High Halo

[Edax]

Why is chosen for a single upright in fromt of the driver in first place? Would two left and right in hr corner of view be any better?

I was thinking along the same lines. The thing which makes the Halo look utterly stupid is the central column. It is like placing a big column smack in the middle of the stage of the theater and telling people it is no problem since you can see 99% of the play around the pillar.

( That’s aside the notion that the thing looks like it is modelled after a cheap G-string, which you don’t want to wear over your head in public)

Two A-pillars would be a much better solution IMHO. I can imagine something where you have two thinner pillars with a polycarbonate screen in-between them. Since it soes not have to be so curved it does not distort vision. Even better you can have it double as a HUD to give it some kind of functional legitimacy.

Just imagine this with the top part of the halo mounted over the top. Aero would probably be bad but at least it would look cool.

http://falcon4.wdfiles.com/local--files ... ud/hud.jpg

Actually, a two pillar system blocks the drivers view at certain points, while a center pillar never does that. At first it doesn't seems to make sense.

First, front view is not very important to racing drivers. they want a good view of the apexes and the braking points off track. There is already a lot of "things" on the centreline of the tub, like a camera, pilot tubes, etc. In the early nineties the drivers sometimes hardly could see over the tub!

Your vision is blocked when both eyes are obstructed. when you look to the side, your nose blocks a big part of your view. You won't notice this (unless you close your other eye), because your brain blocks it out. If you have a pilar to the side, there are times when your "good" eye is obstructed by the pilar and your other eye is blocked by your nose. With a front pillar, an object is never blocked by the pilar or whatever for both eyes, your brain makes it into a whole picture.

Don't get fooled by all the pictures or racing games with a halo on in, that's not how your brain will see it. if you want to try it, watch tv with a flat hand or a thin stik in view a 40 cm in front of your face. You will see the whole TV screen.

I understand that. But that is not my point. I am not inside the cockpit looking outward.

I am a spectator, and from my television screen or trackside position, it is pretty hard not to look at that monstrosity. So if the drivers need to exchange a bit of visibility for my viewing pleasure, so be it.

Besides how bad can it be? It is not like airplanes are crashing left and right because their view is obstructed by the HUD frame. If it is good enough to guide an F16 through the mach loop, or lower a hornet on an aircraft carrier, it should probably suffice for getting a car around the track.

[PlatinumZealot]

I don't even fly planes, real or virtual, but I know that the pilot is looking hundreds of meters (or even kilometers?) ahead to make maneuvers, he doesn't even have to twist his neck. Not the same for an F1 driver where the driver's visual focus is moving rapidly across the top of the front wheels in only a limited letterbox area. Two side pillars present more of a compromise for strength and visibility.

[rosters]

I think vision from the windshield for a Jetfighter pilot is optional, they have enought systems to fly it Blind, they fly them in the night and they dont use any lighting. So I dont think they are comparable.

[zac510]

I am a spectator, and from my television screen or trackside position, it is pretty hard not to look at that monstrosity. So if the drivers need to exchange a bit of visibility for my viewing pleasure, so be it.

You just summarised posting on F1 internet forums perfectly!

[Edax]

I am a spectator, and from my television screen or trackside position, it is pretty hard not to look at that monstrosity. So if the drivers need to exchange a bit of visibility for my viewing pleasure, so be it.

You just summarised posting on F1 internet forums perfectly!

I can come up with a number of scenario’s where this thing wouldn’t help, like many have done in these treads. However I would be doing that in order to rationalise me don’t liking the HALO. And I suspect many do.

Not that I think we should compromise on safety. But I think that aestetics should play a larger role in defining a solution then they have now. And means sticking closer to the existing curves and flow of the car.

A higher halo would help to get it more flush with the airbox, but I think the only thing that would help the front is to make a double pillar and get the mounting more in line with the edge of the survival cell.

And aestetics is a perfectly sound commercial argument. After all the viewers pay the bills, either directly or indirectly. F1 has made these kind of descisions before, like introducing the angle requirements on the sidepod opening; not because of safety, and despite the fact that it is worse for cooling. This was done because it looks faster.

[Manoah2u]

I am a spectator, and from my television screen or trackside position, it is pretty hard not to look at that monstrosity. So if the drivers need to exchange a bit of visibility for my viewing pleasure, so be it.

wait wut. am i reading this correctly?
surely you can't be serious or mean that you think f1 drivers should have less visability so that the halo device can look better for you?

[Edax]

I am a spectator, and from my television screen or trackside position, it is pretty hard not to look at that monstrosity. So if the drivers need to exchange a bit of visibility for my viewing pleasure, so be it.

wait wut. am i reading this correctly?
surely you can't be serious or mean that you think f1 drivers should have less visability so that the halo device can look better for you?

