[Tech Issue] Closed cockpits- Closer to reality then we might think?

[wnut]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Modern electronic components weigh very little. A Samsung S10 smart phone weighs 157g. HUD, as well as HMD (Helmet Mounted Display), have been used with military aircraft for many years and some military aircraft, notably jet fighters, can pull very high G forces and this will have been taken into account, when designing the helmet.

That would be another 6.2 kg hanging off your neck in a 40G impact, and it could be a lot higher! Ouchy!

[wnut]

There is a video on youtube showing Giuliano Alesi's detached rear wing striking the the HALOS of both Jordan King and Sean Galael in the F2 race at Monza. Without question it saved both from being struck in the face by large sections of Alesi's rear wing.

Can also see substantial damage to the HALO on Galael's car following the impact.

I think the HALO has without doubt saved a fair few lives since its adoption, pity it wasn't put in place ten years earlier!

[S griffin]

That can happen wings coming off, so it's a good thing the halo is there. I would hate for them to have it strike in the face at high speed. It does serve a purpose the halo. I

It's something we have got used to. Of course we can't change the past, but it'll keep racing safer now

[Tourer]

Images here of the Indycar aero screen being tested at Indy.

It actually looks more bulky than I expected.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Images here of the Indycar aero screen being tested at Indy.

It actually looks more bulky than I expected.

Sadly, and surprising myself, I think the Halo looks better.

[E.B]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Images here of the Indycar aero screen being tested at Indy.

It actually looks more bulky than I expected.

I think I read that the width of the screen is to do with ensuring distortion free vision which perhaps a more pointed version might not,

Originally Posted by wnut

Sadly and surprising myself, I think the Halo looks better.

I feel the same and believe that now, having been an avid anti halo person in F1 I have to confess I barely notice it now, having become accustomed to it.

Will Power commented very positively on the screen, talking of now having used it , reverting to no screen would make him feel naked.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by E.B

I think I read that the width of the screen is to do with ensuring distortion free vision which perhaps a more pointed version might not.

It will be interesting to see what Sebastien Bourdais makes of it, when testing at Sebring on November 5, as he wears glasses.

[Richard C]

My initial response was its size. For me that is the difference between it and the halo. I do think we are used to the halo.

With that being said, kudos to IndyCar for a full solution that provides best of breed protection. I expect the IndyCar drivers will come to love it given the protection it gives.

Richard

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

My initial response was its size. For me that is the difference between it and the halo. I do think we are used to the halo.

With that being said, kudos to IndyCar for a full solution that provides best of breed protection. I expect the IndyCar drivers will come to love it given the protection it gives.

Richard

Is it? No doubt the IndyCar version provides better protection against something small like the spring that hit Massa, but how well does it scrub up against the Halo in massive impacts?

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by E.B

I think I read that the width of the screen is to do with ensuring distortion free vision which perhaps a more pointed version might not,




I feel the same and believe that now, having been an avid anti halo person in F1 I have to confess I barely notice it now, having become accustomed to it.

Will Power commented very positively on the screen, talking of now having used it , reverting to no screen would make him feel naked.

That's an interesting comment and something that I'd not considered. I'm old enough to remember being in a road car before seat belts wearing was compulsory. After a while of always wearing one I felt very vulnerable without a seat belt.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by wnut

Is it? No doubt the IndyCar version provides better protection against something small like the spring that hit Massa, but how well does it scrub up against the Halo in massive impacts?

It should be noted that the Aeroscreen is not just a clear screen connected to the chassis. It is a full screen connected to a halo like structure. I am not privy to the specs for both the Halo and the Aeroscreen. I fully expect they don't spec out identically (particularly that of the halo portion).

However broadly I see no reason to not reasonably assume that F1 Halo is just a halo while the IndyCar Aeroscreen is a halo + screen solution. Without knowing more specifics, I would say it's reasonable to assume it is better than the F1 halo. The Aeroscreen is trying to address problems beyond that of a halo only solution. However, If we get specifics that indicate IndyCar screwed upon the Aeroscreen implementation, then I am all ears.

Richard

[Richard C]

Decent article that talks some technical details...

https://www.indycar.com/News/2019/10...vin-Aeroscreen

Some select quotes that talk about the halo structure that is the foundation...

The Aeroscreen has been developed in collaboration with Red Bull Advanced Technologies. The driver safety innovation encompassing the cockpit is comprised of a ballistic Aeroscreen anchored by titanium framework.

The titanium framework mounts in three areas around the cockpit: the chassis centerline, two rear side mounts and roll hoop integration to provide enhanced load-bearing capabilities.

It sounds very similar to the F1 halo which also has a titanium core.

