Proposed 'shield', halo alternative, unveiled
Discussion
Rude-boy said:
First off i can say that i do not like the Halo and whilst i can see the reasons why it has been forced upon people the way it has i do not agree with it.
I appreciate that it is likely that there will be some lives saved by this device. But then again why are people still allowed to race horses without much more than a couple of bits of kevlar in the right place and a helmet? I suspect that you will find that more people suffered life changing/ending injuries as a result of being kicked in the head by a horse. Anyway I digress.
My biggest annoyance with the halo is actually that I do not believe that it is the right solution, insufficient testing for a start. More so you read about the canopy that the Americans are trying out and how little of the 'hall of mirrors' effect that people have predicted there actually appears to be on that from reports.
I think F1 have always halo is an interim solution, not the final result. It's what could be implemented quickly and be able to pass their basic tests. I appreciate that it is likely that there will be some lives saved by this device. But then again why are people still allowed to race horses without much more than a couple of bits of kevlar in the right place and a helmet? I suspect that you will find that more people suffered life changing/ending injuries as a result of being kicked in the head by a horse. Anyway I digress.
My biggest annoyance with the halo is actually that I do not believe that it is the right solution, insufficient testing for a start. More so you read about the canopy that the Americans are trying out and how little of the 'hall of mirrors' effect that people have predicted there actually appears to be on that from reports.
A screen was tested (by Ferrrari, I think) and drivers reported the distortion was a major issue. It also couldn't pass FIA's tests.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7kym3FJOg4 compared to the halo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZb8r1J6g34 .
Edited to add - more details of the issues with the aero screen. https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/07/shield-vs-h...
Edited by rscott on Friday 2nd March 11:03
rscott said:
I think F1 have always halo is an interim solution, not the final result. It's what could be implemented quickly and be able to pass their basic tests.
A screen was tested (by Ferrrari, I think) and drivers reported the distortion was a major issue. It also couldn't pass FIA's tests.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7kym3FJOg4 compared to the halo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZb8r1J6g34 .
Edited to add - more details of the issues with the aero screen. https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/07/shield-vs-h...
Ferrari did test it for a whole 5 minutes (I think that they did an out, once past the line and back in with both cars) Seb driving the aero screen one.A screen was tested (by Ferrrari, I think) and drivers reported the distortion was a major issue. It also couldn't pass FIA's tests.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7kym3FJOg4 compared to the halo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZb8r1J6g34 .
Edited to add - more details of the issues with the aero screen. https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/07/shield-vs-h...
Edited by rscott on Friday 2nd March 11:03
He was not keen on it, but then it was almost a test set to fail before it had started when you speak to those in the know as the Halo had already been effectively agreed bar the rubber stamp. IMO the SIlverstone test of the aero screen was a total sham and 'for show'.
Personally i prefer the opinion of those who have an open mind to those who are just after validation of their choices.
https://www.autosport.com/indycar/news/134307/watc...
There is certainly work to be done, but i think that it is far more promising as the long term solution if we must have such things. I have no desire to see people die racing cars, i have sadly had more than my fill of such sights) but i do have issues with open cockpit cars becoming more enclosed. You should either be a closed cockpit or not, not some sort of hybred targa that is neither fish nor foul.
Rude-boy said:
Ferrari did test it for a whole 5 minutes (I think that they did an out, once past the line and back in with both cars) Seb driving the aero screen one.
He was not keen on it, but then it was almost a test set to fail before it had started when you speak to those in the know as the Halo had already been effectively agreed bar the rubber stamp. IMO the SIlverstone test of the aero screen was a total sham and 'for show'.
Personally i prefer the opinion of those who have an open mind to those who are just after validation of their choices.
https://www.autosport.com/indycar/news/134307/watc...
There is certainly work to be done, but i think that it is far more promising as the long term solution if we must have such things. I have no desire to see people die racing cars, i have sadly had more than my fill of such sights) but i do have issues with open cockpit cars becoming more enclosed. You should either be a closed cockpit or not, not some sort of hybred targa that is neither fish nor foul.
