Daniel Ricciardo, Red Bull, Spa-Francorchamps, 2016

Newey in two minds over ‘clumsy, ugly’ Halo

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Adrian Newey says he appreciates the need or Halo but wishes there was a more elegant solution.

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Comment of the day

Is Kimi Raikkonen now a ‘career’ driver rather than a true competitor?

I’ve been a fan of Kimi since his debut, but if I were to speculate, I’d say that he’s more a journeyman now. I suspect that he’s just extending his contract to raise money for his family. One can hardly blame him, but it doesn’t seem like he minds too much playing no. 2 to Vettel.
@Colinf

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Siddharth and David N!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

Posted on Categories F1 Fanatic round-upTags

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 69 comments on “Newey in two minds over ‘clumsy, ugly’ Halo”

    1. The Halo still sucks. Another dumb idea in the name of safety….it looks ridiculous. And we are stuck with it. But by 2019 we will have all gotten used to them and guess what it still sucks.
      Everybody google Hydroplanes and check out how this racing series changed to the canopy system and deaths from flip overs at 175mph completely stopped.
      Plus they look sharp and bring safety to a sport that almost went away before the canopy became mandatory.
      Formula One made the wrong decision and l predict the 2018 version of the halo will NOT be the halo seen on the 2019 chassis

      1. The halo needs refining, but I don’t think leaping on the Hydroplanes’ solution is the best choice. It was designed for a very different reason with very different circumstances and forces working on it.

        1. Hydroplane don’t have a visibility problem like F1 cars do when it rains……oh wait.

      2. I didn’t have to google hydroplanes to know what I would see but I did anyway because they are cool and I hadn’t looked at pics of them in a long time.

        The bottom line @TEDBELL and I would have thought you would understand this by now, is that if you want F1 to have canopies they’re pretty much going to have to spend billions, completely change the definition of what F1 is and risk losing their audience, and the end result would be WEC prototype cars, if a canopy is to be safely incorporated. I’ll take halos over the extinction of F1 any day.

        1. The canopies in hydroplanes weren’t expensive to develop at all. Effectively they use the canopy from an F16 fighter jet which the US government had already spent billions developing and testing.
          If safety is the priority they say it is then you may as well go the whole way and use a canopy which will stop everything. The halo is an ugly and only partial solution to the problem.

          1. @Sammy Perhaps check out some of the posts at the very bottom of this page for reasons why canopies wouldn’t work on current style F1 cars. It has little to do with the literal cost of developing just the canopy as you suggest, and much more to do with it being not physically feasible, which would then mean completely different looking cars to make a WEC style canopy work, at massive expense and risk of losing the audience by completely redefining F1 as we know it.

            1. @Robbie
              As far as I see there are 3 arguments against a canopy:
              1. Redefining F1 as closed cockpit: if this is such a big deal then let’s ban wings, slick tyres and midengines. F1 has been redefined so many times that I don’t believe you could ever point to what defines F1 other than as single seater.
              2. Egress of driver in the event of an accident: if you look at those same F16 canopies you’ll see feint lines within it. This is an explosive charge that effectively vaporises the canopy so not an issue.
              3. Aerodynamics: teams redesign their aero all the time; changing the cockpit aero would just be another element in their design. The aerodynamics would also be easier with a fixed structure rather than the movable and open structure we have at the moment.

              There is 1 argument for the canopy over a halo or any other structure. It’s the safest structure to provide safety to a driver so if safety is the priority then the canopy must be the answer.

          2. The explosive charges on aircraft canopies are only there to crack the acrylic so the ejector seat can punch through it.

            The F16 however does not have these charges as it is made from 20mm thick laminated polycarbonate and you would not go through that. They simply eject the whole canopy in the frame first.

            F1 would need to engineer it’s own solution to getting out in an emergency. As I can’t imagine they would fit an ejector seat… although that would be pretty awesome.

