Indy car windscreen

[aral]

Calm down boys! Polycarbonate is very very strong. It wont shatter unless it has been exposed to uv for a number of years. Also the convex shape means that it would have to go into compression, thus making it even more resistant to even the slightest risk of shattering. The weakest point, if there is one, is the opening for the driver where if a wheel came down on the edges of the entrance aperture, it would result in some stretching of the polycarbonate at its edge.
As as been stated , polycarbonate can even withstand bird strikes at mach 1, as there would never be that sort of impact on an F1 car, it does turn out to be a reasonable alternative. Optics are its main problem as the curved polycarbonate will create a distorted view.
But to claim it is "doomed to fail" is downright ridiculous.

[rscsr]

The video is showing different tests in my opinion.
The halo is tested with the rubber hitting it first, while the shield is hit with the rim first.

[djos]

The video is showing different tests in my opinion.
The halo is tested with the rubber hitting it first, while the shield is hit with the rim first.

The glaringly obvious take-away from this video is imo in the titling of each test - imo it's almost as if the FIA wanted the Windscreen to fail as it's simply called "windscreen" with no info on it's materials. Compare that to the F16 cockpit which is clearly labeled as "aerospace grade poly-carbonate" - the latter of which is engineered to absorb energy without failing.



I dont think the windscreen failing is a good thing at all, sure it deflects the wheel and absorbs some energy, however spraying the driver in sharp poly-carbonate shards is imo likely to create many other risks.

I dont think the FIA gave the Aeroscreen idea a fair go - on the other hand IndyCar seem to be having a red hot go at engineering it to the max the technology will allow and I really hope they succeed and show the FIA up in the process!

PS, I'm an Aussie so i'm not playing the USA USA, cheerleader card here - I just want a quality driver protection system that's properly engineered AND aesthetically pleasing for us fans.

[J.A.W.]

Some good points in the 3 posts above, on this page, so I offer a few more.

It is clear (pardon the pun) that a transparent plastic screen must be properly designed, taking into account
such issues as aerodynamic shape, driver entry/egress, resilence accomodation of impact forces, & an undistorted view.

Yet a precisely calculated, ballistic impact resistant/resilient shape from suitable material - which meets these criteria,
- is far from impossible, as plainly shown by the F-16 aerospace example.

The F1 'test-trial' was indeed "1/2 arsed" *, esp' the Ferrari ( who were already on the record as anti-screen) driving
test, since optical distortion is apparent from simply sitting in the cockpit, & the poorly designed screen ought to
have been rejected & replaced by a functional unit, prior to even going out on the track.

Looking at the Indy car design, I see a potential problem in its mounting system, which really needs to be in
a U-shaped slot seating - which supports both sides of the screen material (inner & outer), & should be of integrated resilent material which accomodates the flex which occurs in a debris strike without causing the screen to pop out, or stress fracture at the mounting holes in the base, (which appears a likely scenario - in the pictured unit).

Likewise, the screen shape - with respect to the cutaway top edge - must be a design calculated to allow for flex
movement without a built in stress-failure point, such as where the curve line changes shape.

*As the video evidence shows, the "1/2 arsed" F1 test screen prototype - was so solidly mounted - that it failed to
allow for the resilient flex range of the screen material, & thus was a predictable contribution to its structural failure.

[Edax]

Calm down boys! Polycarbonate is very very strong. It wont shatter unless it has been exposed to uv for a number of years. Also the convex shape means that it would have to go into compression, thus making it even more resistant to even the slightest risk of shattering. The weakest point, if there is one, is the opening for the driver where if a wheel came down on the edges of the entrance aperture, it would result in some stretching of the polycarbonate at its edge.
As as been stated , polycarbonate can even withstand bird strikes at mach 1, as there would never be that sort of impact on an F1 car, it does turn out to be a reasonable alternative. Optics are its main problem as the curved polycarbonate will create a distorted view.
But to claim it is "doomed to fail" is downright ridiculous.

