Given the concerns about the dirt on the screen (very real according to Ricciardo and Red Bull after the test) it seems that the first option (halo) is actually the best right now.

Well the key word for me there is "seems" - could well be true but we don't know for sure (unless the FIA do know for sure and they're just not telling us their reasons). I'm with Fernley in that surely it's better to fully evaluate the options before pursuing the development + implementation of one of them.

There's a natural need, if a device is to be used in 2017, for the teams to work it into their aero tests. The aeroscreen isn't going to be fully formulated by July, and that's the cutoff period for the teams if they're to develop it into their 2017 cars.

Indeed, my issue is the existence of this deadline in the first place - I don't understand the urgency, especially concerning a device which will be designed to stop a very freak set of incidents occurring. The solution isn't immediately obvious and it's important they get it right - so I hope they're being more cautious about this process than they're lending on.

 

[TenEightyOne]

it's better to fully evaluate the options before pursuing the development + implementation of one of them.

They have considered them, and both have been tested. They aren't only developing/implementing one of them, the aeroscreen will continue to be developed as a successor. For now some protection is better than no protection.