So they are going with Halo devices then

So they are going with Halo devices then

Author
Discussion

Flooble

Original Poster:

5,565 posts

99 months

Saturday 28th May 2016
quotequote all
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/36404898

The cynic in me can't help but ponder that the Halo has space for three sponsor logos on it while the aeroscreen had none ...

ajprice

27,321 posts

195 months

Saturday 28th May 2016
quotequote all
I preferred the Red Bull screen system, but hey ho. One other thing that might have affected the decision is the screen changing the airflow over the car and into the top airbox. The halo bar won't change things as much.

But generally, boo!

Eric Mc

121,784 posts

264 months

Saturday 28th May 2016
quotequote all
And boo again.

A hideous contraption that will yield no significant benefits and may even create new peroblems.

Read Nigel Roebuck's column on the most recent edition of Motorsport. As always, his words of wisdom are worth reading.

rscott

14,690 posts

190 months

Saturday 28th May 2016
quotequote all
Interesting to read the reasons why they opted for halo though - the aero screen failed in one test and hasn't even been tested in the dimensions it would need to be in order to accommodate the driver's head fully..
They also suggest it's only approved for a year, with a view to introducing the screen in 2018.

funkyrobot

18,789 posts

227 months

Saturday 28th May 2016
quotequote all
Yes. Article states it is the most ready of the two, but the screen will be developed further.

I guess this is the last year we will see fully open cockpits in F1.

I know safety is important, but nobody really drives a formula one car without knowing the risks.

mikecassie

608 posts

158 months

Saturday 28th May 2016
quotequote all
When ever I see the current iteration of the Halo I think of this!


37chevy

3,280 posts

155 months

Saturday 28th May 2016
quotequote all
The collective brain pool of the 'supposed' best engineers and designers in the world of Motorsport...and they come up with the rubber bit off a flip flop. Well done guys, top marks!

Jasandjules

69,825 posts

228 months

Saturday 28th May 2016
quotequote all
A bit of a shame really.

37chevy

3,280 posts

155 months

Saturday 28th May 2016
quotequote all
What's really annoyed he is that's it wouldn't have saved jules life, and was uni kept to have saved Justin's life or massas face....unless it's a tyre or large piece of bodywork it's utterly pointless

The NHRA have proved you can have full fighter style canopies, have a roll over with no issues so why not go with that idea....or is it a case of f1 not liking to copy people to save face as usual

rscott

14,690 posts

190 months

Saturday 28th May 2016
quotequote all
None of the options, including a full canopy would have saved Jules's life, not with the speed of impact.
The aero screen option didn't pass testing yet, and there are several issues with full canopies on the current F1 design (mounting, escape,etc).

The thinking seems to be that the halo is a compromise for the next year or so while they work on better options. It also requires fewest changes and has the least impact on the rest of the car.

Eric Mc

121,784 posts

264 months

Saturday 28th May 2016
quotequote all
And as David Coulthatd said, the aerodynamics of the current cars are less badly affected by the halo. So it seems, its main advantage is that it doesn't compromise the speed of the current generation of cars.

So, the main reason it won out was probably nothing to do with safety at all.

It's all a bit of a farce and indicative of how F1 hasn't got a clue as to what its for any more.

Hunky Dory

1,049 posts

204 months

Sunday 29th May 2016
quotequote all
PW said:
I bet if someone tried to tell you what to have for breakfast you'd all be livid, but potentially life saving safety features for others? BOOO! How dare they entertain the idea! Don't they know I WATCH ALMOST EVERY RACE?
Well said.

Whilst I agree that the halo idea is certainly not a perfect design (and far from beautiful!) the reality is that there isn't a 100% effective solution to every foreseeable accident for this type of equipment yet. What does seem pretty obvious though is that it will incrementally improve safety and reduce the risk of serious head injury so therefore I find it hard to understand an argument against the idea based on aesthetics.

Arguments from fans against safety functions in favour of cosmetics are slightly ironic when made in the same breath as statements that F1 leadership has lost its way.

Everyone needs to get over it. It will evolve in looks and in a few years time we (like the drivers I suspect) will barely notice it's there.

PurpleMoonlight

22,362 posts

156 months

Sunday 29th May 2016
quotequote all
I don't get it.

While the halo may deflect something large like a wheel it still allows access to the drivers head for something small as in Massa's incident.

Also, what if the top bar deflects something down into the driver that would otherwise have gone over the car?

