What vapours?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
Printable View
What vapours?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
The vapours from the chemical reactions in a failed/overheated battery pack - that's not nice stuff!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan H
I don't quite see how that would get into the car though considering its behind the driver and the cockpit would presumably be sealed except for an intake near the front of the car.Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
Good to see people trying to think of practical reasons why it won't work rather than "It's just not cricket" type arguments.
Well clearly it's something which needs to be looked at and the cockpit needs to be sealed. It's hardly ideal at the moment that the gases can get in owing to their being no canopy now is it? ;) :pQuote:
Originally Posted by henners88
The example of vapours as Bagwan alluded to has actually happened with Kimi in the Ferrari in 2009. Might I suggest that factual reasoning not be ridiculed?Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
One has to weigh the benefits against the issues created by the implementation of any safety "improvement" .Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Directly related to this issue is the raising of the sides of the cockpit leading to the drivers saying more often that they have limitted vision .
If we were to , instead of adding a closed shell , add a higher bar , and lower "shoulders" on the cockpit , would it not improve impact safety at the same time as allowing for better sighting for the driver ?
Daniel , I believe , is suggesting that if there was a canopy , that it would be sealed .Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
At present , it is not .
Relevent point , but one also must concede , Daniel , that in a high impact situation , that the proximity of the two comparments is rather close , and that a breach in the cockpit cell is easily possible , and perhaps even likely .
Might I suggest that you actually read my post. I was saying that it was good that people were coming up with factual arguments rather than this whole "It's not cricket" nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
And there would certainly have to be some sort of quick release mechanism for the canopy. I certainly think that if this change is made that it should be done after a lengthy design process and a consultation period with the teams as well as an exhaustive look at the dangers which it could potentially cause. Heck if it's found that it's far worse than having the roof open then it should be left open of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
Sure , it was worth a look , but it looks like they took that look and decided it wasn't worth it .Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
My bad. I just expect the worst from your posts unfortunately.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Apologies.
No problems. Not trying to sound a cock, but I expected you not to expect much from my posts so I suspected that might be the case :pQuote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
Did they?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
Lets be honest. Looking at that video there's only one conclusion to draw and that is that a windscreen or a canopy gives a driver a very good chance of escaping unharmed from what would either be certain death or at least serious injury.
Now is there a workable way of putting a canopy or windscreen on an F1 car without making things more dangerous? I think it takes more than just a few minutes to work that out :)
Not unexpected I suspect. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
There is a cause and effect consideration that has to be balanced in all of this. It has already been touched upon I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Whatever scenario you may prevent by implementing the canopy, you potentially introduce a number of other factors/risks.
The balance has got to be the chances of the event that the canopy could potentially protect against occuring, against the likelyhood of other risks inherant with the implementation of a canopy - driver trapped, fire, heat, fumes etc from occuring.
I am sure there a complicated equation that could be applied.
All very good points as I've said countless times before. As I keep saying however, the engineers in F1 are a talented bunch and IMHO would be able to find ways of overcoming those other risks and we certainly can't go forward with changes till those risks have all been looked at and accounted for.Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
Thanks. I would have been very surprised if research wasn't ongoing :) Lets see how this pans out and take it from there. I think we're more or less done talking about this for the moment ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
F1 should be closed-cockpit because it just looks cool. Forget the safety aspect of it! ;)
Also, thanks for the link to the video.
Why don't people that want to see that sort of racing watch DTM or GT racing and not bugger about with F1.
Obviously the TWG are looking to make F1 safer but this is an idea too far.
Hate it, hate it, hate it.
This is exactly the stupid argument I was talking about before. Just because there's a canopy on the car doesn't make it a DTM car or an endurance racer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Retro Formula 1
As per normal, you resort to insults :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
People don't like the idea. That is their opinion and just because it differs from yours, does not make it wrong.
I hate the idea; period. I don't need to qualify any further than that for it to be a valid point.
I said that your argument was stupid. It's not an insult. The unofficial motto is to attack the post, not the poster and that's what I did. You are the one that's attacking me by accusing me of resorting to insults.Quote:
Originally Posted by Retro Formula 1
Would it not perhaps have been better to say you disagree with the argument, rather than the argument is stupid? :s mokin:Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Perhaps. But it's hardly an insult is it :s mokin: But then again if you're the sort of person who likes to overdramatise things....... :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
He didn't say it did! Why is it a stupid argument? It is a valid viewpoint, and getting stroppy because it differs from yours is not helping the debate very much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Retro does not want to see covered cockpits in F1, that's his opinion and he's entitled to it. What givesyou the right to tell him he is wrong or stupid for having that opinion?
The thing is as usual, you've not read my post. I said his opinion was stupid. The implication was there that this takes F1 closer to GTM or endurance racers. The silly thing is that he said "Why don't people that want to see that sort of racing watch DTM or GT racing and not bugger about with F1." which is just silly, how does having the canopy on there actually change the racing? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
I can understand if someone doesn't like the look, it's foreign to them, but to make silly statements about it changing the racing is just..... silly.
I know what you said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Then why is your statement based on something I didn't say? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
Because, by statingQuote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
you are attacking the poster, not the post. You even contradicted yourself with that little snippet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Wow, just wow. So by saying for instance that your dog is stupid, means that I'm calling YOU stupid? :confused: I never said Knockie was stupid in this thread, merely that his opinion is stupid. If you can't understand that then I do trulli (sic) despair.Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
'I think your opinion is wrong' would have been better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
We need to step back a little and remind ourselves of the not inconsiderate fact that F1 is mandated as 'open wheel, open cockpit'.
In my opinion, and I expect you to disagree on this, if you enclose the cockpit, it becomes a different formula.
And in the past F1 had turbo's they had V10's etc etc. As someone mentioned early in this thread, F1 is whatever the regulations say it is. I put it to you that 99.99% of people in the real world (mean not the pseudo-connoiseur's on this forum) probably wouldn't care. F1 has changed over time, we went from slicks to grooved tyres and although it looked strange, we soon got used to it, we went back to slicks and we got used to them, we went from wide rear wings to skinnier ones and we got used to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
I'm willing to accept that actually covering the wheels might be a bit much for people, but I really don't see a canopy being a problem. That is unless you're the reincarnation of Sandy Bot.
But it has remained open cockpit, open wheel. An engine is an engine. Size, power etc is determined by the rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Tyres are tyres, again size and tread pattern being dealt with in the rules. They remain uncovered, as does the cockpit.
But the thing is that covering the cockpits changes doesn't fundamentally change the racing. Neither does making the rear wings narrower or getting rid of winglets, double diffusers or exhaust blown diffusers.Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
Agreed - it does change the formula though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
I want open wheel open cockpit racing.
The formula as it is has been made as safe as it can be given current technologies and knowhow.
as pointed out the formula has changed and will continue to change.Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
Could we have a vote on it?
How about-Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
Should F1;
Remain Open Wheel, Open Cockpit
or
Move to an enclosed wheel and cockpit formula?
Well tbh I don't think the forum is indicative of the wishes of F1 fans in general ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1