I can make my statement look less selfish/egocentric by saying that F1 should try to please the general public (which includes me), but in essence yes.

As for the importance of the visibility. I like to question that.

*The drivers never complained about visibility when the teams started mounting micro mirrors in the 90’s.
* The drivers never complained about visibility when the manufacturers went from an upright seating to the current extremely reclined position.
* likewise they did not complain about the high noses which completely obscure the FW.

So if the trade off is between performance and visibility, performance always wins. If the FIA did not prevent it they would be laying flat in their cars watching the road through prismatic glasses.

So why does it suddenly become the argument to trump all others?

[Manoah2u]

So why does it suddenly become the argument to trump all others?

because in all essence you are actually saying:

i don't like how it looks so i prefer drivers to experience mortal wounds and have both them as their families suffer whilst i can sit and enjoy a beer and chips looking at a sport from my comfy chair.

i assume that's not what's actually going on, but that is the end result.

When Senna died in 94, there was head protection added in 1996. there was a lot of hating on that too.
but 'funny' enough, that same year in SPA, that same protection made the difference that Jos Verstappen survived his extremely hard crash and walked away from it. Had that not been around, then we wouldn't have had Jos in F1, and neither Max.

Do we need a 2018 accident that proves the halo saved a drivers life? i sincerely hope not, but there is a definate chance. Matter of fact, every race previously not run with the Halo device you could see as a sight of relief nothing happened.

Schumacher was inches away from getting his head squashed with a car coming straight at his face a couple years ago. I for one am positive on the Halo that dangers like that are now avoidable whilst before were unavoidable.

Do i like the look of the halo? hell no it's ugly af, but so were head protection as of 1996.

Do i like the look of pillars on the side of the f1 cockpit? hell nah, but what i even want to see less is a f1 car enter the side of a cockpit and kill or handicap a f1 driver.

[Edax]

So why does it suddenly become the argument to trump all others?

because in all essence you are actually saying:

i don't like how it looks so i prefer drivers to experience mortal wounds and have both them as their families suffer whilst i can sit and enjoy a beer and chips looking at a sport from my comfy chair.

i assume that's not what's actually going on, but that is the end result.

When Senna died in 94, there was head protection added in 1996. there was a lot of hating on that too.
but 'funny' enough, that same year in SPA, that same protection made the difference that Jos Verstappen survived his extremely hard crash and walked away from it. Had that not been around, then we wouldn't have had Jos in F1, and neither Max.

Do we need a 2018 accident that proves the halo saved a drivers life? i sincerely hope not, but there is a definate chance. Matter of fact, every race previously not run with the Halo device you could see as a sight of relief nothing happened.

Schumacher was inches away from getting his head squashed with a car coming straight at his face a couple years ago. I for one am positive on the Halo that dangers like that are now avoidable whilst before were unavoidable.

Do i like the look of the halo? hell no it's ugly af, but so were head protection as of 1996.

Do i like the look of pillars on the side of the f1 cockpit? hell nah, but what i even want to see less is a f1 car enter the side of a cockpit and kill or handicap a f1 driver.

You talk about Senna. You know, I never saw his accident. I was too gutted about seeing Ratzenberg die, to watch the next day. Safety is paramount, I think we can shake hands on that. Too many good people were lost in the roaring days of F1, group B and others.

And if you read back that was not what I was saying ( or what I intented to say).

I am not asking to exchange safety for looks.

But what I am saying is that there IMO are alternatives which are better looking than the current one and provide an equal or better level of safety. The only sacrifice is a decrease of visibility for the drivers, which I think is not even that big.

That is a whole different equation.

[roon]

I don't even fly planes, real or virtual, but I know that the pilot is looking hundreds of meters (or even kilometers?) ahead to make maneuvers, he doesn't even have to twist his neck. Not the same for an F1 driver where the driver's visual focus is moving rapidly across the top of the front wheels in only a limited letterbox area. Two side pillars present more of a compromise for strength and visibility.

https://cdn-5.motorsport.com/images/amp ... screen.jpg

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

The pillars on the aeroscreen were placed approximately inline with the rearview mirrors and their mounting stalks (from the driver's point of view). Probably done so to avoid what you're talking about.

[Manoah2u]

So why does it suddenly become the argument to trump all others?

because in all essence you are actually saying:

i don't like how it looks so i prefer drivers to experience mortal wounds and have both them as their families suffer whilst i can sit and enjoy a beer and chips looking at a sport from my comfy chair.

i assume that's not what's actually going on, but that is the end result.