      3. The halo is not ugly, it’s certainly more purposeful and integrated than the silly T-wings. Terrible unofficial name, though – should be something like “head-guard” – HeadGard would be a good trademark. Once it’s painted in body colour (Mercedes silver, Ferrari red, etc.) you’ll hardly notice it and it will very soon be fully accepted as part of an F1 car’s overall design. If you can’t cope with change F1 is not for you.

    2. Alonso’s face is a statement by itself.

      1. Its amazing how an expression can mean so many things, depending who gives it. For instance that’s the same one I give the driver as I step on his bus, on a cold Monday morning.

    3. Raikkonen’s been the guy described in CoTD since 2008 or so.

      If that seems unkind, it’s actually a compliment. Raikkonen came into F1 with just as much natural ability as any of the other top drivers of his era, but it seemed like he just switched off after winning the title. Even at Lotus, I’m not convinced he ever (properly, and consistently) got close to being the ‘proper Raikkonen’ I loved watching in the early/mid 2000s. I fully believed he was better than Alonso back then (2004-2006 time). One improved, one didn’t.

      So yeah… compared to what he could have been, Raikkonen has been a ‘career driver’ for a long time.

      1. Agreed almost 100%. I was just re-watching the 2012 season and he was very much on it, but the car could have been flattering him somewhat.

        1. 2012 he had something to prove and drive for. As he did in all those years mentioned above.

          Sadly that is the difference

        2. @julianwins, in 2012, Kimi had the advantage of being the contracted No.1 driver at Lotus, in particular with regards to preferential access to the resources of the team.

          He was given greater support by the engineers and, asides from being given first access to new components – he usually was one upgrade package ahead of Grosjean during the season – even had bespoke components developed for his own use and to specifically accommodate his driving style.

          He seemed more motivated, as Q85 notes, in that era, but perhaps that was because the team were really throwing their weight behind him and he was the contracted lead driver – since then, though, he does seem to have slipped back into something of a torpor.

      2. @neilosjames Ouch! I see where you have gone with that though, but agree 2012 he was at his old level, since then he has just slipped further away from Alonso, Vettel & Hamilton.

    4. Raikkonen gets by on his iceman brand and marketability. Ferrari really suffers due to their clear #1 strategy and having a driver such as him (and Massa before him) as a fan favourite #2.

      Regardless of the reliability problems at Ferrari, it is clear as day that Vettel has been left unchecked due to being unchallenged and has not improved as a racer as a result. He should be very scared if he ever meets Ricciardo again or Verstappen in the same machinery.

      1. I agree but I don’t believe for one second that Ferarri are suffering because of it. Ferarri have always spearheaded their attack, hence “two roosters” statement a couple of years ago.
        The no. 2 driver fulfils a number of roles; has sufficient talent to play rear gunner or in unusual circumstances run first and force the competition to run a less than optimal pit strategy, be marketable (Irvine, Barrichello, Massa, Kimi) and provide data in testing new parts which the number one driver will use if preferable.

        That’s been Kimi’s role at Ferarri.

        1. @Tristan @twentyseven I don’t think SV has been left unchecked and unchallenged at all. He has obviously had enough competition from LH, VB, MV, and DR to be challenged. And I don’t buy that he is ‘scared’ of any driver. I also believe, unlike most people it would seem, Kimi, when he said it was up to him to stamp his authority on the situation at the start of the season and he just didn’t, whereas Seb did. Kimi doesn’t blame anyone but himself for becoming the natural number two to Seb in 2017. I also don’t believe Kimi is the type to have re-signed with Ferrari for 2018 if it was to be part of his contract that he would be subservient to SV from race one of next season. Whatever armchair enthusiasts want to think or assume or speculate on, Kimi seems fine with his situation, and since I don’t seem him as a pushover, I think he is less the non-rooster on the team than most people assume.

    5. Whilst I hate agreeng with Toto Wolff, I do very much have to. Pascal Wehrlein is the most promising young talent in the sport today. What kind of supposed “premier” sports league fails to keep the most gifted talent around? Pascal not having a drive in 2018 is the same as the brightest young basketball players not playing in the NBA, the brightest young soccer players not playing in the major European leagues, the brightest young motorcycle drivers not driving in MotoGP and its associated minor series etc.; you get the point.