Richard

[ScotsBrutesFan]

The thing with the Halo, is that rightly or wrongly it had to be designed and integrated to an F1 design of cars that use a top airbox.
As the Indy cars have only a roll hoop/crash structure in the same area, that is like the rest of the chassis, a spec part it would make integration an easier process.

I'd like to say resulting in a more elegant aesthetic, but unfortunately ....

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by ScotsBrutesFan

The thing with the Halo, is that rightly or wrongly it had to be designed and integrated to an F1 design of cars that use a top airbox.
As the Indy cars have only a roll hoop/crash structure in the same area, that is like the rest of the chassis, a spec part it would make integration an easier process.

I'd like to say resulting in a more elegant aesthetic, but unfortunately ....

I mostly agree, but have ideas why things worked out like they did (visually)

F1 had effectively a spec core for the halo and requirements for mounting, but the rest of the chassis is bespoke. So the integration is a bit more pleasing because the two solutions (halo + chassis) could be integrated more tightly. That includes a combined (designed at the same time) aero solution.

On the IndyCar side, you would "think" that because the chassis and aero is spec that they could do a better job with the integration to create a more visually pleasing solution. But in the end... they are bolting something onto an existing design. The main thing they had going for them is that they could create one solution that works for all cars.

Also, I expect there was significant desire to keep costs down (i.e. no need to rework existing bodywork to make it look better). In the end, I think they did a decent job, but I expect function and cost was a high priority and looking nice was still important, but lower priority (pure speculation on my part).

Now... assuming this solution works for IndyCar, when they eventually have a new (or rework the existing) chassis, then I can imagine Aeroscreen 2.0 will probably look much better than this one because of the same reasons things look good on the F1 side in that they can design them both at the same time.

Richard

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by ScotsBrutesFan

The thing with the Halo, is that rightly or wrongly it had to be designed and integrated to an F1 design of cars that use a top airbox.
As the Indy cars have only a roll hoop/crash structure in the same area, that is like the rest of the chassis, a spec part it would make integration an easier process.

I'd like to say resulting in a more elegant aesthetic, but unfortunately ....

Isn't the roll hoop on an F1 car the opening of the airbox? The difference with IndyCar, is they've included a screen, to go over a Halo like device.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

Yes the point I was trying to make, was that the design of the halo had to have a minimal effect on airflow to the box.

With Indycars not having a top box, there was less to need think about the air coming off the screen. As such the design could have been I feel a bit better to look at.

There may be technical issues that prevent the beautification of the beast, and as Richard points out a nextgen cars will be designed from the ground up to include the screen mountings rather than just bolted on where best.

[bjohnsonsmith]

According to Red Bull Advanced Technologies, the Aeroscreen is stronger than the Halo.

http://classic.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/146393

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

According to Red Bull Advanced Technologies, the Aeroscreen is stronger than the Halo.

http://classic.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/146393

Makes you think the journalists are reading this thread!

Richard

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Makes you think the journalists are reading this thread!

Richard

You never know.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Makes you think the journalists are reading this thread!

Richard

That would explain a lot.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Makes you think the journalists are reading this thread!

Richard

Next question, does anybody know what the greenhouse weighs?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

Next question, does anybody know what the greenhouse weighs?

According to this article: "the estimated weight of the device and mounting fixtures is in the region of 50 pounds"

https://racer.com/2019/08/28/indycar...of-first-test/

[wnut]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

According to this article: "the estimated weight of the device and mounting fixtures is in the region of 50 pounds"

https://racer.com/2019/08/28/indycar...of-first-test/

Thanks BJ, interesting article.

Had to goggle at Rahal pointing out how big change was a regular feature in the past.

F1 Halo is 9kg, so considerably lighter and simpler than the IndyCar version (22.72 kg).

I think that F1 got the HALO right, and it is transferable to the lower formulae which is very good.

F1 clearly slipped by missing the most complex solution possible!

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by wnut

Thanks BJ, interesting article.

Had to goggle at Rahal pointing out how big change was a regular feature in the past.

F1 Halo is 9kg, so considerably lighter and simpler than the IndyCar version (22.72 kg).

I think that F1 got the HALO right, and it is transferable to the lower formulae which is very good.

F1 clearly slipped by missing the most complex solution possible!

No doubt it is lighter and simpler because it does less? The lightest and simplest would have been to do nothing!

And you lost me regarding transferable to lower formulas. Wouldn't most any concept work in lower formulas?

Richard

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

No doubt it is lighter and simpler because it does less? The lightest and simplest would have been to do nothing!

And you lost me regarding transferable to lower formulas. Wouldn't most any concept work in lower formulas?

Richard

How well do you think the RBR aero screen would bolt onto an F3 car?