Going under cover - the future of Formula One safety?

[F1NAC]

The FIA Institute has recently conducted tests to find out what happens when you fire a Formula One wheel and tyre into a jet fighter canopy at 225km/h - and these pictures show the results.

For some months now, the Institute’s technical advisor Andy Mellor and his colleagues have been investigating the possible benefits - and drawbacks - of adding some form of additional protection to the open-cockpit area of F1 cars.

Their research was prompted by the Formula One Technical Working Group (TWG) following the accident suffered by Felipe Massa at the 2009 Hungarian Grand Prix, when his helmet was struck by a spring that had fallen from the Brawn car of Rubens Barrichello, running slightly ahead on the track.

The aim of the test shown here was simple: to launch a Formula One wheel and tyre, together weighing 20kg, at 225km/h into a canopy made from aerospace-spec polycarbonate, and measure what happens, with all close-up observations being recorded by strategically positioned high-speed film cameras.

The cannon used for the test - from a company whose main business is providing stunt equipment to the film industry - features a 1200 psi compressed nitrogen cylinder capable of accelerating a piston (and wheel) to 225km/h in just two metres - a thrust average of 100g in less than a tenth of a second.

However, for the test to replicate the effect of a free-flying wheel assembly hitting a canopy - as it could in a real-world incident on-track - the wheel had to be free of the piston by the time it struck the windshield.

It’s at this point that another strand of already-proven F1 safety science came into play. Before it was inserted into the barrel, the piston was attached to four F1-spec wheel tethers, each designed to absorb more than 6kj of energy. They came into effect at exactly the two-metre mark from the piston’s point of exit from the cannon barrel.

The result of all the science and engineering was to allow the wheel and tyre 500mm of free flight between leaving the piston as it was slowed by tethers, and impacting the canopy.

An executive summary reported that the canopy deflected the wheel assembly suffering no permanent deformation. And viewing the canopy impact in slow motion showed it flexing to absorb impact energy, before ‘launching’ the wheel and tyre away.

“There were tyre transfer marks on the canopy, but there was no apparent fracture,” explains Mellor. “It shows that it’s quite an elastic material and that it’s very efficient at providing a load path to keep the wheel and tyre away.”

It is reassuring to learn that the canopy is highly impact-resistant, but not entirely surprising: it’s manufactured by an aerospace firm and is exactly the same model as fitted to an F-16 Fighter jet.

Full scientific results have now been presented to the Formula One Technical Working Group. What happens next will depend on the reaction of the FIA and the TWG to Mellor’s findings.

Any debate on implementation of cockpit canopies would have to take account of a number of known negatives, such as visibility, optical quality, ventilation, cleaning, access and emergency egress.

“We’re not looking at any of these things at the moment,” says Mellor. “This test was purely to look into the mechanical safety effect. Now that we have data on that, we can move towards a decision on what’s next.”


What do you think about that ?

http://www.formula1.com/news/features/2011/7/12314.html

[Hornet]

Seems like they are looking into having such canopy on a F1 car. I'm sure the engineers would love to have that idea for aerodynamic performance alone. Though as the article point out, they need to look into other potential side effect and problems

But I think its a good protection as in the past, we've seen how some accidents result in one car being flipped up and the wheel gets too close to the other driver's head, and with that wheel being attached to the car, its the full impact of the entire car.

[Mrs.Domenicali]

I think I read somewhere the TWG were not keen on the idea because it could hamper them getting drivers out the car quickly after an accident

[Ste]

I don't see the point. Apart from Massa's incident in 2009, there haven't been any other issues and the likelihood of something like that happening again is miniscule. The wheel tethers generally do a good job and even if they break, they usually have done a good enough job that the wheel doesn't launch away somewhere.

Apart from showing the strength of a fighter jet canopy, I don't see how a tyre hitting it at 225km/h is relevant. A tyre isn't likely to immediately detach, lose virtually no speed and happen to land on a driver as well.

The strength of a canopy is all very well but what about this; "absorb impact energy, before ‘launching’ the wheel and tyre away".

So after it's hit it, the 20kg object is 'launched' into the air potentially going over crash barriers and fences and into the crowd - who aren't protected.