      This does not happen in any other sport and it is a failure not just of Mercedes, not just of Sauber or Williams, but a failure of F1 as a whole. The decision makers needs to take a long look at itself in the mirror and consider what failing to keep the brightest young driver around says about the business and the sportive qualities of the series. Actually, this sends a horrible signal, throughout all of motorsport. “Hey, it doesn’t matter how good you are, you can still get rear-ended by politics” – if I was a teen choosing whether to aspire to become a racing driver or something else, this certainly would weigh heavy on my mind.

      This travesty can only be described as disgusting, heck, it even makes me question what kind of sport I am following. I just can hope that this error will be corrected as soon as possible. Should this actually prove to be the end of the line for Wehrlein, the “Top 10 Wasted Talents in Sports” list has a new number one.

      1. Lennard Mascini (@)
        13th December 2017, 4:26

        While I do agree that Wehrlein should definitely be in F1 next year, I feel you grossly overrate him. Currently, Ocon and Leclerc are better talents in F1, and the likes of Stefan Bellof and Gilles Villeneuve are larger “wasted talents” in F1 alone. Saying he would be the biggest wasted talents ever in all sports, please.

        1. I agree – whilst Wehrlein has shown promise as a driver, it is perhaps telling that it was Ocon whom Mercedes looked to promote instead of Wehrlein last year.

          He’s shown his abilities, but one of the criticisms over the year was that Ericsson was sometimes closer to him in terms of performance than you’d have expected (unless it is the case that Ericsson is actually better than he is usually given credit for – and I do think that there is an element of that).

          By comparison, Ocon has gone up against a relatively highly regarded driver in the shape of Perez, and his relative record against Perez is better than most expected – Vandoorne, meanwhile, has had a rather difficult environment at McLaren (going against a very highly regarded team mate and in a team struggling with reliability issues), but also been acknowledged to put in some quite creditable performances.

      2. Waait waaait, what exceptional talent, in 2 years he has only shown to be slightly better than Ericson whom we agree is here only due to sponsors..if he was really good Williams would grab him in an instant. Instead he was not even tested.

      3. With all due respect I disagree completely. Lance Stroll is the most promising young “talent” in the “sport” today, because he has a Dad willing to spend $40 million per season so that Lance can play ‘Grand Prix racer’. It’s expensive to run a Formula One team, and, other than the top 3-4 teams, the teams increasingly rely on a “Lance” to make the grid.

    6. It’s interesting that for a long time, speculation on Williams’ other driver has alluded to the fact that he should be over 25 years of age, due to the Martini sponsorship.

      And now, we’re hearing noises about Sergey Sirotkin being considered for that seat, despite him being much younger than the 25-year mark. If Williams are willing to duck beneath the age barrier, I’m surprised that Mercedes haven’t been able to place Pascal Wehrlein at Williams. I hear that Sergey brings $15 million sponsorship, but am surprised that Mercedes haven’t swung the decision by way of engine discounts.

      1. Wehrlein for $ 15 million, never going to happen. If Wehrlein was as freakishly good as vesthappen then yes, but he’s not. And besides $ 15 million would be like giving Williams free engines.

        1. Actually, the engines are not that expensive.
          It’d be like giving Williams free engines for two or three years.

      2. @phylyp This more or less proves that the Martini’s wish of at least one of the drivers being at least 25 isn’t a must (even though it’s been stated by Paddy Lowe some have still claimed otherwise). If it were a ‘must’ then Sirotkin would automatically be entirely out of the running for the remaining seat at Williams, i.e., on that basis, he would have zero chance to get the drive as well as Wehrlein and Kvyat.

        1. @jerejj Or Williams will just take a 25+ reserve driver for Martini promotions :)

        2. Can we put this to bed, Williams don’t need a driver over 25 because of Martini. Also confirmed a few times on the Autosport Podcast and by Joe Saward.

          https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-motor-f1-williams/motor-racing-williams-say-age-not-the-key-factor-in-driver-choice-idUKKBN1CT2ZX

    7. I’m sure teams will, similarly to the 1996 roll hoop regulations, incorporate the halo into their designs, regardless it won’t look pretty. The Halo looks to have been invented by someone that has never seen a roof in his life.
      FIA
      -“Make me something to protect the top of a car”
      -“A roof”
      (Flies out of the window meme)

      1. we should be allowed to answer with memes here. I could raise my sarcasm game so much more

    8. Driverless cars can’t be far away.
      Newey has a right to feel offended, a poorly designed and ugly solution offends anyone with a sense of design.
      Limiting risks for drivers is one thing, but for $20M+ per season in certain cases, taking it to the edge should always be ‘risky business’.
      And another thing: Pascal Wehrlein may be very talented but he appears to lack consistency and a certain amount of polish.
      If he is or was one of Mercedes ‘Golden Children’ why is he being cut adrift?
      Sheer stupidity.

      1. I agree – the halo thing doesn’t really make sense to me. I’m all for improving safety but there has to be a line otherwise you’ll keep improving and improving until you have driverless cars with no fans allowed within a mile of the circuit. What is the cut-off point?

        Would it not be safer to have them compete in simulators rather than real cars? Would it not be safer to limit speeds to 100mph? Would it not be safer to run F1 as a time trial to limit the chance of contact on track?

        I’m not suggesting any of those ideas are good but why is the level of risk presented here acceptable but driving without a halo isn’t?

      2. So Halo is ugly, but so are helmets, wings, open wheels, anti roll structures, high sided cockpits, radiator grills, and the consequences of ground effects. Yet, when all those other things are put together we see a car that impresses us and we say how beautiful it looks.
        I recall years ago regularly driving past a building that I thought was the ugliest building in Auckland, New Zealand (where I live), but then a developer bought it and decided to condemn the it and build something better looking (and eventually they did). Immediately there was outrage from some with a different sense of artistic appreciation from me (and presumably the developer) saying it was avant-garde. According to the Tate gallery’s website, “…avant-garde means art that is innovatory, introducing or exploring new forms or subject matter”, which is an apt description of how Halo fits into the aerodynamic form of a racing car.
        I hope we’re going to have 10 cars that turn up for pre-season testing that we all can say look impressive, otherwise “avant-garde” might become the word of the week.

      3. I don’t want Raikkonen or Ricciardo or Grosjean or Wherlein or anybody else to die because I want to spend a few hours every other weekend watching cars go round a track. I don’t care how well they are paid, how expensive the cars are, how lucky they are to be in their position, if we can protect the drivers at the cost of the cars looking a bit crap, then we should protect the drivers.

        Besides, the halo looks awesome in my eyes, although I understand it’s not for everyone. I didn’t like the double nosed cars or the ironing board noses from a few years back and some people did. Meh.

        1. Yes, after Bianchi, de Villota and Surtees, then it’s simply irresponsible not to try to prevent similar head injuries in future. Whether it’s successful or not, an effort still has to be made to mitigate further lethal accidents.

          It certainly would be nice to have a prettier solution like an aero screen, but aesthetics isn’t worth seeing another driver’s funeral. Whatever the sport can do for safety first will suffice for now, and maybe it’ll be visually refined in future (like the virtually invisible roll bars nowadays).

        2. I don’t want Raikkonen or Ricciardo or Grosjean or Wherlein or anybody else to die because I want to spend a few hours every other weekend watching cars go round a track.

          I don’t want to see Marquez or Rossi or Lorenzo or Vinales or Dovizioso or Pedrosa dead either, but I don’t want to put them in a plastic bubble, install roof on their bikes or second pair of wheel on the front and rear just because it’s safer. At least they deserve millions they earn, while single seater, no more open cockpit anymore, will become absolute joke to laugh at.