Polycarbonate can scatter under shock loading. It would not surprise me in the canopy actually is a laminate, using for instance a polyurethane layer between polycarbonate plies.

In a grey past I have been working on armor packages, and there is a lot of science going into making a curved high angle window. But it can be done without causing much distortion. Just take the beast as an example. I’ve been told that in some places the windows, (glass laminates + spall screen) are 20 cm’s thick, but you wouldn’t be able to tell.

But you have to put a lot of effort in selecting anti glare coatings to prevent the thing turning into a mirror and make matching indices of refraction to prevent refraction and reflection in the laminate.

And lastly you have to prevent density differences, that can occur when you start bending a polymer or glass.

I am not sure what they did, but if they just bended a sheet of PC it will undoubtedly have turned into an headache inducing contraption, which is not very effective in stopping anything.

[Cold Fussion]

I dont think the windscreen failing is a good thing at all, sure it deflects the wheel and absorbs some energy, however spraying the driver in sharp poly-carbonate shards is imo likely to create many other risks.

The whole idea is risk mitigation. If the aeroscreen/canopy is properly designed then a large enough force to shatter the screen by something like a tyre would have almost certainly killed the driver outright without said screen, so the driver potentially suffering a few cuts is a marked improvement.

[Manoah2u]

I dont think the windscreen failing is a good thing at all, sure it deflects the wheel and absorbs some energy, however spraying the driver in sharp poly-carbonate shards is imo likely to create many other risks.

The whole idea is risk mitigation. If the aeroscreen/canopy is properly designed then a large enough force to shatter the screen by something like a tyre would have almost certainly killed the driver outright without said screen, so the driver potentially suffering a few cuts is a marked improvement.

yet, the halo results in not having any shards or cuts whatsoever. hence why the halo, despite being aesthetically unpleasant, is still the better solution. and that really is the point on why the FIA implements this.

combined to the current state of affairs on a transparant canopy/windscreen, the halo is simply the better and safer choice. even smaller objects were positively deflected away from the driver by the three-legged halo.

the windscreen probably would have deflected these smaller objects (despite still having a shatter risk), but obviously has problems with both deflecting/protecting from large, heavy objects (such as wheels) aswell as a distorted view risk, which again, the halo simply doesn't have. i'm not saying the halo doesn't have any negative impact on the driver's view, but from what it seems like, it was still the much better option.

[Manoah2u]

as you can see, at the very best, an object will be deflected or altered course that it is directed away from the helmet. however, since there is no reinforcement on the top, and as you can clearly see the there is a huge slope down where a large chunk of the side of the helmet is exposed, something like a wheel will still have pretty much enough room to hit a helmet, especially if it is in a tumbling motion - or if it were to come downward from above.

i agree to the point that the halo was tested with the wheel aimed with the tire rubber compound towards the beam, and that could have influence on the impact results, there might have been more damage inflicted when the steel side of the wheel would impact the halo first and foremost.

still, i'll repeat that even if theoretically the half-canopy in the video shown is of lesser quality than what we see mounted to the cockpit of an indy car here, it's not like a wheel hub impact is impossible to happen - and the material shattered. i maintain that as far as all forms of visual evidence we have untill now, anything compareable to this indy device, has not passed the test in the demands presented; partially deflecting minimally absorbing energy is not sufficient to the demands presented.

i would really like to see evidence / proof that this screen DOES pass that test. that would surely bring a great improvement, and would speak volumes for this solutions practicality and aesthetic supremacy over the FIA's solution.

nevertheless, as fully evident, the helmet still is exposed.

had this 'windscreen' been able to fully protect the helmet to the sides, and had a titanium/carbon/steel reinforcement beam been mounted atop of the screen (it doesn't HAVE to be as thick as the halo), the combination of the application strong enough to withstand realistic impact figures, then i'd be all the more impressed with this design.

don't get me wrong - i'm glad theyre doing work with a screen instead of a metal bar, and i sincerely hope they'll succeed and surpass the HALO or simply meet the same demands.

at this point, it does not express a professional alternative to the halo's head protection. as a windscreen itself it looks fine, and i assume they'll be able to make sure there is no visual distortion from the driver's POV.

if it actually does work, there's a mountain of possibilities - HUD display as in modern cars showing speed, revs, digitally on the screen. laptimes. sector times. speed traps. time defecit to driver ahead or behind.
visual references of putting the car in what mode by operating the steering wheel.

bright flashing saftey car, virtual safety car, PIT STOP NOW messages, yellow, green, red, etc. flag messages on the screen through the hud, even if it would only be a bright green yellow or red dot flashing.

it would make the screen on the steering wheel much less needed for these jobs and would greatly improve the driver's sight on the track by not needing to focus back and forth.

i wonder if it wouldn't also bring some fantastic shots in night races as we might see data lighting up on the screen.

so there are countless positives for this application - as long as it actually works, and unfortunately, there is no evidence that it does.

anyway, in 3 days there will be a test, so i'm curious to the driver's experiences, how it looks completed on the car.

but i also really want to see how they have tested this device - if they actually have tested it at all in a way similar to what the FIA did.

i did realize though that the windscreen dirt accumilation might not be such an issue after all - f1 drivers have the same 'problem' with their helmet visors and remove layer after layer during a race which they can pull of easily.
theoretically, the same can be put on the windscreen, only in a larger scale, with a 'lip' or 'contact point' where the driver can EASILY tear off the entire layer. how? i don't know, but i'm sure some fancy brains can figure that one out.
so i'll take that one off the list of negatives for this concept.

[tcooper27]

Has anyone said this is IndyCar's final design? The most recent info I've seen is that they hope to introduce something at the end of 2018, which would indicate to me this is still an early prototype.

The test video of the windscreen shattering is almost a joke. That design was neither of the two different designs that were actually presented on the Ferrari and Red Bull cars. The test footage of Red Bull's aeroscreen that was snuck in there at the end is proof that a properly designed screen can easily handle the impact of a wheel.

The aeroscreen and the halo offer similar protection to the top of the helmet in the event of a "tumbling wheel" scenario.




So far we've only seen test footage of wheels striking the halo. I'd like to see how it does against smaller dense objects that would fit through the big gaps in protection (springs, shafts, sharp pieces of bodywork, etc).

[proteus]

What we see in the Indy example is that u need a chasis which blends with the add-ons, or in the other way arround, the add-on which blends with the chasis.

The route of the FIA was right the opposite. They didnt make the new radical 2017 car designs fit to receive a HALO, or an aeroscreen. They did what they allways do - they decided that HALO is obligatory in the next season and they simply slammed it on the car, no matter how it turned out to be visually.

[roon]

What we see in the Indy example is that u need a chasis which blends with the add-ons, or in the other way arround, the add-on which blends with the chasis.

That will be decried as styling.

[J.A.W.]

What we see in the Indy example is that u need a chasis which blends with the add-ons, or in the other way arround, the add-on which blends with the chasis.

That will be decried as styling.

Current Indy Car designers could do worse, IMO - than to examine Team McLaren's thoughtful efforts at aero-screen tech,
& from ~45 years ago..

Both F1,


& Indy Car - designs..

[mclaren111]

What we see in the Indy example is that u need a chasis which blends with the add-ons, or in the other way arround, the add-on which blends with the chasis.

The route of the FIA was right the opposite. They didnt make the new radical 2017 car designs fit to receive a HALO, or an aeroscreen. They did what they allways do - they decided that HALO is obligatory in the next season and they simply slammed it on the car, no matter how it turned out to be visually.

Could not agree more.

The FIA are such a bunch of over-reacting, unthoughtful idiots

[Just_a_fan]

Calm down boys! Polycarbonate is very very strong. It wont shatter unless it has been exposed to uv for a number of years. Also the convex shape means that it would have to go into compression, thus making it even more resistant to even the slightest risk of shattering. The weakest point, if there is one, is the opening for the driver where if a wheel came down on the edges of the entrance aperture, it would result in some stretching of the polycarbonate at its edge.
As as been stated , polycarbonate can even withstand bird strikes at mach 1, as there would never be that sort of impact on an F1 car, it does turn out to be a reasonable alternative. Optics are its main problem as the curved polycarbonate will create a distorted view.
But to claim it is "doomed to fail" is downright ridiculous.

The ability to withstand impacts is as much down to shape as material. The aircraft canopy survives the impact because it doesn't have a big hole cut in it. The loads are transmitted around the entire shell. The car screen can't do this as there is little in the way of hoop stiffness along the top, open, edge. The result, as seen in the FIA video, is a failure of the top edge of the screen.

Optics are another issue. The aircraft screen doesn't give perfect optical performance but it doesn't need to. The driver in the car is seeing very fast moving scenery that crosses his vision on both sides and across the front. He needs good vision to place the car. The pilot, although able to travel many times faster than the car, isn't exposed to the same movement of objects in his field of view. Minor distortion, whilst undesirable, can be accepted because the pilot doesn't need to place his plane to the inch in the way the driver does. Even landing on an aircraft carrier is accurate only within several feet and, once close to the fantail, there is no need to see perfect detail anyway as you can't do anything about it.

Clever shaping of the screen could deal with some of the distortion but only so long as the eyes remain in the same place. Add in head movement and vibration and it becomes very difficult.

[Jolle]

Calm down boys! Polycarbonate is very very strong. It wont shatter unless it has been exposed to uv for a number of years. Also the convex shape means that it would have to go into compression, thus making it even more resistant to even the slightest risk of shattering. The weakest point, if there is one, is the opening for the driver where if a wheel came down on the edges of the entrance aperture, it would result in some stretching of the polycarbonate at its edge.
As as been stated , polycarbonate can even withstand bird strikes at mach 1, as there would never be that sort of impact on an F1 car, it does turn out to be a reasonable alternative. Optics are its main problem as the curved polycarbonate will create a distorted view.
But to claim it is "doomed to fail" is downright ridiculous.

The ability to withstand impacts is as much down to shape as material. The aircraft canopy survives the impact because it doesn't have a big hole cut in it. The loads are transmitted around the entire shell. The car screen can't do this as there is little in the way of hoop stiffness along the top, open, edge. The result, as seen in the FIA video, is a failure of the top edge of the screen.

Optics are another issue. The aircraft screen doesn't give perfect optical performance but it doesn't need to. The driver in the car is seeing very fast moving scenery that crosses his vision on both sides and across the front. He needs good vision to place the car. The pilot, although able to travel many times faster than the car, isn't exposed to the same movement of objects in his field of view. Minor distortion, whilst undesirable, can be accepted because the pilot doesn't need to place his plane to the inch in the way the driver does. Even landing on an aircraft carrier is accurate only within several feet and, once close to the fantail, there is no need to see perfect detail anyway as you can't do anything about it.

Clever shaping of the screen could deal with some of the distortion but only so long as the eyes remain in the same place. Add in head movement and vibration and it becomes very difficult.

Doomed to fail is maybe a bit strong, depends what they are after. A wheel, on top of the screen, on it's way to the drivers head will not be deflected, the polycarbonate will just bend en maybe shatter. Curved flexible stuff will do that, especially when it's not supported by anything else. I will fail when you run under a car, this will not stop a car. This will also fail when you flip the car and grind the fences head first.
It will protect against medium and small objects, like massa's spring accident and small debris that wasn't a problem in the first place.

For an oval, visibility is less of an issue because of the wide bends, the apex is just a few degrees off center, on road corses you have more problems. What is/will be a big problem is dirt, rubber, oil, etc especially in combination with the sun. Just take a look at the F1 cars up close in parc ferme, they are full of pieces of rubber and dirt. In Indy the cars run a lot closer, for longer with more cars. Together with the already blurred vision after turning left for an hour...

This kind of screen is much nicer to look at then a Halo but it's the kind of extension of the survival cell as the Halo (although it's not according to the FIA).