Also, what if the car is on fire, or the KERS battery gets too hot under/behind the drivers' seat and he needs a quick exit? That's hardly achievable with a canopy above him. (EDIT - As Clair mentioned above)

[mm154]

I think they will probably come up with a wind screen type proposal that would still leave the top open for the driver to enter/exit the car... But it will most likely end up like the proposal they had a few years back with the small split rear wing set up that would help reduce the lose of down force for a following car...

[F1NAC]

[scuderiafan]

i dont know, but Michaels crash with Liuzzi last year could have gone very wrong.

[Suzie]

i dont know, but Michaels crash with Liuzzi last year could have gone very wrong.

Yep, as could Chandhok's at Monaco last year too.
In terms of accidents like Felipe's, that was a total freak.

[Alessandra]

Holy !!!(Sorry Mrs Domenicali) I watched the FIA Institute Jet Canopy Test and I just hope Felipe never gets to see it

[REDARMYSOJA]

The cannon used for the test - from a company whose main business is providing stunt equipment to the film industry - features a 1200 psi compressed nitrogen cylinder capable of accelerating a piston (and wheel) to 225km/h in just two metres - a thrust average of 100g in less than a tenth of a second.

Hmmm...I wonder if that's the chicken cannon from Mythbusters?

[Rob]

I read about this. The tyre after impact landed a mile away!! may be safe for driver, but not the spectators. All drivers know the risk and danger of F1 and open top car racing. They wouldnt be doing it if they thought it was to dangerous or risky. F1 wouldnt be F1 if they started to inclose the cockpit.

[Rob]

Hmmm...I wonder if that's the chicken cannon from Mythbusters?

that is good 1, wonder if Jamie and Adam were doing the tests

[kazi]

I don't see the point. Apart from Massa's incident in 2009, there haven't been any other issues and the likelihood of something like that happening again is miniscule. The wheel tethers generally do a good job and even if they break, they usually have done a good enough job that the wheel doesn't launch away somewhere.

Surtees? Senna? I would suspect the percentage of deaths in openwheel racing for the the last 20 years are atleast 80% head injuries.

Apart from showing the strength of a fighter jet canopy, I don't see how a tyre hitting it at 225km/h is relevant. A tyre isn't likely to immediately detach, lose virtually no speed and happen to land on a driver as well.

Physics 101. For every action there's....... It's to simulate the car going 225km/h into a slow moving tyre.

The strength of a canopy is all very well but what about this; "absorb impact energy, before ‘launching’ the wheel and tyre away".

So after it's hit it, the 20kg object is 'launched' into the air potentially going over crash barriers and fences and into the crowd - who aren't protected.

Isn't potentially dangerous better then sure death? If the canopy wasn't there the driver would have died and i'm pretty sure the tyre would launch up in the air in just about the same manner as with a canopy.

Also, what if the car is on fire, or the KERS battery gets too hot under/behind the drivers' seat and he needs a quick exit? That's hardly achievable with a canopy above him. (EDIT - As Clair mentioned above)

The current rule states that a driver must be able to leave the cockpit in 5 seconds. I have no problem seeing how this could be achieved with a canopy coupled to a quick release that is linked to say taking the steering wheel off (since you have to take it away to get out anyways). For what it's worth, i think it's harder to get out of say a DTM car then it would with an open wheeler with a canopy.



Just my 2 cents.

[Greig]

if they do it then they simply must have eject seats

[kazi]

And on the subject of this escaping fire thing. The same thing was said when they tried to intruduce seatbelts into F1. It took a while before people understood that the seatbelts might actually do more good then harm...... Just saying.

[Suzie]

I think aesthetic reasons would put me off, but obviously safety is more important.

[Ste]

Surtees? Senna? I would suspect the percentage of deaths in openwheel racing for the the last 20 years are atleast 80% head injuries.


Physics 101. For every action there's....... It's to simulate the car going 225km/h into a slow moving tyre.


Isn't potentially dangerous better then sure death? If the canopy wasn't there the driver would have died and i'm pretty sure the tyre would launch up in the air in just about the same manner as with a canopy.


The current rule states that a driver must be able to leave the cockpit in 5 seconds. I have no problem seeing how this could be achieved with a canopy coupled to a quick release that is linked to say taking the steering wheel off (since you have to take it away to get out anyways). For what it's worth, i think it's harder to get out of say a DTM car then it would with an open wheeler with a canopy.



Just my 2 cents.