          And spoiler alert: they all are going to die one day. Jackie Stewart, Niki Lauda, Mika Hakkinen, Lewis Hamilton and Max Verstappen. But I bet they rather prefer to live their lives to the fullest, than worry about the worst case scenario every single day. I guess Hamilton should stop using his private jet, because DC crashed in his back in 2000, which unfortunately killed 2 pilots, so there is a very clear safety benefit. Anyone who argue against that is a monster, right?

    9. Williams secure insane amounts of money from pay drivers, with questionable experience and/or competence, and any constructors points are viewed as a bonus. Arguably this is a fail safe way to generate income but where’s the excitement and entertainment in all of this?

      1. what annoys me the most is the history that Williams has on this sport, look at all the names that went there and compare them with the last decade. I associate Frank Williams with passion for racing, it seems lately that it went away, or he has no control whatsoever anymore or he has been poorly advised. I just hope they are not resourcing to these tactics to survive, because if they are, the only thing they will get, instead of dying as heroes, is to live long enough to see themselves become the villain (Yes! a bit of Batman poetry for you lads)

        1. But then look at what has happened in the last decade. Global recession that has had sponsor money shrink in availability and size, less job security amongst the masses and thus less comfort at spending money going to F1 races or paying to view it on TV, while BE spent the last decade with his only goal being to make money for CVC in any way possible.

          Is it any wonder the face of Williams has changed in the last decade?

      2. The fans want excitement. Investors want a return on their investment. It’s possible to find a balance but with the way F1 is currently set up, the smaller teams don’t have much of a choice.

        If the sport is competitive and everyone stands a fair chance, you might gamble on success but when you know that your pace will be closely monitored and managed by your engine supplier, what is the point? At least their financial performance can be managed by themselves.

        1. I think they’re being unnecessarily cautious and risk becoming a back-marker team as they miss out on points every race.

    10. I can live with the Halo or any cockpit covering-device for that matter as long as it won’t have any impact on either lap times or the quality of racing (I’m optimistic they won’t be affected, though). Obviously, I’d rather keep things the way they are, but I’ve already gotten used to seeing it on the cars, so I won’t mind too much as long as the two things mentioned above won’t be affected. Hopefully, in the long-term, they’d resort to either the Shield or the Aeroscreen as they look more fitting on the cars.

      1. @jerejj there is no reason, that I can see at least, that lap times and quality of racing will be affected (in all fairness we all know what is affecting race quality). We could see one driver or another struggling to get used to it, but even that I don’t think will happen, and if it does will be temporary.

        I do agree with you, it is a safety device, and if it prevents injuries or deaths, so be it, as long as they keep improving it and eventually come up with something a bit more pleasing to the eye.

        When it comes to safety, aesthetics should come last, I’m glad FIA thinks that way too, they can always improve upon the first device. And Formula 1 has bigger problems to solve, rather than making the halo look better.

        1. I think the point is the (I’ll call it ‘see-thru’) halo is the one device that won’t affect the cars and their performance other than very minimally, and therefore has become the best option. I think they have already found out that a sturdy enough ‘shield’ or ‘aeroscreen’ aside from having to be kept clean as one issue, would cause no small amount of redesign of the car from an aero standpoint. A tall enough and beefy enough screen would greatly affect how air does (doesn’t) get into the airbox, and would require aero changes to the car from the airbox back, which would then require the front wing and floor area to be altered to balance out and adapt to the changes to the rear area. A domino effect.

          F1 cars have not been designed for aeroscreens, or they’d be adopted. F1 cars as they are, can accommodate a halo because it is quite aero neutral and inexpensive to incorporate. Other options only cost huge sums of money and change the look of F1 cars as we know them, way beyond how the halos look on the cars.

      2. Shield and aeroscreen were both tested and found to be inadequate whereas the halo passed these same tests with flying colors. The halo also doesn’t have any issues with rain, fogging up or dirt or oil clogging it. I’d love the halo to look better but it is very simple solution to complex problem and simple solutions usually are the best. And I think F1 definitely needs halo. We have had too many head injuries and too many close calls. Better do this now than to wait for a driver to die because of preventable head impact.

    11. Toto, you are the engine supplier to Williams. Surely, you can make sure they take Wehrlein, who deserves this chance far more than Sirotkin? Rather than a half-hearted public plea on his behalf, actually make something happen.

      1. Before his usual lip service like this, Toto said “Pascal has a chance but we can do no more than what we have done. At some point a driver needs to stand on his own legs.” Toto himself kind a admit that Wehrlein was not worth millions Mercedes PU discount.
        So, basically, you really can’t trust anything Toto said.

        1. Not sure why TW can’t be trusted. He helped PW all he could and now PW’s destiny is in his own hands. To say TW can’t be trusted is to conveniently forget all he did to help get PW to where he is to begin with. Aside from poaching Bottas when he was desperate, no doubt with concessions toward the Williams team, I don’t think it is TW’s business, nor should we want it to be, to dictate who drives at Williams.

    12. As decent as Wehrlein probably is, let’s be realistic. Mercedes would have him opposite Hamilton if he were the same kind of promising talent Hamilton was or Verstappen is.

      When Red Bull were faced with other teams poaching their boy they promoted him. I’d also bet Mercedes would have been keen to have him in their car as well.

      Let’s face it, Wehrlein deserves a seat more than a few drivers who will make the grid, but if he were an elite level driver then he’d have the Mercedes seat.

    13. “F1 now is really very complex and complicated to understand everything and use everything in the best possible way. What I mean by that is the usage of the power unit and the management of the tires, it is not an easy task.”

      I’m afraid Tost would find that fuel usage management is not gonna be easier than those two judging by some Alonso’s complain. But I still hope Honda collaboration with ExxonMobil in 2018 would give some advantage on this area.
      And I still believe that Harley was chosen mostly because his experiences on Porsche development. He will be a great asset for Toro Rosso on this new partnership with Honda.

      1. But I still hope Honda collaboration with ExxonMobil in 2018 would give some advantage on this area.

        ExxonMobil were McLaren’s partner during 2015 and 2016 and it didn’t seem to make any difference to Honda…

    14. these guys are paid millions per year to be in a car that is safest in F1 history even without the halo… and still they will use this ugly halo… fatalities are unacceptable but it is part of any motorsport. In IOMTT there are fatalities almost 1 per 2 years and yet these guys still ride even if some are only paid by just so little.

      1. People were saying similar things regarding safety in the early 90’s, The cars (And tracks) were safe enough, The safest they had ever been…… Then Imola 1994 happened & everyone realized that the cars were not as safe as was thought.

        I think the difference between F1 & something like the IOMTT is that there’s more media attention on F1. When a rider is killed during the TT it hardly gets mentioned, When something bad happens in F1 it’s reported everywhere. How often do you see an accident from the TT shown during the sports section of the news? How many times did the various news reports show replays of Alonso flying through the air after last year’s race in Melbourne?

        I think the additional problem now is that we have seen the Halo & data that shows it works. Given that should they drop the Halo & something happens which the Halo would have prevented, F1, Liberty & the FIA would be simply torn to shreds for that….. Probably facing legal actions should it happen in the wrong country (Italy for instance).

        Going back to 1994, I was 10 at the time yet still remember how every report after Imola was both on TV & in the papers at some point pushed the message that maybe F1 should be banned & how for weeks afterwards F1 was getting hammered in the media. In fans eye’s that may not seem like too much of an issue, However seeing such negative press is bound to put off sponsors who don’t want there brand associated with that sort of attention.

        Yes F1 is safe, Yes it’s the safest it’s ever been but safety cannot stand still, We have seen before what happens when it does.

    15. Garbage. Wheel tethers have been stopping loose wheels for some time now. Smaller parts will get through anyway unless you are lucky. if i can use an analogy, its the solution to a problem in rugby, used in football.

