F1technical.net

Utterly amateurish for F1 - that a flimsy/flappy distortion-raddled screen is presented - for on car test..
..what an embarrassment for Ferrari..

As if a properly mounted, flat panel, optically correct, frameless-interlocking 'Lexan' slab unit, could not be done..

Any capable fish-tank maker - worth his salt - could do better than that Ferrari effort..

I'm glad the poll reflects my own views. Grosjean at least was able to speak his feelings publicly and he said it's as bad as the halo and f1 should stick to open cockpit which I agree with

J.A.W. wrote: ↑

15 Jul 2017, 08:26

Utterly amateurish for F1 - that a flimsy/flappy distortion-raddled screen is presented - for on car test..
..what an embarrassment for Ferrari..

As if a properly mounted, flat panel, optically correct, frameless-interlocking 'Lexan' slab unit, could not be done..

Any capable fish-tank maker - worth his salt - could do better than that Ferrari effort..

the whole thing looks like it was forced upon the designers by higher power, who has no clue how much work actually goes into a proper canopy glass, so the designers and makers of the thing put as little effort as possible, just to be able to check the box on the paper

when I saw the thickness of that thing, first thought - why did they even bother...

as someone previously said in this topic - this whole debacle with the halo and the screen now seems like product of some high ranking officials that feel a desperate need to be doing something, which very is popular in today's bureaucratic world

any engineer just looking at the halo and this screen in about 5 seconds will conclude - that halo will do nothing for a debris like the spring that hit Massa, it might work for some freak accident where the car is impacting something like a tyre barrier while being upside down (very much dependent on the speed), and this screen - as flimsy as it is now, will only deflect light things, it will not do anything for the upside-down crash situation, and both of these things will do nothing in the Bianchi crash, halo - maybe, but then again it may fail in some unpredicted way and actually serve as a conduit to transfer the impacting thing into the helmet

IMHO the effort could have produced much better results if they put the thought into some uber safe F1 special helmet - hans system - specifically integrated into the safety cell sort of solution, something along those lines, if they care about the side impact (Bianchi case again), then that can be solved via the safety cell design as well, and also incorporating some bumper type attachments to any moving equipment that might share track and run off areas while the race is in progress, and even then there is a chance of some unbelievable coincidence happening that will launch a piano from a transport plane from 10km high up and land right on some unlucky race car...

J.A.W. wrote: ↑

15 Jul 2017, 08:26

Utterly amateurish for F1 - that a flimsy/flappy distortion-raddled screen is presented - for on car test..
..what an embarrassment for Ferrari..

As if a properly mounted, flat panel, optically correct, frameless-interlocking 'Lexan' slab unit, could not be done..

Any capable fish-tank maker - worth his salt - could do better than that Ferrari effort..

It was designed and manufactured by the same company that makes the windscreens on aircraft and the 599XX, not Ferrari.

krisfx wrote: ↑

15 Jul 2017, 21:55

J.A.W. wrote: ↑

15 Jul 2017, 08:26

Utterly amateurish for F1 - that a flimsy/flappy distortion-raddled screen is presented - for on car test..
..what an embarrassment for Ferrari..

As if a properly mounted, flat panel, optically correct, frameless-interlocking 'Lexan' slab unit, could not be done..

Any capable fish-tank maker - worth his salt - could do better than that Ferrari effort..

It was designed and manufactured by the same company that makes the windscreens on aircraft and the 599XX, not Ferrari.

K-fx, are you suggesting that Ferrari have wilfully fitted & 'tested' - a knowingly dud set-up?
In a.. ah.. transparent.. attempt to 'prove' the windscreen idea won't work in a 'real F1' - application?

J.A.W. wrote: ↑

16 Jul 2017, 00:17

krisfx wrote: ↑

15 Jul 2017, 21:55

J.A.W. wrote: ↑

15 Jul 2017, 08:26

Utterly amateurish for F1 - that a flimsy/flappy distortion-raddled screen is presented - for on car test..
..what an embarrassment for Ferrari..

As if a properly mounted, flat panel, optically correct, frameless-interlocking 'Lexan' slab unit, could not be done..

Any capable fish-tank maker - worth his salt - could do better than that Ferrari effort..

It was designed and manufactured by the same company that makes the windscreens on aircraft and the 599XX, not Ferrari.

K-fx, are you suggesting that Ferrari have wilfully fitted & 'tested' - a knowingly dud set-up?
In a.. ah.. transparent.. attempt to 'prove' the windscreen idea won't work in a 'real F1' - application?

No, just correcting a false accusation of bad engineering on their part. It's most likely an FIA decision anyway

I really don't understand this stupid Halo thing. It's not like it could've saved Jules' life.

krisfx wrote: ↑

16 Jul 2017, 22:15

J.A.W. wrote: ↑

16 Jul 2017, 00:17

K-fx, are you suggesting that Ferrari have wilfully fitted & 'tested' - a knowingly dud set-up?
In a.. ah.. transparent.. attempt to 'prove' the windscreen idea won't work in a 'real F1' - application?