I was talking about injuries in recent times, not ones 17+ years ago. Surtees and Massa's incidents were freak accidents that you couldn't replicate if you tried thousands of times. F1 is incredibly safe now and even smallish accidents like Perez's at Monaco would probably have injured his neck 15 years ago.

I don't necessarily agree that the driver would die if the tyre were to hit them. Yes, Surtees did, but only because it hit him on the top of the head where there is little support. If the tyre were to hit the front of the helmet, the helmet only has a few CM to travel before it is against the back of the cockpit, so breaking their neck or whatever is unlikely. Hitting the side of the helmet with any huge force is quite unlikely too since not very much of the helmet is exposed. The headrest is close to the side of the helmet too and the HANS comes into play as well. Since the helmet can withstand a tank driving over it, it can certainly withstand a 20kg wheel hitting it. The visor and visor hinges are now made differently since Massa's accident to prevent things piercing it.

It's true that a Surtees esque accident could happen again and I obviously don't want drivers to be injured or killed but in the modern era we have seen some utterly incredible accidents where drivers have simply walked away. X years ago there's no doubt they'd have broken bones or died. There are hundreds of things they could do to prevent things that COULD happen.

I agree about your idea of the canopy 'quick releasing' when the wheel is removed, that would probably be implemented and be a good solution to them getting out within the 5 second regulation.

F1 has always been open cockpit racing and I can't see that changing.

[kazi]

A 12kg flying wheel travelling at 250km/h has 29400nm of energy. A 9mm bullet fired from a pistol has around 500nm of energy.

Surely, the size is very different and the wheel won't pierce things like the bullet will, it's a stupid comparison, but what i wanted to highlight is that I think you are underestimating the forces we are talking about. Static pressure from a tank and a 29400j blow to your head is very different from eachother.

I'm not seeing how you would survive being hit by a tyre, the helmet won't stop your brain from bouncing of the back of your head and smash into your forehead.

[R Ginart]

As for F1 and windshields, just think about it.
The driver will be in an enclosed cockpit like a jet fighter pilot.
What if it rains? That means you will need wipers. Can you imagine an F1 car with windshield wipers?
You are going to need fenders so the rain does not shoot up to the windshield. Mud flaps too!
Then of course you will need a de-fog system in the cockpit, because it will be hot in there.
Then you will need air conditioning because it will be too hot in there.
Where does it end?
Is F1 to eliminate ALL risks? Risk is part of the equation.
I don't want to see anyone die, BUT it is a dangerous sport, eliminating all risk would take a lot out of the sport! IMO

[NanoTheQuickest]

I agree on the spectators argument! If anything bounces off a canopy carrying such momentum and ends up in a grand stand the results might be >1 injured or killed.

The driver are aware of the risk they take and F1, it has got safe enough already (I'm not saying i want to see injured drivers), but they are pampered like babies!

PS: also agree with R Ginart. (comment just above)

[Ken]

What an image but it does make you smile or even laugh.

It is remarkably like something Tamiya or Kyosho would design

[kazi]

What if it rains? That means you will need wipers.

I don't see any wipers on fighter jets.... And not on the drivers visors now. Rain won't be a problem, but dirt from the track will probably be. It's an issue, but i'm guessing different coatings on the canopy and maybe some high pressure spray nozzles would fix that issue for you.

Then you will need air conditioning because it will be too hot in there.

What's the problem with Air Conditioning? Most, if not all, the Le Mans cars have it. I believe it's in the rulebook that the temperature of the cockpit can never be over 32* celsius.

I agree on the spectators argument! If anything bounces off a canopy carrying such momentum and ends up in a grand stand the results might be >1 injured or killed.

Just as likely to bounce of a helmet! The amount of potential energy doesn't change if you have a ramp, a canopy or a helmet.

Think of the tyre as a basketball. The canopy as a, well, canopy and the helmet as a helmet. Now throw the basketball at the canopy and then at the helmet. Which one bounced the highest/furthest? Both bounced the same amount? Probably. That's physics. Sure the trajectory of the ball that hit the canopy might be a little lower and a little longer and if it skid like on a ramp then then the potential energy we had didn't fully translate into kinetic energy and the speed/height/length of the trajectory will actually be less.

If you want proof you can always watch the surtees crash, though i highly advise you not to. That wheel takes on both height and speed.