HALO Approved for 2018

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.
Manoah2u
Manoah2u
61
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2013 1:07 pm

Re: HALO Approved for 2018

Post

Ýeah, and they're contradicting themselves as we speak in stating in the last interview regarding this total failure that now they're saying it must be possible to narrow the centre pillar down from 2X+ mm to 16mm if i recall correctly. do they even themselves know what they're doing? i think not actually.
"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"

ChrisDanger
ChrisDanger
26
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 8:59 am

Re: HALO Approved for 2018

Post

ClarkBT11 wrote:
Wed Aug 02, 2017 10:41 pm
The centre pillar is the FIA trying to protect the drivers head from another Massa incident...
Do you have a source for this? Because it seems obvious to me it's for structural support.

Pramesi
Pramesi
0
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2016 2:54 pm

Re: HALO Approved for 2018

Post

Manoah2u wrote:
Wed Aug 02, 2017 11:08 pm
Ýeah, and they're contradicting themselves as we speak in stating in the last interview regarding this total failure that now they're saying it must be possible to narrow the centre pillar down from 2X+ mm to 16mm if i recall correctly. do they even themselves know what they're doing? i think not actually.
There are steps in the design process that requires engineers to follow specific structural requirements (e.g. minimum load capabilities) when creating things like the halo. If they say they can narrow the centre pillar to a certain thickness, they'll most probably make sure that thickness still has the strength to pass their requirements, be it changing the materials, adding structural support elsewhere, etc.

It wouldn't be fair to say the engineers working with the FIA don't know what they're doing, it's their job to know.

Source: Mech Eng student

Jolle
Jolle
132
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:58 pm
Location: Dordrecht

Re: HALO Approved for 2018

Post

ChrisDanger wrote:
Thu Aug 03, 2017 7:47 am
ClarkBT11 wrote:
Wed Aug 02, 2017 10:41 pm
The centre pillar is the FIA trying to protect the drivers head from another Massa incident...
Do you have a source for this? Because it seems obvious to me it's for structural support.
Did you watch the press conference? It was explained that it is for structural support and that test for small objects, which isn’t a goal (new helmet rules are) do have a small gain because there is something instead of nothing.

User avatar
ClarkBT11
15
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 8:53 pm
Location: Uk

Re: HALO Approved for 2018

Post

ChrisDanger wrote:
Thu Aug 03, 2017 7:47 am
ClarkBT11 wrote:
Wed Aug 02, 2017 10:41 pm
The centre pillar is the FIA trying to protect the drivers head from another Massa incident...
Do you have a source for this? Because it seems obvious to me it's for structural support.
My source was sarcasm. Are you pulling my leg? It's funny the idea was to stop another Massa incident and all that can stop it is a thong size pillar. =D>
Last edited by ClarkBT11 on Thu Aug 03, 2017 10:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

Manoah2u
Manoah2u
61
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2013 1:07 pm

Re: HALO Approved for 2018

Post

Pramesi wrote:
Thu Aug 03, 2017 8:14 am
Manoah2u wrote:
Wed Aug 02, 2017 11:08 pm
Ýeah, and they're contradicting themselves as we speak in stating in the last interview regarding this total failure that now they're saying it must be possible to narrow the centre pillar down from 2X+ mm to 16mm if i recall correctly. do they even themselves know what they're doing? i think not actually.
There are steps in the design process that requires engineers to follow specific structural requirements (e.g. minimum load capabilities) when creating things like the halo. If they say they can narrow the centre pillar to a certain thickness, they'll most probably make sure that thickness still has the strength to pass their requirements, be it changing the materials, adding structural support elsewhere, etc.

It wouldn't be fair to say the engineers working with the FIA don't know what they're doing, it's their job to know.

Source: Mech Eng student
oh dear. it seems you're completely missing the point the fia claims the pillar also deflects objects coming to the driver's head. so now we're going to narrow that down so that it no longer is able to do that. again, good thinking fia.
"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"

User avatar
WaikeCU
14
Joined: Tue May 13, 2014 11:03 pm

Re: HALO Approved for 2018

Post

Manoah2u wrote:
Thu Aug 03, 2017 10:28 am
Pramesi wrote:
Thu Aug 03, 2017 8:14 am
Manoah2u wrote:
Wed Aug 02, 2017 11:08 pm
Ýeah, and they're contradicting themselves as we speak in stating in the last interview regarding this total failure that now they're saying it must be possible to narrow the centre pillar down from 2X+ mm to 16mm if i recall correctly. do they even themselves know what they're doing? i think not actually.
There are steps in the design process that requires engineers to follow specific structural requirements (e.g. minimum load capabilities) when creating things like the halo. If they say they can narrow the centre pillar to a certain thickness, they'll most probably make sure that thickness still has the strength to pass their requirements, be it changing the materials, adding structural support elsewhere, etc.

It wouldn't be fair to say the engineers working with the FIA don't know what they're doing, it's their job to know.

Source: Mech Eng student
oh dear. it seems you're completely missing the point the fia claims the pillar also deflects objects coming to the driver's head. so now we're going to narrow that down so that it no longer is able to do that. again, good thinking fia.
Might as well take the driver out of the car, if they worry about objects getting hit to the driver's head.

User avatar
andrewf1
12
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 2:22 pm

Re: HALO Approved for 2018

Post

ESPImperium wrote:
Wed Aug 02, 2017 8:04 pm
Ive always wondered why the central section isn't taken away for two smaller less obtrusive (but still structurally strong enough) pillars don't come down and join on as part of the wing mirrors mounts?

