Closed Cockpits agreed for 2017

[Cannonballer]

SF16-H short ONBOARD with Halo and Seb!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWkuhu1Km18

That is a seemingly ineffective and FUg solution. I simply don't understand what this protects against, has any F1 driver ever been injured by something the halo would stop?

and how have you decided that the halo would be ineffective? and yes, drivers have died or been seriously injured, but could probably have survived with this item. should we now get rid of roll hoops as they are ugly? or how about hans?

Because I am unaware of any injury that has occurred in F1 that this would prevent. What F1 driver are you referring to? If, as other have mentioned, there were something windshield like it would make more sense because it would then block flying debris. (See Massa.)

Comparing the halo to roll hoops and hans is ridiculous. A look at the types of injury resulting in death in F1 Cars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_F ... Fatalities) makes it clear to me why roll hoops and hans are so important to driver safety. I can't say the same for the halo.

[FW17]

You do not see this as a problem?

[XRayF1]

You do not see this as a problem?

http://www.formulaf1.com/wp-content/upl ... e-2007.jpg

Don't thing this kind of accident is avoidable, as the HALO device would have to sustain an impact of a 800kg+ (fuel & driver!) car with some significant velocity, while still being removable in case of.

As far as I know, the reason for having an open cockpit was visibility as well as easy access to the driver in case of an accident. Especially, if back injuries are likely (I recall that in such cases the whole seat is removable - wasn't this some lessons learned from the Häkkinen crash in Australia?).

What has changed to such aspects and warrant this device?

[Just_a_fan]

It's fairly obvious that the halo is a compromise device intended merely to show that something is being done. The proper solution - a canopy or a windshield - would massively affect rear aero performance; the teams obviously want to avoid a massive change in the aero design of the cars. So the halo design is proposed. I think it was suggested with the expectation that it would be rejected by the FIA etc. Sadly, they have taken the idea and decided to run with it.

[TAG]

[Jolle]

You do not see this as a problem?

http://www.formulaf1.com/wp-content/upl ... e-2007.jpg

Don't thing this kind of accident is avoidable, as the HALO device would have to sustain an impact of a 800kg+ (fuel & driver!) car with some significant velocity, while still being removable in case of.

As far as I know, the reason for having an open cockpit was visibility as well as easy access to the driver in case of an accident. Especially, if back injuries are likely (I recall that in such cases the whole seat is removable - wasn't this some lessons learned from the Häkkinen crash in Australia?).

What has changed to such aspects and warrant this device?

The reason for open cockpit might have been that the driver, for safety, would be thrown out of the car in case of a crash, somewhere in the 1930 I think. A collision like on that pic would be an easy task for a halo kind of device.

[Just_a_fan]

That type of accident would smash a halo device. The cockpit head side protection requirements were increased this season for that type of accident. They apply 5 tonnes equivalent to the side protection now. The halo won't deal with that at all. It's intended to protect from small debris such as a loose wheel, not a whole car.

[SiLo]

How often do we see loose wheels in F1? I thought they put a lot of effort into the wheel tethers to stop this kind of thing?

[Just_a_fan]

The halo was developed mostly in response to the accidents of Surtees and Wilson. Surtees was killed by a loose wheel, Wilson by some other debris - a nose cone I think. The idea is that the halo will just take some of the energy before the helmet deals with the rest.

Some people seem to think halo is a response to Bianchi's death. It isn't and it wouldn't have saved him anyway.

A full screen would be the best solution but it would introduce complications.

[bdr529]

A cantilever you are quoting will be loaded top down or along the y-axis
The halo is an arch which will be loaded horizontally along the x-axis

the Skywalk is actually mounted on the x-axis, the building sit on top of that area.
so the only difference in design, is the halo sits on a pylon and not flush to the side pod
You can see how it looks before the building is erected over top of the mounting points

[PlatinumZealot]

You do not see this as a problem?

http://www.formulaf1.com/wp-content/upl ... e-2007.jpg

Don't thing this kind of accident is avoidable, as the HALO device would have to sustain an impact of a 800kg+ (fuel & driver!) car with some significant velocity, while still being removable in case of.

As far as I know, the reason for having an open cockpit was visibility as well as easy access to the driver in case of an accident. Especially, if back injuries are likely (I recall that in such cases the whole seat is removable - wasn't this some lessons learned from the Häkkinen crash in Australia?).

What has changed to such aspects and warrant this device?

I always here people say this. But really now, the circumstances where the driver would need assistance to extract himself from the cockpit would include these and probably a few more:

a) Driver is already knocked unconscious inside the car and cannot open the canopy himself so he will somehow suffocate and die?
b) The car is capsized and driver is knocked unconscious and he will somehow die in five minutes?
c) The car is capsized AND on fire so there is no time for marshals to tun the car over to open the cockpit so he will burn to death?
d) The car is on fire and the canopy cannot open so the driver will surely burn in a fiery grave?

In all the cases above there has to be some catastrophic event. However these can be prevented by other safety measures.

These are the counter points to the ones above

a) The driver is unconscious. Big deal. A Marshal can open the canopy from outside.
b) Capsized car. Flip it over and open the canopy from outside. The driver is fine he can wait ten minutes.
c) Capsized car on fire. Why is the car on fire? Some other safety measure has failed? If the driver is fine he can help himself escape before the fire gets to him. You can fireproof the cock-pit. If the driver is unconscious he is probably safer inside the cockpit protected from the heat of the blaze. But anyway... historically when was the last capsized car on fire?
d) The car is on fire and the canopy cannot open... Ahm.. this one is tough. but again put in fire fighting/fire proofing measures to protect the cock-pit.

[ctdrftna]

This is why i always compare to NHRA top fuel classes. They are always on fire, always crashing and at 300mph. They have been using canopy's on top fuel dragsters for 3 seasons now with no issues. I funny car body is just as bad as a canopy, with a exploding 10000 hp nitro burning bomb in front of the driver. Years of no issues ( well none caused by lack of evacuation).

[djos]

You do not see this as a problem?

http://www.formulaf1.com/wp-content/upl ... e-2007.jpg

I dont see halo being of much use in that scenario, however a poly-carbonate windscreen with a carbon-fibre reinforced "horseshoe" at the top would imo make a big difference.

[Cannonballer]

You do not see this as a problem?

http://www.formulaf1.com/wp-content/upl ... e-2007.jpg

I don't recall (did not think) the halo being "advertised" as preventing injury in that situation, the focus seemed to be on pieces of cars - not a whole car. I will defer to the explanation of others about the deficiency of the halo in preventing injury in that situation. My biggest problem is that the halo is a bandaid fix that doesn't go far enough. If the drivers require more protection they should be given something that will actually protect them, regardless of aesthetics.

[djos]

I totally agree, halo is a poor quality bandaid job with very limited safety credentials imo.