Button says no. Although I'm not convinced by his reasoning. http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/123371/button-alonso-crash-no-case-against-halo
Likewise. Still the potential for lots of hot liquid to pour onto the driver from split oil/water pipes etc, and of course fire is always a possibility no matter how strong the cells are. Halo is just too one dimensional in its approach.
Aesthetically it's much nicer, but as already discussed, many potential issues. I don't like either solution to be honest, they don't feel very "F1" in the sense of being open cockpit. F1 is meant to be a constructors first championship and autonomous cars are a big deal right now for automakers, so maybe we should just eliminate the drivers, other than for funding Sauber and Manor, they're not really needed any more.
I think mr hamilton needs to be struck by a small bit of debris to wake him up theres lads in graves on this. massa is out there very lucky to be alive.. I think to assume this design owuld be exactly what is seen in 2017 is probabaly wrong. It is a bolt on to the cars design now. If it was integral the design i think would be much much more aesthetically pleasing.
When did they actually stop having screens? I remember them being on F1 cars and getting smaller and smaller
This is great piece of context, I guess these were there for aero reasons as it's pre any of the cockpit protection regulations (introduced in '96 I think). There's a poll on sky's f1 site, around 3000 votes: 62 % want neither, 30% the screen and 8% the HALO - so expect to see HALO's on all the cars next year thanks to F1's new fan focussed approach!
I think it should be up to the teams or the drivers as to which way they go and there shoud be some strict rules over it's design, Button, I and for sure some of you, realised that RBR's screen is probably more about the aero. I think it should be steeper and should come no further back than the steering wheel, otherwise is basically an enclosed cockpit. Look how beautiful that McLaren is, smooth and elegant.
I think we'll see the Halo next season, then something else after that. I don't think there's time to get the aeroscreen fully tested before the 2017 regs need finalising. Whether it can be steeper or not may be a limitation of the material. Red Bull have shown an impact test with a wheel, and it looks like the top of the screen still sustains damage. The Halo and canopies were tested with a 20kg wheel with some assembly, so the fact that the aeroscreen only just passes the test with a wheel alone might indicate that it won't if the angle is steeper and it has to absorb more energy.
Funny how people in support of the halo were arguing that safety is the most important thing, but it's becoming apparent that not giving Red Bull an advantage is also right up there. We're talking about losing a couple of points of drag here, it's not going to be a performance differentiator at all. I agree with your first statement. They should just set two tests; one a crash test using the fired wheel assembly at a certain speed and angle, the other a driver egress test to make sure they can still still exit the car in a reasonable time. Then let the teams come up with their own solutions, halo, aeroscreen, canopy, whatever. Then there can be no arguments about performance gains, visibility, safety etc. Plus it would be nice to see some variety on the grid now that the chassis are practically spec and everyone has the same livery.
That'd be quite interesting actually. The existing crash tests don't care how the tub is built so long as it survives the test, why should this new piece be identical for everyone? Granted it's an additional cost for every team, but with them all working on it they'd quickly come up with a good solution.
I agree with you, DHC. I see no real justification for enforcing an identical add-on to all cars. I see no reason why, when Todt finally makes a decision enforcing new cockpit protection, teams should not find their own, unique solutions to such a requirement. As you suggest, the defining criterion need only be passing a particular test.
If you let teams go their own way then are you running the Risk of them going for performance over safety or are you expecting the FIA to have some kind of regulation (haha) on it?
Hi Bando. It's a question which needs to be asked isn't it! However… If safety is defined by the need to pass a standardised test (probably in two parts, as suggested by AG, I believe), clearly that will define whether various design solutions meet the criteria. That is essentially the end of any argument – even though differences may make one safER than another. If teams are given the go-ahead to produce their own, I think we can be certain the likes of Adrian Newey* (for instance), will see this as a big opportunity to get one over their rivals; and equally, that this will be feared by those less capable of producing harmonious aerodynamics. In my opinion though, that last sentence should not be considered – even though it may be true. As I believe others have said, and I concur, variation and innovation should be encouraged as a positive despite the inevitable differences being likely to give subtle variations in aerodynamic performance. And actually, I think the public would be more receptive to this idea despite the possibility of differences in performance it might encourage**. *As has been perceived by rivals, Newey has an almost god-like ability to see the whole aero concept at once, whereas most others have to piece it together stage by stage like a jig-saw (at least from a mere mortal's perspective). **Excellence should never be punished with draconian regulations designed to equalise competitors, as has happened all too frequently. This was one of my greatest concerns with Todt. He is not a visionary, he is a politician trying to find composite solutions which ruffle the fewest feathers. But of course, that's why Bernie gave him the nod (through influence as well as by his own words). And between them, they have seriously misjudged public opinion. They are overly concerned with 'the show', deceiving themselves that this promotes interest, whilst in fact, many people find it rather patronising and a real turn-off – literally!