No, just correcting a false accusation of bad engineering on their part. It's most likely an FIA decision anyway

Who made a "false accusation of bad engineering" then K-fx?
Are you suggesting that Vettel does not know it, even when he - quite literally- sees it?

Stormy wrote: ↑

16 Jul 2017, 22:21

I really don't understand this stupid Halo thing. It's not like it could've saved Jules' life.

Perhaps could have saved Massa from being hit by the spring damper.

Jules accident was a consequence of several factors - weather, speed, track conditions, daylight etc. Whatever makes F1 safer is a big plus.

J.A.W. wrote: ↑

17 Jul 2017, 13:32

krisfx wrote: ↑

16 Jul 2017, 22:15

J.A.W. wrote: ↑

16 Jul 2017, 00:17

K-fx, are you suggesting that Ferrari have wilfully fitted & 'tested' - a knowingly dud set-up?
In a.. ah.. transparent.. attempt to 'prove' the windscreen idea won't work in a 'real F1' - application?

No, just correcting a false accusation of bad engineering on their part. It's most likely an FIA decision anyway

Who made a "false accusation of bad engineering" then K-fx?
Are you suggesting that Vettel does not know it, even when he - quite literally- sees it?

Refer to your previous comment about Ferrari being amateurish... That kinda explains it.

n_anirudh wrote: ↑

17 Jul 2017, 14:04

Stormy wrote: ↑

16 Jul 2017, 22:21

I really don't understand this stupid Halo thing. It's not like it could've saved Jules' life.

Perhaps could have saved Massa from being hit by the spring damper.

Jules accident was a consequence of several factors - weather, speed, track conditions, daylight etc. Whatever makes F1 safer is a big plus.

Jules' death was because of only one factor, really. Having a crane there.

krisfx wrote: ↑

17 Jul 2017, 14:34

J.A.W. wrote: ↑

17 Jul 2017, 13:32

krisfx wrote: ↑

16 Jul 2017, 22:15

No, just correcting a false accusation of bad engineering on their part. It's most likely an FIA decision anyway

Who made a "false accusation of bad engineering" then K-fx?
Are you suggesting that Vettel does not know it, even when he - quite literally- sees it?

Refer to your previous comment about Ferrari being amateurish... That kinda explains it.

Well of course it does, that's why I wrote it, & as Vettel confirmed - the engineering is bad..
Surely, in F1, a test driver ought to have checked it out & rejected it - before such a public embarrassment..

J.A.W. wrote: ↑

18 Jul 2017, 13:26

krisfx wrote: ↑

17 Jul 2017, 14:34

J.A.W. wrote: ↑

17 Jul 2017, 13:32

Who made a "false accusation of bad engineering" then K-fx?
Are you suggesting that Vettel does not know it, even when he - quite literally- sees it?

Refer to your previous comment about Ferrari being amateurish... That kinda explains it.

Well of course it does, that's why I wrote it, & as Vettel confirmed - the engineering is bad..
Surely, in F1, a test driver ought to have checked it out & rejected it - before such a public embarrassment..

This has all 1 purpose: Show the public that they do "anything" for safety (testing new variants of a head protection). Than they can throw it away and say: We tested it and it did not work. We did everything we could but there is no way for an monoposto. => Everyone is happy (at first).

Ferrari did not do a thing to develope this shield as they did not develope Halo. They were only the first ones to test it. That's all. Halo was mainly developed by Mercedes and other companys and shield is an idea of the FIA.

Stormy wrote: ↑

17 Jul 2017, 18:00

n_anirudh wrote: ↑

17 Jul 2017, 14:04

Stormy wrote: ↑

16 Jul 2017, 22:21

I really don't understand this stupid Halo thing. It's not like it could've saved Jules' life.

Perhaps could have saved Massa from being hit by the spring damper.

Jules accident was a consequence of several factors - weather, speed, track conditions, daylight etc. Whatever makes F1 safer is a big plus.

Jules' death was because of only one factor, really. Having a crane there.

and also in lesser part of his disobedience of the double yellows

cplchanb wrote: ↑

18 Jul 2017, 16:41

Stormy wrote: ↑

17 Jul 2017, 18:00

n_anirudh wrote: ↑

17 Jul 2017, 14:04

Perhaps could have saved Massa from being hit by the spring damper.

Jules accident was a consequence of several factors - weather, speed, track conditions, daylight etc. Whatever makes F1 safer is a big plus.

Jules' death was because of only one factor, really. Having a crane there.

and also in lesser part of his disobedience of the double yellows

Most of us never drove an F-1 car into this conditions, who knows how visible was the double yellow flags, but a crane there was the bigger error