Alternative to Halo??

[Jamie]

Obviously we haven't seen the proper version of the Halo yet.......but I know I'm going to hate it.

Indycar are looking at this which is much better in my opinion, though not perfect. What do you think?

[mikael]

Jamie, it's very interesting. The Indycar screen looks good! It's evident that it's just a plate bent in place, giving a singly-curved surface. That's the way to make it - it gives the least vision-distortion.

In comparison, the Ferrari windscreen prototype (shown below) was a form-cast doubly-curved surface. It was "over-engineered". No very surprising that Vettel didn't like it - and I find it incomprehensible that they made it the way they did. Simple is better!

In the last photo the stripes on Vettel's helmet appear to be distorted. I don't think this will happen by the Indycar screen. (If you look at the left side of the headrest, at the edge of the screen the contour of the headrest appears to be undistorted.)

If the Indycar windscreen is a success we may hopefully see it replacing the halo for 2019 or 2020.

[chrisb]

thanks Jamie and Mikael, the Indy one works! and reinforces my feelings that F1 really doesn't have a clue

[robmarsh]

I love the Indy one. It also has a nice retro look to it eg Vanwell, sharknose Ferrari. As usual F1 engineers have made everything more complex than it needs to be. It must be some sort of psychological desire to prove they really are clever. They do live in an unrealistic bubble most of the time. I once worked in a department full of fairly bright people who thought they could outhink the rest of the world in that particular field and come across with some ground breaking way of doing things. Well we spent a lot of time thinking, talking, philosophising etc but not moving forward. It was only when we got down to the tried and tested, solid way of doing things that other people started using us.

[Jamie]

Here's a couple of links to some interesting articles on the Indycar screen.


www.racer.com/indycar/item/147172-indycar-windscreen-revealed

www.racer.com/indycar/item/147175-indycar-windscreen-uses-advanced-transparency-material-developed-for-aerospace

[René]

Of course that looks a lot better. I cannot imagine how it can ever be as strong as the halo but as others have mentioned, the F1 way is always so over engineered and complicated.

The Ferrari screen was a joke that gave the impression it was done on purpose so it would fail the test. You don't need to be an engineer to understand that more curves in a transparent object creates more distortion. Even I understand that! 

[Deleted]

Richard Williams makes the right point once again:

www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2018/mar/19/halo-reduce-f1-appeal-danger-richard-williams

Some sports were devised to be dangerous. Limiting the danger to suit changing attitudes and modern sensibilities is fine as long as the measures taken do not devalue a sport so profoundly that its meaning disappears. At a time when F1 is struggling to hold on to a dwindling audience, the halo could be the most effective method yet devised to reduce its appeal. If racing drivers aren’t doing something dangerous, then what’s the point of them?

[mikael]

Alex Wurz has another idea, in a careful defense of the halo: If the cars - and the tracks - now are very safe, essentially, then why not speed up the cars - significantly!

Link:
www.grandprix.com/ns/ns38238.html

It sounds like an interesting idea, now that the halo (or something similar) undoubtedly is here to stay. Turn the cars into real "rocket ships" with power akin to the 80's turbo cars in quali-trim (but durable with modern technology). Make them the fastest cars ever, beyond discussion ... :-)

[Deleted]

I am not sure I understand, Mikael, about what Wurz is saying. Mostly because, I would venture, he doesn't either.

Speed up how? On a straight line or lap times? To lap quicker means further, increased reliance on aero, not just more power. The point for the competition would be the opposite - quicker on straights, slower in curve. Cars difficult to drive, if it's not too politically incorrect.

Going quicker, as far safety goes, means bigger impact in case of going off road, to begin with. Are the drivers prepared to face that further risk, or - more likely - will they then drop Monte Carlo because too dangerous and use only Tilkedromes with runway-long exits, as a result? The next step would then be to avoid open wheel contact - cover them - surely they can't afford jumping over another car at speed.

While we are at it, if it's too dangerous, they might as well take up Scaletrix and contest GPs and world championships like that. They would be allowed to wear their helmets tough, if that would make them feel to be "like drivers".

As Lauda says, it's motor racing, if you want it safe, take up a desk job.

PS: Not arguing with you, Mikael, of course.

[mikael]

Thank you for your response, Lucio.
I haven't looked up the original source, the newspaper "Der Standard", so I'm also not completely sure what exactly Alex Wurz has in mind. But with my inner eye I saw/imagined/dreamed about overpowered cars - cars with too much power for their chassis - just like with the "over-boosted" engines in qualifying in the mid-80's. But of course, something like that might not happen again, in these times ...

[Deleted]

Mar 20, 2018 8:25:34 GMT @lucio said:

Richard Williams makes the right point once again:

www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2018/mar/19/halo-reduce-f1-appeal-danger-richard-williams

Some sports were devised to be dangerous. Limiting the danger to suit changing attitudes and modern sensibilities is fine as long as the measures taken do not devalue a sport so profoundly that its meaning disappears. At a time when F1 is struggling to hold on to a dwindling audience, the halo could be the most effective method yet devised to reduce its appeal. If racing drivers aren’t doing something dangerous, then what’s the point of them?

I don't think that it is necessary that reducing the danger to the competitors in Motor Sport devalues the sport, or takes away its meaning.
In the same way I can appreciate the skilll and abilities of tennis players, football players, and may other sports that don't place the competitors in risk of death or debilitating injury, i can appreciate the skills and abilities of racing drivers even though the risk of death or debilitating injury is less now than it was in the past.

[Deleted]

Feb 2, 2018 22:08:52 GMT Jamie said:

Obviously we haven't seen the proper version of the Halo yet.......but I know I'm going to hate it.

Indycar are looking at this which is much better in my opinion, though not perfect. What do you think?

I'm a bit late to the party on this one, but I think the 'curse of the halo' hasn't been as significant as people thought.
We can still see the drivers, the cars were hardly pretty to start with, so the halo hasn't affected the aesthetic that much, the new overlay graphics are quite cool, they're pretty much blending in with the scenery.
I haven't heard any more information on the aeroscreen, but presumably it will be going through impact testing and a similar assessment against the hazards relevant to Indycar (maybe also those relevant to F1 too).
If it can provide similar, or greater, driver protection to the Halo it would be an aesthetically more pleasing solution than the Halo. 
But I would imagine it would only be adopted in 2021 as a part of the new regulations, rather than impose (another) chassis redesign on the Teams before that.

[Deleted]

May 6, 2018 9:37:07 GMT @jakobusvdl said:

Mar 20, 2018 8:25:34 GMT @lucio said:

Richard Williams makes the right point once again:

www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2018/mar/19/halo-reduce-f1-appeal-danger-richard-williams

I don't think that it is necessary that reducing the danger to the competitors in Motor Sport devalues the sport, or takes away its meaning.
In the same way I can appreciate the skilll and abilities of tennis players, football players, and may other sports that don't place the competitors in risk of death or debilitating injury, i can appreciate the skills and abilities of racing drivers even though the risk of death or debilitating injury is less now than it was in the past.

For its very nature - high speed – you can’t separate the simple driving skill with the consequences a mistake might have. If you reduce the risk, you change the sport, it becomes something different. You may wish to admire pure driving skill, but when you have completely emasculated the challenge, you might as well do that within the safety of a computer simulator, not on track.

Bravery – overcoming under pressure the fear of the consequences if one doesn’t get it right - is part of the skills set. It doesn’t mean of course that being suicidal should be a requirement, but surely Moss lapping Italy in less than ten hours risking the consequence at each and every turn, or Peterson going flat out sideways at Woodcote on a 20-gauge panels’ chassis and dodgy tyres, both acquire a completely different meaning with the certainty one would not hurt himself in the process if he gets it wrong. For the same reason, you can’t compare for example Verstappen to Peterson or Moss. With his attitude Max would likely have met the same fate as Fon De Portago or Villeneuve, rather that of Peterson and Moss (Ronnie’s fatal accident wasn’t down to his mistake or overconfidence). 

The comparison with the other “sports” doesn’t hold, they are not sports of bravery. Missing a passing shot at a crucial moment on Centre Court at most may cost you the game, not a limb or worse. A more apt paragon would be rock climbing. One thing is doing it on the wall at the Surrey Sports Centre, quite another on the Eiger Nordwand or on a vertical rock face on the Rocky Mountains in Colorado with half a mile void under your feet. Not the same thing. 

Once we have agreed on the above, then we can discuss about “driving skill”. What is more meaningful, driving to the limit on the old Nurburgring or Spa, at Indy or at Monte Carlo, instead than at a Tilkedrome with the safety exits the length of an airport runway? Is it even the same sport, racing on a Tilkedrome and the old Nurburgring? I ask. 

[charleselan]

Beautifully written Lucio.

I hate the bloody "Toilet Seat", it is an effrontery to the eye, I don't see the MotoGP guys being wrapped in a cage and they are more at risk than any car racer, let alone those very brave men who race on the roads at the IOM.

[mikael]

May 6, 2018 9:37:07 GMT @jakobusvdl said:

Mar 20, 2018 8:25:34 GMT @lucio said:

Richard Williams makes the right point once again:

www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2018/mar/19/halo-reduce-f1-appeal-danger-richard-williams

I don't think that it is necessary that reducing the danger to the competitors in Motor Sport devalues the sport, or takes away its meaning.
In the same way I can appreciate the skilll and abilities of tennis players, football players, and may other sports that don't place the competitors in risk of death or debilitating injury, i can appreciate the skills and abilities of racing drivers even though the risk of death or debilitating injury is less now than it was in the past.

I think it has a huge influence. It's related also to the present almost endless runoff areas, and how you experience a GP under such conditions.

Look at the first photo, from Spa, 1965. You certainly wouldn't want to "go off" anywhere here. Still, everybody is driving flat out. It gives you goosebumps to watch it.

Then look at the the second, recent photo. Would you want to go off here? Well, if you did you'd get a time penalty - maybe. That's all.

The excitement level is very different indeed.