If it was like this, i think it would get a nod form me as it would be much better looking for me, however still grotesque in the terms of the look of a F1 car.
If the pillars were on the side, joining the mirror mounts, they would obstruct the lateral view in the corners quite badly. In that respect, the central pillar solution is the way to go, even if it's ugly.

User avatar
NathanOlder
48
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 9:05 am
Location: Kent

Re: HALO Approved for 2018

Post

If pillars were in the way while integrated with the morror mounts, that would mean the mirrors well in the way which im sure they are not.

If the mirrors were in the way during cornering then Seb would have got out of the car at the weekend and said something like

"I think I was stuck at turn 7 all day, as everytime I looked in towards the apex I could see a big number 7 right there"
GoLandoGo
Lewis v2.0
King George has arrived.

New found love for GT racing with Assetto Corsa Competizione on PS5 & PC

ChrisDanger
ChrisDanger
26
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 8:59 am

Re: HALO Approved for 2018

Post

NathanOlder wrote:
Thu Aug 03, 2017 1:27 pm
If pillars were in the way while integrated with the morror mounts, that would mean the mirrors well in the way which im sure they are not.

If the mirrors were in the way during cornering then Seb would have got out of the car at the weekend and said something like

"I think I was stuck at turn 7 all day, as everytime I looked in towards the apex I could see a big number 7 right there"
Yeah, it doesn't look like the engineers really care much about the driver's side view.

Image

Pramesi
Pramesi
0
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2016 2:54 pm

Re: HALO Approved for 2018

Post

Manoah2u wrote:
Thu Aug 03, 2017 10:28 am
oh dear. it seems you're completely missing the point the fia claims the pillar also deflects objects coming to the driver's head. so now we're going to narrow that down so that it no longer is able to do that. again, good thinking fia.
Ah, forgive me for misunderstanding! Nevertheless, the FIA did explicitly state that the halo wasn't designed to deflect small objects. It was designed to deflect large objects such as wheels and perhaps large bits of carbon. I believe it was shown to have a positive effect when hypothetically tested against Justin Wilson's accident, as shown somewhere in the video that ChrisDanger posted.

ChrisDanger wrote:
Wed Aug 02, 2017 3:12 pm
Anyway, a video to help it all sink in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYkGjUHstKY&dummy=1

Manoah2u
Manoah2u
61
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2013 1:07 pm

Re: HALO Approved for 2018

Post

ChrisDanger wrote:
Thu Aug 03, 2017 1:50 pm
NathanOlder wrote:
Thu Aug 03, 2017 1:27 pm
If pillars were in the way while integrated with the morror mounts, that would mean the mirrors well in the way which im sure they are not.

If the mirrors were in the way during cornering then Seb would have got out of the car at the weekend and said something like

"I think I was stuck at turn 7 all day, as everytime I looked in towards the apex I could see a big number 7 right there"
Yeah, it doesn't look like the engineers really care much about the driver's side view.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/OaJ23kUosLo/maxresdefault.jpg
good point, i didn't realise the view was that blocked. actually, i think the fia should have done something about that and ban wings like those to improve view. i'm sure something can be done with the mirrors too. matter of fact, i'm still surprised that in today's era we don't have cameras and screens to fix that problem, though i think a real mirror still has it's benefits by far. still, just mount a small camera on the vertical wings at the sidepods or a small bulge at the headrest and mount 2 small screens in the dashboard and put the view there. don't come with weight, the combination of a mirrormount and the glass surely will be either the same or more than 2 small camera's mounted and 2 small screens in the car. i'm 100% sure a iphone7 stripped of it's battery is much lighter than a single f1 mirror mount including mirror.
"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"

User avatar
NathanOlder
48
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 9:05 am
Location: Kent

Re: HALO Approved for 2018

Post

Id say a mirror is lighter. Surely there is no glass in the mirror, so its just a small amount of carbon fibre and a reflective silver sheet with perspex (cheap mirror). Also remember these mirrors are probably bigger than a little iphone. Plus screens are hard to see if sunlight is directly on them, where as a mirror is perfect unless the sun is low enough in the sky to reflect straight into your eye. (Abu Dhabi maybe)

Besides if they had 2 screens and cameras Honda would need to harvest for a few laps before the race just to power these things up lol (joke)
GoLandoGo
Lewis v2.0
King George has arrived.

New found love for GT racing with Assetto Corsa Competizione on PS5 & PC

Manoah2u
Manoah2u
61
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2013 1:07 pm

Re: HALO Approved for 2018

Post

eh no. facts tells you otherwise.

iphone 7 weighs 138 grams including battery. battery weighs about 30 grams. that equals 108 grams without battery.
mirror weight: 160g per unit , right here specified on f1technical.

that's over 50 grams lighter on each side, a 100 grams in total.

how is sunlight going to be direct on them in a frigging tight f1 cockpit. at the worst, they'll put a small lip on the top and add an anti-reflective layer on top of it, really not an issue.
"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"

ChrisDanger
ChrisDanger
26
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 8:59 am

Re: HALO Approved for 2018

Post

Manoah2u wrote:
Fri Aug 04, 2017 8:56 am
eh no. facts tells you otherwise.
...
If using a camera and screen was lighter and allowed by the regulations, everyone would be doing it. The regulations clearly define specifications for positioning of the mirrors, which seem to preclude the use of inboard screens, so any argument of what might be a better solution is moot. It's either that traditional mirrors are the optimum solution or it's a case of "it's the same for everyone, so whatever".

Of course, for the sake of academics, if you really must compare, you need to add the weight of any additional housing to hold the screen and cameras, plus figure out where in the cockpit you'll find space for two 150 x 50mm screens, and also you've now lost two flow conditioners.