High Halo

[RedNEO]

After much deliberation and head scratching I’ve come up with a solution. We need to engineer the halo into a round circular tube shaped mechanism called a bin and then only come back with a head protection if it fixes more problems than it creates.

[turbof1]

Not a halo, but why go through all the trouble of finding a solution that sticks with the old notion of the open cockpit. Really, any solution which does not curtail full enclosure is set to bring issues or weaknesses. Just put in a fully enclosed canopy and be done with it.

I drew this up. It's on a 2016 chassis, which is still relevant:


I made sure I used (relative) straight glass panels to avoid view distortion. The advantage of working with panels is in case the driver gets trapped, he or she should be capable of quickly removing the panels in the direction of an escape route, with the aid of quick release mechanisms. The biggest issue and time eater is when the driver has to get inside the car and the mechanics have to insert the panels, which I only assume is an emergency case when a driver wants to escape an angry team manager .

And although I have to say so myself, that closed cockpit looks awesome.

[mclaren111]

F1 is Open Wheel & Open Cockpit racing !!!!!!

If you want closed cockpit racing go to LMP1 & LMP2.

Why this obsession to change the DNA of F1 ?????

[turbof1]

F1 is Open Wheel & Open Cockpit racing !!!!!!

If you want closed cockpit racing go to LMP1 & LMP2.

Why this obsession to change the DNA of F1 ?????

I could reverse that question: why this obsession to keep F1 as it is?

For the record, I believe in the 50s some F1 cars did have a fully enclosed cockpit. It's not like this is entirely new.

A canopy has both safety and aerodynamically benefits. It will allow a much better transition to the airbox. Given F1 is the penacle of racing aerodynamics, aerodynamic efficiency is part of its DNA.

[mclaren111]

I have followed F1 since the 70's and like the open wheel & open cockpit cars.

Each to his own I guess.

[turbof1]

I have followed F1 since the 70's and like the open wheel & open cockpit cars.

Each to his own I guess.

I do sympathise, but going from tradition and aesthetics, how is the halo better? My take on this is that we do enclose to a certain extent the cockpit by the halo already. The next thing the FIA will do, probably by the 2021 tech rules revisions, is wondering "how can we make it stop small debry in a better way" and the obvious answer by then will be to add further enclosures.

But to get back on topic: PZ, ever wondered with your high halo to redesign the roll hoop/airbox?

[n_anirudh]

I would still prefer having the drivers head enclosed. As being discussed in the other thread on "injection seats" I would not mind if the driver is below the upper line of the bulkhead and has 3/4 cameras giving him a 180deg+ view in the cockpit with HUD. This may seem totally opposite to the ethos of f1, but this change is soon inevitable.

[Jolle]

I have followed F1 since the 70's and like the open wheel & open cockpit cars.

Each to his own I guess.

I do sympathise, but going from tradition and aesthetics, how is the halo better? My take on this is that we do enclose to a certain extent the cockpit by the halo already. The next thing the FIA will do, probably by the 2021 tech rules revisions, is wondering "how can we make it stop small debry in a better way" and the obvious answer by then will be to add further enclosures.

But to get back on topic: PZ, ever wondered with your high halo to redesign the roll hoop/airbox?

Small debris is quite well tackled with new helmet rules. Big chance by the way that a incident like Massa would come trough an LMP1 windshield and still hurt the visorless driver.

Plus, from drivers hit by small debris in the past years, very very few actually got hurt. Big objects on the other hand had a few fatalities and a lot of narrow misses.

The halo doesn't look pretty, but it's by far the best and safest solution (not just in F1 but also in other exciting open wheel classes)

[RedNEO]

I have followed F1 since the 70's and like the open wheel & open cockpit cars.

Each to his own I guess.

I do sympathise, but going from tradition and aesthetics, how is the halo better? My take on this is that we do enclose to a certain extent the cockpit by the halo already. The next thing the FIA will do, probably by the 2021 tech rules revisions, is wondering "how can we make it stop small debry in a better way" and the obvious answer by then will be to add further enclosures.

