Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
That thing was developed by Mercedes, not Ferrari.
A concept needs to be detailed out and then tested in public. The way that Halo was fabricated was absolutely crude not representative of the quality of engineering that one sees in F1, That piece looked like something fabricated in the back allies of a third world country. The only effort Ferrari put in was placing sponsor logos on it.
That thing was developed by Mercedes, not Ferrari.
A concept needs to be detailed out and then tested in public. The way that Halo was fabricated was absolutely crude not representative of the quality of engineering that one sees in F1, That piece looked like something fabricated in the back allies of a third world country. The only effort Ferrari put in was placing sponsor logos on it.
So Ferrari was the one to present the preferred method (FIA). What's the point? This thing could have also been attached to any other car. Ferrari did not invent or develope it. That was Mercedes.
Im not pointing fingers. I only want to set the facts straight. The halo presented in testing IS the FIAs preferred system. RedBulls system looks good but there is no proof that it is the better system in security matters.
marvin78 wrote:Im not pointing fingers. I only want to set the facts straight. The halo presented in testing IS the FIAs preferred system. RedBulls system looks good but there is no proof that it is the better system in security matters.
Actually there is. Red Bull first had to let it be tested by the FIA before they were allowed to run it in FP. Whiting even told if it was able to pass those tests, there wouldn't really be any reason to prefer the halo over the canopy.
It passed those tests, so I think we will see this next year. Of course if politics do not get inbetween.
But wasn't that only a normal chrash test like they do with noses etc.? I think a real test for the canopy would require more and other tests (I honestly don't know which test it passed).
marvin78 wrote:But wasn't that only a normal chrash test like they do with noses etc.? I think a real test for the canopy would require more and other tests (I honestly don't know which test it passed).
Nothing with nose cone tests. I do not know the specifics of the tests, but I assume it is the same test the FIA did by shooting objects to the aeroscreen.
Mind there is no standard test regulated at this moment for canopies/halo's. We know the FIA tested out the halo, and it's reasonable to assume the canopy was tested under the exact same conditions.
I actually think this is very cool. I have zero issues from an aesthetic perspective and think it still looks like a formula 1 car - just a 21st century one.
redbull cockpit looks stunning, i love it. exactly like i suggested a long time ago : remeniscent of the late 70's style windscreens, but extended.
ask me, they are allowed for me to implement this as of the next race. embrace it for 2017. do this!
"Explain the ending to F1 in football terms"
"Hamilton was beating Verstappen 7-0, then the ref decided F%$& rules, next goal wins
while also sending off 4 Hamilton players to make it more interesting"
i think this Aeroscreen solution of RedBull - which also reminds me a bit of the Merc concept we saw what, last year? is going to be more or less the aim for all teams. much better than that hideous Ferrari solution, though you've gotta respect the efforts tried. Trial and error.
I really like this design and it allows for further development on several levels, hoping to see an evolution between the teams through time to see a 'final' mandated screen paired with high-tech windscreen materials, shock-resistant/absorbing pillars that are as narrow as possible whilst maintaining structural integrity, and advancements in dirt-deflection. i dont want to see wipers.
The earlier mentioned materials could do just fine. rain-x, fog-x, oil-x.
the fun thing about these windscreens are that they open a whole new opportunity for on-screend displays, like modern cars have projections on the screen. laptimes, distance between opponents, rpm, speed, engine vitals....OSD style like in racing games. that would be awesome, and would ultimately lessen the neccesity of a complicated steering wheel.
agree that anti-reflective would be good for future windscreens, it hinders sight on the driver and makes it more difficult to recognise the driver, not the least for pictures.
in daylight it might not be an issue, but with night races or dusk races it's gonna impose a bit of confusion and less pretty pictures i'd say.
wonder how long it will take on the other hand whether we'll see colored screens like the helmet visors......hope not!
"Explain the ending to F1 in football terms"
"Hamilton was beating Verstappen 7-0, then the ref decided F%$& rules, next goal wins
while also sending off 4 Hamilton players to make it more interesting"
