F1technical.net

Would be nice if they got fighter jet canopy sorted

Open faced helmets so we could see more of the drivers emotions during a race

jagunx51 wrote: ↑

30 Nov 2017, 01:39

Most accident involving more than a flying tire .... what if it is cracked or broken? drivers could be trapped inside, or, the worst, it could be a deadly spear

large bodywork could be stuck within the cockpit, possibly blocked the driver sight

http://www.montrealgazette.com/sports/c ... ze=640x420


a crash like this could broke the Halo

http://s2.dmcdn.net/LSsy/x240-fzA.jpg
http://www.aerodynamicsproject.com/uplo ... 6305b8.jpg
http://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/1 ... allery.jpg
http://cdn.bmwblog.com/wp-content/uploa ... n-GP-7.jpg
https://rtrsports.co.uk/wp-content/uplo ... dianGP.png
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/arc ... 12682b.jpg
https://cdn-9.motorsport.com/static/img ... 9/s1_1.jpg

indy crash
http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.c ... ?ve=1&tl=1

actually, the halo has been mandated to - when implemented into the safety cell - be much much stronger than just to 'fend off' a wheel. so to be fair, i don't think those issues mentioned will shatter the halo. will it damage the halo? sure, just like a hefty shunt against a wall or other vehicle can cause the safety cell to get cracked. doesn't mean that we will see a driver get crushed by the halo.

matter of fact, the above images show just how 'close' things can get and have gotten to having drivers get smushed by a wheel or car in their face. these examples are exactly what show that a halo actually makes it safer. 'we', have been lucky up untill now that nobody has had their face crushed, and the good thing about the halo is that this will prevent that from actually happening.

incidents where that did happen - face crushing, was maria de villota for example with the truck. would she had a halo, she would have been alive today as no doubt the halo would have made the car 'swoop' under the trucklid / lift up the trucklid and deflect it. unfortunately that is not the case and she is no longer amongst us.

bianchi is a difficult story, as the high velocity and abrupt stopping by the 'immovable' object would have caused enough damage in itself anyway to make chances slim on survival. BUT it must also be said that he DID hit his helmet against the 'truck' , which will blow a shockwave into his head immediately which COULD have been exactly that little extra that 'killed' him.
The halo MIGHT have prevented that, stopping the car about what, 30cm early and having the same deceleration BUT without the actual physical contact. Hell, the halo - AS LONG AS IT:S CONStruCted INTEGRAL TO SAFETY CELL - might have even made the car 'dive' below the truck due to it's diagonal shape and cause much less deceleration etc.
even though Bianchi's crash was completely avoidable and the core of the problem was not head protection, it was part of the problem and the halo does solve this. the VSC brought a solution to the other half, so the combination makes things much better.

don't get me wrong - i hate the halo and how it looks, but at the same time, one cannot undermine it's gigantic safety improvement. personally, i think an aeroscreen / (half)canopy is the way to go, and i do think that'll happen at some point, but we're not there yet. The benefit of the halo as it is is that it'll get developed now and that means in a few years time we'll see it slim down in 'bulkness' by a great margin yet be vastly stronger. Then all they need to do is mount a 'windscreen' to it that doesn't influence the driver's view any more than a helmet visor would.

i think an aeroscreen / (half)canopy is the way to go

.
On this we agree.
The HALO will be gone and replaced by a (probably) a half canopy in the future.

My concern is a front wing, front or rear tyre still attached to another car could get stuck in the the loop of the halo in an airborne type of crash

The aeroscreen better be 100% clear if they use one. No bezels.

PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2017, 06:01

The aeroscreen better be 100% clear if they use one. No bezels.

i don't think jet fighter pilots have issues with their canopies and clarity, so i assume that when Ferrari tested it, and Vettel said it made him dizzy and he had trouble viewing correctly, it must have had to do with A) the material used , and B) the way it was cut / formed. that, or they were told to say it made him dizzy because they wanted the halo anyway, but i don't really believe that.

thing is, the 'aeroscreen' in itself is an aero-device all initself right away. the halo is a different story, but what i don't really understand is that from the pictures i have seen, even the pillars / mounts of the halo on the sides are different between teams.

perhaps it's testing and therefor not the 'structural part' that is has to be next year, but are these differences simply due to testing and not the finished product or are these actualy aerodynamic solutions too?

do the rules only speak about allowed aero solution regarding the 'ring' itself or is there a 'loophole' and can the aero solutions go all the way to where the halo meets the headrest?

Could the McLaren halo 'slat' attachment - be a Coanda effect device?
To jet-deflect flying detritus, such as spray - in wet races, from the driver's face?

What are the rules concerning turning the halo into an aerodynamic device?

For instance, could you attach little winglets to the sides?

graham.reeds wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2017, 14:54

What are the rules concerning turning the halo into an aerodynamic device?

For instance, could you attach little winglets to the sides?

Up to 20mm away from the surface of the titanium bar - I think that's 50mm so up to a 90mm diameter.

jjn9128 wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2017, 16:59

graham.reeds wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2017, 14:54

What are the rules concerning turning the halo into an aerodynamic device?

For instance, could you attach little winglets to the sides?

Up to 20mm away from the surface of the titanium bar - I think that's 50mm so up to a 90mm diameter.

does that go all the way to the pillars where they meet the headrest?

I'm not sure, from some of the solutions (esp. Sauber) I've seen so far I'd assume yes, but whether it also has to meet the rules on bodywork height around the cockpit - I don't know.

AFAIK the halo still isn't actually in the 2018 technical regulations, so I'm basing the 20mm off something Charlie Whiting said in one of the press conferences FOM/the FIA put on on youtube

I wonder if the '17 Ferrari type sidepods interact favorably with the halo. Ferrari were advocating for the halo-type device and the only team experimenting with modified sidepods; perhaps there is a connection between these two areas of development.

I wouldn't have thought so. The purpose of the aero solutions we are seeing is really to make the halo as 'neutral' as possible. The problem with a cylindrical bar orthogonal to the flow, at relatively high Reynolds numbers, is asymmetric vortex shedding; creating quite a thick wake which is then pulled into the engine air intake or towards the rear wing or, depending how much downwash they create over the sidepods, down towards the diffuser.

The Ferrari high sidepod concept is more to get cooling flow from a relatively 'clean' source, while also creating a large undercut to work with the bargeboards to push the tyre wakes outboard of the floor.

any loophole in the rules to allow some winglets that the driver can adjust by hand ? I know they closed the rule on similar with Mclaren drivers using their hand on the F-Duct, but is their a loophole for something related to the Halo,