      1. Wheel tethers aren’t 100% guaranteed to work in every instance, big pcs like front and rear wings aren’t tethered, and small pcs are not the concern.

    16. How about a canopy similar to a fighter jet, it would look better and give complete protection of sorts? When you look at Massa’s accident in 2009, the spring from Barrichello’s car would have missed the halo device and still would have struck
      Felipe in the head. As for Justin Wilson, he was killed by a loose nosecone and not a loose wheel. The nosecone too, could have gone underneath the halo and impacted the driver’s head.
      The only driver who in recent years this device would have saved would have been Henry Surtees. When you look at Jules Bianchi’s car post crash, I doubt the halo would have saved him.

      1. Small objects are not the concern. It is pure speculation for you to say the nosecone could have gone underneath the halo. If the halo saves one life in the future, forgetting about trying to speculate on what it would have done in the past, then I’m sure that person’s family and friends and fans will be ever so grateful.

        Again, with the fighter jet canopy…
        a) F1 would no longer be an open cockpit series
        b) a much narrower canopy than is on a fighter jet would be required, so what about…
        c) visual distortion from such an abrupt curvature
        d) what keeps it clean
        e) what keeps the driver cool inside the greenhouse
        f) what keeps condensation down
        g) a car upside down needing a driver’s head and neck secured is accessed how?
        h) a driver would get out how?
        i) the aero effect of this canopy would require a complete redesign of the car front to back at massive cost and
        j) cars would end up looking like WEC prototypes because their canopy is wide with a wiper blade, side doors, and fans inside…is F1 wise to no longer be F1 but be a sprint form of WEC instead?

        If it was so easy to just do the canopy thing, why would we have not at least seen some prototypes tested? Answer: no point testing something they know already on paper could not work without spending billions and completely changing the face of F1 at huge risk of losing the audience.

        1. paul.kay39@gmail.com
          14th December 2017, 4:29

          F1 is no longer open cockpit with the Halo.

          #NoHalo

      2. The Limit, the reason for that is because the FIA have already tested the behaviour of a fighter jet canopy and found that it did not work.

        For a start, most canopies are designed to dissipate impact loads through controlled deformation – it’s not so much of a problem for a pilot, who usually has a significant air gap between himself and the canopy, but in the case of a driver, whose head would be much closer to the screen, the impact tests that the FIA ran found that the drivers head would still be struck with sufficient force to cause serious injury.

        As @robbie notes, there are also a number of other issues that come with the use of a canopy – the FIA’s medical team were keen on a solution that provided them with easier access to a driver, visual distortion is an issue (as was noted with the aeroscreen concept, and that was despite an aviation company developing the canopy in an attempt to reduce the distortion effects) and maintaining a reasonable cockpit temperature is an issue (though the WEC have shown that there can be some quite effective passive cockpit ventilation systems).

      3. As for Justin Wilson, he was killed by a loose nosecone and not a loose wheel. The nosecone too, could have gone underneath the halo and impacted the driver’s head.

        In the case of the Justin Wilson accident the nosecone came down from above & stuck the top/frontal part of Justin’s helmet…. When deconstructing & analyzing it the FIA concluded that had the Halo been on Justin’s car that day the nosecone would have come down & impacted the Halo rather than Justin’s head & that it is beyond doubt that in that specific case the Halo would have saved Justin’s life.

        With regards to a canopy, I was talking to a family member not too long ago who has flown sort of aircraft & I brought up what visibility through a canopy is like in a jet & he came back that the canopy’s they run do create a lot of distortion but that it isn’t really an issue for them once in the air as it’s only really noticeable on the ground.
        When I got to talking about the prospect on an F1 car he felt that distortion issues would be significantly worse given how the narrower cockpits would require a more extreme curvature of the canopy/screen than is the case in an aircraft & that such a solution would probably not be viable for an F1 style car unless they made the cockpits wider.

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.
    If the person you're replying to is a registered user you can notify them of your reply using '@username'.