Seb is quoted in the James Allen article - he cut short the test because he claimed to be feeling dizzy.He was not keen on it, but then it was almost a test set to fail before it had started when you speak to those in the know as the Halo had already been effectively agreed bar the rubber stamp. IMO the SIlverstone test of the aero screen was a total sham and 'for show'.
Personally i prefer the opinion of those who have an open mind to those who are just after validation of their choices.
https://www.autosport.com/indycar/news/134307/watc...
There is certainly work to be done, but i think that it is far more promising as the long term solution if we must have such things. I have no desire to see people die racing cars, i have sadly had more than my fill of such sights) but i do have issues with open cockpit cars becoming more enclosed. You should either be a closed cockpit or not, not some sort of hybred targa that is neither fish nor foul.
I think we're basically in agreement - I don't like the look of the halo either and don't think it's a particularly good long term solution.
Aero screens would be my preferred choice, but they look like being 2- 3 years away, at least.
However, until they're proved suitable, they seem to be under pressure to do something (reportedly due to Bianchi's accident), so halo is a workable stopgap.
It's also something which could be relatively easily (and cheaply) implemented in lower formulas, unlike a screen.
Vocal Minority said:
Evangelion said:
Considering that only one F1 driver has actually been killed during a race in over 20 years (and a halo would not have saved him anyway) ... I'm going with another 20 years.
A halo causing more problems than it solves ... 20 laps.
Would it not? I mean rather than just in your opinion? I mean is there actual evidence to that end? Or are you just saying it because you don't like the halo?A halo causing more problems than it solves ... 20 laps.
Or anything post Lotus 49....
a) I can see it making it difficult, in certain circumstances, to leave the car in a hurry
and
b) I can see it completely failing to stop an object entering the car, when said object is smaller than the gaps in between the various parts. This would apply less to the screen, whose only gap would be at the top.
ETA - CanAm, you may say 79, I say 49 (although admittedly, even a 79 is a beauty queen compared to today's uglies).
Edited by Evangelion on Friday 2nd March 13:24
Evangelion said:
ETA - CanAm, you may say 79, I say 49 (although admittedly, even a 79 is a beauty queen compared to today's uglies).
I was being a bit generous there. Sidepods were the beginning of the end IMHO, but just about acceptable in the case of the Lotus 72, McLaren M23 and Shadow DN1.Evangelion said:
Vocal Minority said:
Evangelion said:
Considering that only one F1 driver has actually been killed during a race in over 20 years (and a halo would not have saved him anyway) ... I'm going with another 20 years.
A halo causing more problems than it solves ... 20 laps.
Would it not? I mean rather than just in your opinion? I mean is there actual evidence to that end? Or are you just saying it because you don't like the halo?A halo causing more problems than it solves ... 20 laps.
Or anything post Lotus 49....
a) I can see it making it difficult, in certain circumstances, to leave the car in a hurry
and
b) I can see it completely failing to stop an object entering the car, when said object is smaller than the gaps in between the various parts. This would apply less to the screen, whose only gap would be at the top.
ETA - CanAm, you may say 79, I say 49 (although admittedly, even a 79 is a beauty queen compared to today's uglies).
Edited by Evangelion on Friday 2nd March 13:24
(I respect your point on the Lotus 49, it's gorgeous - but i enjoy the brutal functionality of the modern stuff too, aesthetics is for road cars - racers should be performance first)
CanAm said:
I was being a bit generous there. Sidepods were the beginning of the end IMHO, but just about acceptable in the case of the Lotus 72, McLaren M23 and Shadow DN1.
For me, wings were the begining (and end) of the end in terms of looks. I don't watch F1 to see pretty cars, which is perhaps why the halo doesn't bother me. Having watched a fair bit of the testing, I don't really even notice them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXUJ7GBQK50
IndyCar champion Scott Dixon explains the key differences between the US series' windscreen cockpit protection and F1's halo, and explains why the latter could never work for IndyCar racing.
IndyCar champion Scott Dixon explains the key differences between the US series' windscreen cockpit protection and F1's halo, and explains why the latter could never work for IndyCar racing.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff