IndyCar get's it right. Makes F1/Halo look silly.

[craigjm]

Clockwork Cupcake said:

I guess it comes down to what the current regulations are on visor tear-offs. It used to be that drivers had multiple tear-offs and could use them whenever they wanted. But I have a feeling that they can only tear them off in the pit lane now (I'm happy to be corrected), in which case it could be viable.

Since Monaco 16 you can still tear them off anywhere you want but you can’t throw them out of the car

[HustleRussell]

I wonder what happens when you get a mist of rainwater / dirt / gravel dust / cement dust / oily residue on the inside of the aero screen

[Clockwork Cupcake]

craigjm said:

Since Monaco 16 you can still tear them off anywhere you want but you can’t throw them out of the car

Ah, ok. In that case, an aero screen would be a big retrograde step.

[craigjm]

HustleRussell said:

I wonder what happens when you get a mist of rainwater / dirt / gravel dust / cement dust / oily residue on the inside of the aero screen

Sounds like a recipe for extra pit stops to me

[MitchT]

ash73 said:

Much better looking...

Indy cars look better full stop. F1 cars look like a dog's dinner by comparison. The "flip flop" is the final insult before it disappears behind the paywall.

[TheInternet]

MitchT said:

Indy cars look better full stop.

I disagree comma, but it's not saying much either way; thanks to ungainly safety features the cars from both series are looking pretty st at the moment.

[Clockwork Cupcake]

Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder.

[The Wookie]

MartG said:

covboy said:

What happens to the screen when it starts getting covered with crap during the course of the race ? (thinking of drivers at the moment with rip off visor covers)

Extra bloke in the pitcrew gives it a wipe every pitstop

And/or screen tear offs as you get on most enclosed racing cars

[MitchT]

TheInternet said:

MitchT said:

Indy cars look better full stop.

I disagree comma, but it's not saying much either way; thanks to ungainly safety features the cars from both series are looking pretty st at the moment.

It's all the aerodynamic nonsense stuck to F1 cars that grates on me. When this years Indy Car was revealed I was gobsmacked by how much cleaner its lines are and how much more pleasant its proportions are.

[HustleRussell]

MitchT said:

TheInternet said:

MitchT said:

Indy cars look better full stop.

I disagree comma, but it's not saying much either way; thanks to ungainly safety features the cars from both series are looking pretty st at the moment.

It's all the aerodynamic nonsense stuck to F1 cars that grates on me. When this years Indy Car was revealed I was gobsmacked by how much cleaner its lines are and how much more pleasant its proportions are.

That aerodynamic nonsense equals performance; F1 cars are prototypes which represent the cutting edge of technology while Indycar are just made of standard bits.

[MitchT]

HustleRussell said:

That aerodynamic nonsense equals performance; F1 cars are prototypes which represent the cutting edge of technology...

Doesn't diminish my right to think it looks like a dog's dinner.

[Eric Mc]

HustleRussell said:

That aerodynamic nonsense equals performance; F1 cars are prototypes which represent the cutting edge of technology while Indycar are just made of standard bits.

But only within a particular set of restrictive and arbitrary criteria.

A set of rule could just as easily be set which says "no aerodynamic or downforce generating junk on the exterior of the car". The cars would still be cutting edge - only they'd look nicer