The HALO

Surely the most insane idea F1 has ever produced, albeit for the right reasons...

How daft the idea a bit of old roll cage partly blocking driver view is, especially when it's more likely to deflect missing debris onto the driver

What's wrong with a bulletproof clear windscreen if you want to change the sport?

 

the problem with a windscreen is it'll get covered in oil and dust and all the other **** that'll stick to it. not sure how well the nanolayering on self-cleaning Photovoltaic solar panals would be at keeping it clean.

 

Terrible idea. Not because it looks bad but becase there's still potential for debris striking the driver in a wide variety of ways.

 

yeah, it needs a stock care cage wrapped around it to make it suitable for purpose, and then you et the 'trapped in a burning car' conundrum.

 

Brilliant idea . Give them air-con , wiper blades & a cd multi-changer while you are at it ............

 

and a dukes-of Hazard air horn.

 

I go back to what I said in the F1 testing thread about it.

Too many gaps, will not protect against a direct blow to the top of the head, so probably would not have saved Wilson and Surtees jr, and in Bianchi's case would it have made much difference against a digger?

Either fully closed cockpits, in which case just , merge with the WEC, or leave it as it is.

Also, will this apply to all forms of open cockpit racing or just F1?

 

To deal with the important things first, it butchers that on-board camera angle from the airbox. I guess they could build one into the halo though.

I don't really mind the halo, and I think the aesthetics will be improved between now and it's first race usage. Whether it's as significant a step forwards as the FIA seem to want to sell it as, I'm not sure. I'm concerned that it's a half-baked solution, but will be an excuse for much back-slapping and sitting back until the next accident.

It protects against tyres, errant nose cones, but how much else? The cross-sectional area ahead of the driver is minimal to deflect things like springs, but it also introduces the risk of deflecting items down into the drivers body, which is then much less protected. Surely you'd need a Kevlar splash deck?

From what I've heard, FIA tests have focused on the front-on impact of a 10 kg tyre, yet it seems like this Halo is pretty much a done deal, without yet having proof it's beneficial for side-impacts, (such as the Grosjean/Alonso incident at Spa), greater weights etc. Also, is it indestructible, or when it fails does it surround the driver with shards of carbon fibre?

Obviously when other safety enhancements have been introduced to F1 they didn't come in as perfect solutions. Helmets have gone from leather caps to incredibly sophisticated devices with HANS and all the rest. 3 point harnesses have becomes 7 point. But in this case I'm not convinced the benefits outweigh the issues with the HALO.

2017 is proposed to be a radical rule change, but it's come too soon for this change. The regulations really need to be set pretty soon so that the designers can get to work, but the HALO won't be fully tested by then so we don't even know that it won't make things worse in certain circumstances? A canopy is the way forwards to me, and it needs to be thought of as a complete overhaul of the cockpit design. In that way it may be possible to address the issues with visibility, cooling, egress, extraction, etc. A bolt on solution doesn't really make sense to me.

 

That one that's blighting the Ferrari is horrible.
I prefer Giorgio's idea...

please log in to view this image

please log in to view this image

Here's some discussion from Matt Somers...

http://www.somersf1.co.uk/2016/02/halo-angelic-or-fiendish.html

 

For me there are 2 fundemental issues to protect a driver from, heavy impact and debris.

Heavy impact would include incidents such as the Jules incident, flying tyres/bodywork and cars coming over the top such as the Spa incident with Alonso. Debris would be issues like the Massa incident.

The only way to protect from all is obviously a closed cockpit, which (rightly or wrongly) appears to not be under consideration. So the question is which prevention is the priority? The Halo idea doesn't protect from debris so it's only function can be from heavy impact. Given the strength of engineering, I fail to see why they need to have a structure point in the drivers view - why not remove it totally or have side supports instead?

 

I'm all for safety but this is not the solution. A strong screen or pod (that can be wiped down during stops-like lmp1) would l be aesthetically pleasing and better for the driver.

To be honest though F1 should remain open cockpit and we should work around that.

 

Anyone see Hamilton's comment where he hoped it'd be optional and down to the driver to decide? What a stupid idea.

 

Turning into driver warfare, Ricciardo has told Hulk not to be a hero after his comments to.

 

What about when a car flips over?

How easy is it to remove so a driver can get himself out easily?

 

Well you would assume it will be more difficult when upside down because there will be a smaller gap between the halo and the top of the air box which will be in contact with the ground.

 

I'm definitely with Hamilton and Hulkenberg on this one. Ricciardo's comments are pathetic and I've lost a tonne of respect for the guy, it's not like Hulkenberg was advocating something dangerous, running without a halo is not dangerous, must be about 400 races since Senna died and Bianchi has been the only fatality since, and neither of their deaths would've been prevented by this. It's not like Hulkenberg's said he wants to go back to racing with goggles instead of a helmet. The only way you can be 100% safe in motorsport is by not participating, if you're that scared about racing without a halo there's your answer, piss off and do something else. Good luck finding a job and lifestyle with a zero fatality rate, I wish you all the best in your pursuit of immortality.

 

Correct, so are they then brining in unwanted danger elements as a result of the halo device? Maybe not so important in F1 where rollovers are relatively rare, but if it is brought into other single seaters, Indycar would have problems a) because can they guarantee it is aero neutral on the ovals bb) there seem to be a higher number of incidents of fire in Indycars because of the higher crash speeds, therefore a exposing a trapped driver to unnecessary danger if they can't free themselves quickly?

I don't like the idea, it's half-assed and protects against one or two potential incidents, yet there are many more it won't protect against, so what is the point of it? Looks daft, and clearly not fit for purpose.

 

Weren't BAR forced to remove a front aero device that sat directly inline with the driver's vision because it was deemed unsafe?

 

Tyrell definitely did in 1998 I think too. Some cars had started sprouting wings on stilts in front of the cockpit which got banned on safety grounds