When Senna died in 94, there was head protection added in 1996. there was a lot of hating on that too.
but 'funny' enough, that same year in SPA, that same protection made the difference that Jos Verstappen survived his extremely hard crash and walked away from it. Had that not been around, then we wouldn't have had Jos in F1, and neither Max.

Do we need a 2018 accident that proves the halo saved a drivers life? i sincerely hope not, but there is a definate chance. Matter of fact, every race previously not run with the Halo device you could see as a sight of relief nothing happened.

Schumacher was inches away from getting his head squashed with a car coming straight at his face a couple years ago. I for one am positive on the Halo that dangers like that are now avoidable whilst before were unavoidable.

Do i like the look of the halo? hell no it's ugly af, but so were head protection as of 1996.

Do i like the look of pillars on the side of the f1 cockpit? hell nah, but what i even want to see less is a f1 car enter the side of a cockpit and kill or handicap a f1 driver.

You talk about Senna. You know, I never saw his accident. I was too gutted about seeing Ratzenberg die, to watch the next day. Safety is paramount, I think we can shake hands on that. Too many good people were lost in the roaring days of F1, group B and others.

And if you read back that was not what I was saying ( or what I intented to say).

I am not asking to exchange safety for looks.

But what I am saying is that there IMO are alternatives which are better looking than the current one and provide an equal or better level of safety. The only sacrifice is a decrease of visibility for the drivers, which I think is not even that big.

That is a whole different equation.

thanks for clarification, i guess i got lost in translation but i do wholeheartedly agree to that.
the aeroscreen as shown imho is a very good example of something better.

that being said, drivers mentioned they got some trouble with dizzyness, probably due to the shape of the screen.
and that is a danger that is not acceptable. the halo, probably the lesser of the two, does not have this issue AND protects to a very impressive degree, so they had to do something, which i do understand and support. it looks hideous, absolutely, but i think it's acceptable compromise.

after all, to fine-tune and finalize the aeroscreen will surely take too long to have ready for the 2018 season.
right now, there's room for breathing, the halo can develop, and there's time to develop the aeroscreen.
perhaps 2020, there's a possibility to combine the two into a functional device.

meanwhile, it is how it is.

i agree though, it would be preferable to see something visually more appealing.

the mayor problem i think we're facting is lack of willingness for change. F1 has been how it is now for decades, the same design concept. offcourse the wings, pods, etc got through a big evolution, so did the engines, and safety too, but the shape has been the same since about atleast the 90's. the halo, aeroscreen or potentially a canopy will heavily change how f1 cars will look and feel and i think this is where most people face the fact that they don't want that change.

[PlatinumZealot]

Ok. Looking back on my design in light of the Grosjean accident in Bahrain i think it is has safety differences to the FIA design.

It is higher so it is harder for driver to pull him self out maybe.

The side opening are bigger.. Maybe good or bad? Not sure whether grosjean got out the side openings of his halo.

It may not have slipped through the barrier...

[graham.reeds]

Would the aeroscreen have protected Grosjean today?

[wesley123]

Would the aeroscreen have protected Grosjean today?

Why wouldn't it have?

[Just_a_fan]

Would the aeroscreen have protected Grosjean today?

Why wouldn't it have?

Would the impact with the aeroscreen shown in the thread, with the vertical supports midway back along the screen and no front support, have deflected the armco barrier? Or would the barrier have broken the plastic and then lodged under the hoop and so made the space available to exit much smaller? Would broken pieces of the plastic have become lethal "knives" that would be flying towards the driver or even just bent around by the armco and so presenting "teeth" to the driver as he was trying to evacuate from the tub?

These are the sorts of questions that would need to be answered to know whether the aeroscreen would have been as good as the halo.

The aeroscreen requires a halo-type device to provide the real strength to the device, so that tells us that the screen part is not as strong as the halo is on its own.

The key issue with the aeroscreen is: does it present an increasing risk of driver injury in the even of an impact leading to structural failure of the plastic in the screen? Sure, it's "bulletproof" plastic, but we are talking about loads orders of magnitude higher than any bulletproof plastic will be designed to handle.

Then there is the other question: is the issue that the barriers aren't good enough? It appears that armco type barriers are not suitable unless faced with something else to prevent penetration by the tub. A triple layer of tyres with conveyor belt fronting would probably have been enough to prevent the penetration and the impact forces that caused the car to fail. A cheap thing to add to any such barrier. Would that have resulted in a driver loading that exceeded the 54g received by Grosjean? Perhaps. But it would have been without the fire.