Russian Grand Prix 2016, Sochi - Race 4/21

El_Watcher said:
I am interested in how they will do this test. With the halo, all they had to do was stick it on top of the current chassis, as it didnt restrict the airflow to the engine.
With a full canopy, how does air get to the intake above the drivers head? How do you make it wide enough for the drivers head/shoulders without being wider than the chassis?
A full canopy to be done properly should require a complete redesign of the nose, the side pods and the engine cover/intake/roll hoop.

Are they building a full prototype car for this, or is it going to end up looking like a mix of F1 car and Peel Trident :D

bYOHAsY.jpg
Click to expand...

just give them peel tridents with front wings! job done!
 
ROFL!!!

ChIWNSoWIAAPYQS.jpg
 
"If they're going to do this, close the cockpit like a fighter jet," Hamilton said.

"Don't half-arse it. Go one way or the other.

"That screen looks so bad. It looks like a bloody riot shield."

LOL :D
 
Err, I think somebody needs to go back to school to understand the meaning of canopy and closed cockpit :confused: .
Most places would define canopy as "the transparent cover over the cockpit of an airplane"
That does not go over the driver, it just creates a higher wall around the driver. Is there going to be a roof component as well?
Or are RBR actually not calling it a canopy but some news people are being lazy?

I guess it should stop errant tyres though.

Also, that looks really difficult to get out of in a hurry. Plus would that not make driver extraction by the medics more difficult (i.e. with the seat if the G meter gets activated)?
 
Last edited:
El_Watcher said:
Or are RBR actually not calling it a canopy but some news people are being lazy?
Click to expand...

Red Bull are calling it the "aeroscreen" afaik.


El_Watcher said:
I guess it should stop errant tyres though.
Click to expand...

Despite errant tyres being a relatively rare occurance these days anyway (since the advent of wheel tethers etc). But this looks to be far more useful than the "halo", as it should protect against smaller debris e.g. bits of carbon fibre wings and the like.


El_Watcher said:
Also, that looks really difficult to get out of in a hurry. Plus would that not make driver extraction by the medics more difficult (i.e. with the seat if the G meter gets activated)?
Click to expand...

The open/closed/"halo"/aeroscreen debate will always involve a trade off in ease of escape vs protection offered. I assume if it goes ahead e.g. marshals would be briefed and required tools to remove the screen quickly (as looks like it may be bolted from outside) would be available.
 
It looks stupid, not sure which is worse that or the flip flop.

If your going to do it, do it properly and have a jet fighter canopy. That way it'll stop pretty much any size at any angle. And it looks awesome.

It extremely rare that drivers need to get out in a hurry. When's the last time we had a proper car fire. Not just a bit if exhaust flame.
 
Glaucus said:
It extremely rare that drivers need to get out in a hurry.
Click to expand...

Indeed, other than any big fires, I would think drivers are probably safer staying put inside the survival cell, in case of further accidents at the same place e.g. multiple cars sliding on oil or wet track.

In a really serious accident then likely the driver will need a medical decision before extraction commences anyway (so not necessarily as much need for quick extraction).
 
Armageus said:
Indeed, other than any big fires, I would think drivers are probably safer staying put inside the survival cell, in case of further accidents at the same place e.g. multiple cars sliding on oil or wet track.

In a really serious accident then likely the driver will need a medical decision before extraction commences anyway (so not necessarily as much need for quick extraction).
Click to expand...

That's irrelevant. There's a regulation that states a driver must be able to self extract from a car within a set time (5 seconds I think)? If they can't do that either they don't get a Super License, or the car is not homoligated (depending on the reasons why they can't get out).

It doesn't matter if they never need to, the rules state they have to be able to.

However, the glare on the screen in pretty much every photo is my main issue with that concept.
 
Skeeter said:
That's irrelevant. There's a regulation that states a driver must be able to self extract from a car within a set time (5 seconds I think)? If they can't do that either they don't get a Super License, or the car is not homoligated (depending on the reasons why they can't get out).

It doesn't matter if they never need to, the rules state they have to be able to.
Click to expand...

It's not irrelevant, because surely if there is a rule change to mandate the use of this, then other rules would be changed to facilitate it's use.
 
Skeeter said:
However, the glare on the screen in pretty much every photo is my main issue with that concept.
Click to expand...

Although I agree, it that were how it were to look, it would be unusable.

I would imagine that they can find some sort of film overlay which will reduce reflection without completely reducing visibility. It is not like WEC or BTCC have massive issues with reflection.
 
This would pretty much mean if the car flipped the driver would have to stay put wouldn't it? The gap between floor and roll hoop would be too small.
 
Armageus said:
It's not irrelevant, because surely if there is a rule change to mandate the use of this, then other rules would be changed to facilitate it's use.
Click to expand...

The rule is still in the 2017 rules as they stand currently. 5 second extraction, and replacement of the wheel within a further 10 seconds.

Nismo said:
This would pretty much mean if the car flipped the driver would have to stay put wouldn't it? The gap between floor and roll hoop would be too small.
Click to expand...

I don't think the current rules require the driver to be able to exit the car if its upside down anyway? (The above 5 second rule is stated as "from the normal driving position"). The drivers helmet must be below a line from the roll-over hoop too the front bulkhead, but there's no requirement on a size of 'opening' that would be required.
 
Last edited:
I don't think it looks bad either. I do wonder how they'll cope with dirt etc though as it's not an easy tearoff for the drivers like on their visors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom