The most worrying scenario of which is a "ride up" accident, what happens if a front wing (or rear wing end plate), Barge board, suspension component etc is forced into the cockpit when it hits this "Halo" device?, there's nowhere for it to go except strike/pierce/decapitate the driver! Anything under the structure is only ending up in one place. It's a crazy idea.
Wonder if they'd have cooling issues for the driver with the RBR idea with all the air being deflected away from them? Heat soak in the cockpit is massive.
I am sure they can route air into the cockpit with simple ducts/vents. I have to say aesthetically and practically this is better than the Ferrari abomination.
Yeah, there's already some cooling through the nose of the car up through the cockpit, that could be expanded on. Steaming up shouldn't be an issue as it's not enclosed fully so shouldn't build up a sufficient temperature gradient across the shield. Rain might be tricky as it'll effectively be two rain-streaked visors in front of the driver. I remember Cosi used to swear by super-hydrophobic coatings for windscreens, so perhaps they're more effective than I'm giving them credit for. Perhaps the additional enclosure would lead to less water on the helmet visor too. Ferrari argued that the central stanchion was "hidden" in the natural blind spot the driver has between his eyes. I don't know whether combining the designs in this way gives better visibility, or if the Ferrari solution becomes more of a hindrance when the driver isn't looking dead ahead. In terms of merit, Red Bull's idea appears to address more problems than Ferrari's, with similar drawbacks. The problems presented by a HALO need researching by the FIA anyway, so hopefully that evidence will give us a stronger design too. In terms of aesthetics, I kinda like the Red bull solution. Reminiscent of the canopy of a WW2 fighter plane.
Quite like Red Bull's solution, great compromise between open and closed cockpit. Would look better and would be better for visibility if they removed those two supports, surely they can build something structurally strong enough not to need them. On DHC's point about the driver having two rain-streaked visors in front of them, would they even need a visor? They could have an open helmet with a peak like a motorcross helmet. Also at racing speeds I think there's a strong chance the rain could be carried over the driver's head.
Rain shouldn't be too much of an issue. The cars go so fast the rain disperses quickly anyway, drivers may actually like it as they probably won't get so wet! RBR's idea is the best looking by far, but as wit the Halo concept, is it going to be protective against a strike to the top of the head (Surtees/Wilson) and would it have done anything for Bianchi? The solution is still very one dimensional in that it protects against a direct hit to the face, but the drivers sit so low these days it is a very rare occurrence and the device would not have saved either of these 3 drivers lives. Only maybe Massa would have escaped his injuries as it certainly would have (or should have if the screens are strong enough) deflected the spring away from him. My view is still either go fully enclosed or leave it as it is and keep the purity of open cockpit racing intact.
forget the screen, as someone else has mentioned, what happens when it gets occluded by dirt and oil? drivers use tear-offs to keep their vision clear, that aint gonna work on a big screen. if you need full frontal protection then a mesh like used in grass track/banger racing. It'll stop everything other than the smallest bits of debris, it won't get occluded and it will keep the airflow.
It's unusual to get that much dirt or oil on a helmet visor. I remember Damon Hill finishing a race somewhere once with the front of his car covered in oil from following another car, but it's rare. If a windscreen got dangerously dirty they would have to get it cleaned when pitting, or have a tear off layer that could be removed by the pit crew.
You'd be surprised how much dirt and grime builds up on the visor. A driver will use many tear off strips during a race, so it is another potential issue.
Would've protected Surtees and Wilson in my opinion. Looked like Wilson's came more from the front like Massa's. The tyre in the Surtees crash would probably have hit the left side of the hoop. You have to think of the speed these cars are travelling, if something goes over the front of this thing it's never going to drop fast enough to strike the driver's head. If the car was parked you could drop a wheel through the top, but it's the speed that makes it fatal, hitting something heavy at 100mph, the weight of a tyre or nose cone alone would cause little to no damage. I don't think it would've helped Bianchi at all. Every little helps though, the structure would've absorbed some of the impact, the tractor would've been accelerated in Bianchi's direction of tractor, while Bianchi's car would've decelerated slightly, so the relative speed between Bianchi's helmet and the telehandler would've been less at the moment of impact; could've been the difference between life or death. Back in the 90's they'd have looked at a crash like Kubica's at Montreal and said there was no way a driver could've survived that, whether they had HANS or not, but we know now that crashes like that are survivable.
You say that, but I was reading something (I now can't find...) about this the other day, and actually most drivers only have 3 or 4 tear-offs applied to their helmet. Any more and the additional thickness/layers starts to warp their vision. That's part of the reason why you still see drivers getting their visors wiped during pit stops - if tearoffs were that plentiful there'd be no point adding another factor to the pitstop when there's already so little margin for error. 3/4 tear-offs (plus pit-stop wiping when needed), versus two or three screen wipes in a pitstop isn't that much of a difference, particularly when the build-up has to be larger on the screen to make a difference. A bug splat 10 cm from your eye is a lot more of an issue than the same mark on a screen 50cm away. It's also easier to adjust to see round dirt on a screen. I think AG is spot on, the angles are rarely going to work such that an object misses the top of the screen and hits the driver. It'd need to be dropping near vertically in the split second between it hitting the top of the screen and the airbox. I don't think any protection would have saved Bianchi, the rule changes were meant to address that, it just feels like the tragedy has kickstarted a movement for greater safety reforms.
Which is what killed Surtees jnr and Wilson. Lightning has struck twice already. If the head is still exposed then there is still a risk. Either eliminate the risk completely or don't bother and keep the racing concept pure with the drivers accepting the danger. If they don't wish to do so, WEC is a very good option now.
Basically yeah. Whichever one is chosen is not the solution to the problem they are trying to cure. So, question is, is a half baked idea better than no idea at all, and as it has the potential to save lives or lessen injury based on certain criteria, should it be implemented on the basis some protection is better than none? In which case, why has nothing been done about it since open top racing cars were first introduced back, erm, when cars were first manufactured? Because there is tin-top racing around for those who want a windscreen.
It's not though. You're ignoring the fact the car is moving. It's the relative motion between the two objects which is important, if you model the car as being stationary in the Surtees accident, the wheel doesn't drop vertically, it would be travelling near-horizontally. In these two accidents the drivers weren't struck by objects, they struck objects which were moving much slower than them. Same as in the Massa accident, the spring was actually moving away from Massa, but he was just travelling much faster and therefore caught and collided with it.
the halo is really only intended to stop a car type hitting a head. If we look as some cases. 1. jules bianchi. was it the sudden stop or head impact that killed him? 2. Massa: a halos would not stop that spring hitting him.. perhaps. 3. the cases quoted by vettel. that would have lived it seems. Its clear this is not a full solution. but is moving towards one.