But to get back on topic: PZ, ever wondered with your high halo to redesign the roll hoop/airbox?

Small debris is quite well tackled with new helmet rules. Big chance by the way that a incident like Massa would come trough an LMP1 windshield and still hurt the visorless driver.

Plus, from drivers hit by small debris in the past years, very very few actually got hurt. Big objects on the other hand had a few fatalities and a lot of narrow misses.

The halo doesn't look pretty, but it's by far the best and safest solution (not just in F1 but also in other exciting open wheel classes)

We don’t have a flying tyre problem in F1. That problem was already solved with stronger struts. When was the last time IN F1 a flying tyre managed to make its way into the cockpit? It’s a one in a million chance that a flying tyre will hit a drivers helmet so it’s questionable why the halo was even introduced since that’s its main purpose.

So let’s say a flying tyre happens to somehow find its way into a cockpit then what are the chances it will connect with the halo at the angle the FIA fired its tyre gun at it? Even lower. In the end the halo is an expensive piece of heavy metal which it’s main purpose will be to partially blind driver and even contribute to harming a driver in a lot more likely scenarios than flying tyres like if we have another Kimi/Alonso incident where it could have cut Alonso’s floor in half and sent it back into Kimis direction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKh_xEH ... e=youtu.be

They don’t even think about these kind of scenarios and if it actually ends up killing a driver rather than helping a situation then what?

[NL_Fer]

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?

[pisangkacau]

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?

the support beam will hinder the driver to see the turn and apex if it was placed on left and right hence they place it in the center CMIIW

[jjn9128]

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?

the support beam will hinder the driver to see the turn and apex if it was placed on left and right hence they place it in the center CMIIW

Drivers are always looking a long way ahead, and rarely directly ahead. I forget where it was, I think the UK/BBC coverage 5 odd years back, but they had Freddie Hunt (James Hunt's son) in the simulator at the driver training school in Silverstone(?) - wearing eye tracking glasses to show where the driver's focus is - which was quite illuminating. This is a similar thing, but doesn't show a whole lap or even a whole corner from braking to exit...


Phone camera images from behind the halo don't tell the story as the depth of field is so wide it tends to flatten the view. The drivers eyes will focus past the centre strut (unless it's being deliberately focussed on), it's the same reason the front mounted aerials and pitot tubes don't distract them.

Side supported could work, but it would depend where the supports were situated. Too far forward would be in the way of the apex, likewise the drivers like to see the tops of the tyres for visual cues to how they're wearing or if there's graining/blistering. Too far around the side will hamper the load path from the front of the hoop. I think the red bull aero screen had the supports where the mirrors are, so not reducing the visibility much beyond where the mirrors already block it. That said the single front support is better for visibility and load bearing.

[PlatinumZealot]

Not a halo, but why go through all the trouble of finding a solution that sticks with the old notion of the open cockpit. Really, any solution which does not curtail full enclosure is set to bring issues or weaknesses. Just put in a fully enclosed canopy and be done with it.

I drew this up. It's on a 2016 chassis, which is still relevant:
http://u.cubeupload.com/turbof1/path1959.png

I made sure I used (relative) straight glass panels to avoid view distortion. The advantage of working with panels is in case the driver gets trapped, he or she should be capable of quickly removing the panels in the direction of an escape route, with the aid of quick release mechanisms. The biggest issue and time eater is when the driver has to get inside the car and the mechanics have to insert the panels, which I only assume is an emergency case when a driver wants to escape an angry team manager .

And although I have to say so myself, that closed cockpit looks awesome.

The glass can be made distortion free as it is in LMP1 i suppose. Just takes some development time that f1 did not have leading up to this year. Not unexpected that the aeroscreen could make a comeback in 2019 or 2020 after some more development time.

[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.

[Jolle]

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.