If anything should be introduced the screen seems far more practical to me.

0000

13,812 posts

190 months

Sunday 29th May 2016
quotequote all
Crap design, always looked like they were going with it.

Eric Mc

121,784 posts

264 months

Sunday 29th May 2016
quotequote all
IF it was a major safety advance, then MAYBE it might be worthwhile. But it isn't. It's been picked because it doesn't compromise aerodynamics too much.

Hunky Dory

1,049 posts

204 months

Sunday 29th May 2016
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
IF it was a major safety advance, then MAYBE it might be worthwhile. But it isn't. It's been picked because it doesn't compromise aerodynamics too much.
It should really come as no surprise to any of us that F1 should chose aero effectiveness over aesthetics!

Flooble

Original Poster:

5,565 posts

99 months

Sunday 29th May 2016
quotequote all
Hunky Dory said:
PW said:
I bet if someone tried to tell you what to have for breakfast you'd all be livid, but potentially life saving safety features for others? BOOO! How dare they entertain the idea! Don't they know I WATCH ALMOST EVERY RACE?
Well said.

Whilst I agree that the halo idea is certainly not a perfect design (and far from beautiful!) the reality is that there isn't a 100% effective solution to every foreseeable accident for this type of equipment yet. What does seem pretty obvious though is that it will incrementally improve safety and reduce the risk of serious head injury so therefore I find it hard to understand an argument against the idea based on aesthetics.

Arguments from fans against safety functions in favour of cosmetics are slightly ironic when made in the same breath as statements that F1 leadership has lost its way.

Everyone needs to get over it. It will evolve in looks and in a few years time we (like the drivers I suspect) will barely notice it's there.
My argument was that they appear to have chosen what would seem to be a somewhat ineffective option of the two designs, which also happens to be the uglier of the two but does have space for those precious logos. I am concerned about the criteria used to judge, especially given their statement that the aeroscreen was unsatisfactory.

While I am not an engineer and so this opinion is essentially worthless, I do have serious concerns about the amount of safety improvement that the Halo will actually provide. It will only deflect the largest items of debris which, by definition, would apply the least pressure to the helmet anyway. It's the sharp point on a knife that hurts, not the dull handle. If the risk is the overall momentum of debris then it may make a difference but I am concerned that any improvement will be balanced by the increased risk of it deflecting small items back into the cockpit. Look at the incidents:

It may have saved Maria De Villota, but so would sensible safety measures around having sharp horizontal objects at driver head height. The aeroscreen would also likely have done the job in that case.
It likely would not have saved Jules Bianchi as the sudden stop would still be lethal. Again, the aeroscreen would likely have been as effective, possibly even more so as it may have offered a marginally slower deceleration.
It probably would have saved Justin Wilson, although the nose cone of cars is quite pointy so may well still penetrate the gaps in the halo versus bouncing off the aeroscreen.
It would have made no different at all to Massa's accident, but may trigger a few more (e.g. Button in Monaco on Thursday could have seen bits bouncing down off the Halo cross bar instead of going past the cockpit - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C03ocAeLfN0). Whereas the aeroscreen would deflect the bolt etc.
Henry Surtees incident is possibly the only one that the halo would have helped in and aeroscreen is likely to have been just as effective.


Hence the question for me is why this device is the best that the engineers can design. Aircraft fly much (much!) faster and hit objects that are just as heavy (seen an Eagle?). They require optically clear canopies for obvious reasons. So the sticking point would seem to be that it's easier to make an enclosed canopy than an open one and that for some reason they can't build a carbon fibre ring at the top (as on the halo) to support the "rim" of the aeroscreen?

Maybe I should go get my tinfoil hat, but it just seems like a bodged up kludge of a solution which isn't going to help as much as the alternatives could.



Eric Mc

121,784 posts

264 months

Sunday 29th May 2016
quotequote all
Hunky Dory said:
It should really come as no surprise to any of us that F1 should chose aero effectiveness over aesthetics!
No surprise at all.

Flooble

Original Poster:

5,565 posts

99 months

Sunday 29th May 2016
quotequote all
PW said:
While it doesn't impact your personal safety your opinion is 100% worthless.
Guessing your hair-trigger meant you didn't read that I felt they had gone for the less safe option then?

Eric Mc

121,784 posts

264 months

Sunday 29th May 2016
quotequote all
PW said:
While it doesn't impact your personal safety your opinion is 100% worthless.
I presume you would say that to Nigel Roebuck's face as well?