Josef Newgarden, Penske, winsdscreen test, Indianapolis, IndyCar, 2018

Video and pictures: IndyCar tests windscreen at Indianapolis


Posted on

| Written by

IndyCar has continued tests of the windscreen, its alternative to F1’s Halo, in testing for the Indianapolis 500 today.

Reigning champion Josef Newgarden tested the screen on his Penske. Ganassi driver Scott Dixon is the only other driver to have conducted real-world testing of the screen, in a run at IMS Raceway in Phoenix two months ago.

Penske added a vent to its car in front of the windscreen to aid driver cooling following Dixon’s feedback from his test.

Newgarden said the test was “fascinating” but said some changes are needed to improve vision through the screen.

“The most interesting thing to me was the visor changes [on the helmet]. Going from a fully-smoke visor to a clear visor was better. It helped with the visibility and the clarity.

“There’s small improvements to be made, especially with the clarity with the visors and the perception to see through it. It was easy to make it work, I didn’t have any major issues with it, and I think IndyCar did a nice job.”

IndyCar Indianapolis windscreen test video

Newgarden’s run with the windscreen can be seen in the video below:

IndyCar Indianapolis windscreen test pictures


Browse all IndyCar articles

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.

24 comments on “Video and pictures: IndyCar tests windscreen at Indianapolis”

  1. Great, now they can get a Vespa sponsorship. :)

    1. well , aeroscreen werent peoperly new. just check soe pictures from previous indy cars and you would see the screen there.
      it looks good.

  2. well , aeroscreen werent peoperly new. just check soe pictures from previous indy cars and you would see the screen there.
    it looks good.

    1. the aeroscreen gives the a car a jetfighter look.

  3. look at 3:29:40

    1. Yes. He should never use those parasite words when interviewed by mass media – you know, well, so, eh etc

  4. I hate to say this but I think the F1 “Halo” looks better, to me that screen has destroyed the beautiful lines of the car.

    1. The bulky halo looks terrible at every angle. But that’s not the worst part, because not seeing the driver properly is…

      The aeroscreen still isn’t cosmetically better than nothing on top, but you really can see the driver well. I hope this is the way to go for F1

  5. Duncan Snowden
    1st May 2018, 2:55

    I have to say… I like that. I don’t just mean I prefer it to the halo; it actually looks good. And if there are concerns over its robustness relative to the halo, perhaps they could be combined, allowing for a reduction in the bulk and obtrusiveness of the halo.

    They’ll have to try it in the rain, though. Not so much of an issue for IndyCar, but it could be a real problem in F1.

    1. Look for some gaming videos on youtube. It is not exactly irl but is close. At 100 mph there should be no problem. Plus figthers solve this with some electric current on the screen. And it really looks good.

  6. Windscreen testing starts at 7:18:30 in the linked video.
    I watched the test live and appreciated the quality of technical commentary, including explaining why HALO cannot work for IndyCar due to high-bank ovals.

  7. I’m getting used to the Halo but it’s mind boggling how F1 went with it after also testing the windshield – this looks really good!

    1. @hircus The screen solutions failed there impact test’s, The Halo was the only thing they tested which passed the test’s & met there criteria. This screen failed the same impact test’s that similar solutions tested by the FIA did, Difference is that Indycar are happy with that while the FIA were not.

      Indycar simply have a different criteria. While the FIA were looking at something that could withstand impacts from larger/heavier objects, Indycar are looking at something thats able to deflect smaller/lighter objects.

      1. “This” screen was not tested by the FIA, or the teams. I don’t think they’ve done impact testing yet, based on some of the interviews I’ve read.

        The aeroscreen as developed by Red Bull was a flimsy thing by comparison, where they were relying on the frame for rigidity.

  8. Halo was introduced for political reasons.

    This is a million times better.

    Once a similar incident in F1 and IndyCar occurs where this performs a function the Halo cannot (deflect a small piece of debris) F1 should switch …

    1. I’m sick of conspiracy theories, it wasn’t for political reasons. F1 just didn’t have a well developed windscreen design.

    2. Janno (@)
      1st May 2018, 9:00

      To be fair, the same can be said if you turned it around. A windscreen alone won’t stop an incoming loose tire or deflect a car in an accident.

      Indycar couldn’t run the halo because of the visibility on ovals. I’m not saying that I particularly like the halo, but I can see it’s purpose.

    3. It wasn’t a matter of politics, It was simply down to the FIA wanting something that could withstand impacts from larger/heavier objects while Indycar were happier with something that would simply deflect smaller objects.

      When the FIA trialled solutions like this screen they failed there impact test’s, This Indycar screen has failed those same test’s.

      Indycar are happier focusing on smaller objects as they feel things like tethers will prevent larger things from coming off cars to begin with….. This ignoring that there tethers have failed in bigger accidents on ovals.
      In Scott Dixons crash at Indy last year for instance not only was his car flying through the air (With Helio driving under it at one point) but you also had wheels/tyres as well as as gearbox flying across the track. The Halo would have withstood those impacts, This screen would not.

      1. You don’t know if the screen would deflect a gearbox or tire as the testing hasn’t been done yet. I’d rather have the screen in front of me than the halo if a gearbox hit the car. Part of the gearbox could enter the cockpit through the halo, it’s deflecting off the screen. The tires are tethered and flying gearboxes are minimal odds. The much higher probability and threat are smaller pieces flying that would go right through the halo, not the screen.

  9. There you have it, just like I expected.. putting the effective and good looking windscreen is really not high science, but –
    again as I expected – in F1 even such relatively trivial endeavours become impossible.

    And nobody is complaining about dizziness, right?

    1. How effective it is depends on what you want it to do.

      For what Indycar want it to do (Deflect small bits of debris) it’s fine but for what the FIA were looking at for F1 (Withstanding impacts from larger objects) it’s actually pretty ineffective & has actually failed the same impact test’s that the similar solutions the FIA were looking at did.

  10. The cars look like fighter planes ….

  11. During the test there was some problems with glare & reflections although Newgarden believes much of that could potentially be fixed by helmet manufacturers coming up with different visor’s.

    Something else that came up which is been seen as a potential problem is that the screen reduced drag by a larger amount than was expected & the reduction in drag was resulting in speeds of around 243mph. That in a car not 100% optimized in terms of setup/gearing to take full advantage of the reduction in drag.

    They were running tear off strip’s on it for the test & while they work there is a concern that since they can only be removed by the teams during pit stops that if a drivers screen gets dirty mid stint there either going to have to try & deal with the reduced visibility until there next stop (Which is a potential safety issue) or come in for a stop to remove a tear off which in the middle of a stint is obviously going to ruin there race.

    The biggest concern however remains visibility in the wet, Not just in terms of the spray but also water getting in-between the tear off strips resulting in teams having to remove all of them at once which could pose further problems later in the race.

    The biggest problem they have is that they currently only have 1 of them so can only run the odd test like this on 1 car. Before making a decision on if/when there going to bring it in full time they want more of them to run on more cars in group test’s under a variety of conditions/circumstances but are currently quite a way off been able to do that.
    There is also talk of making it easy to remove so that if problems come up on a certain track or certain conditions they can just run without it.

  12. It looks really good! I’m sure any glare or back pressure issues will be resolved.

Comments are closed.