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

[ScotsBrutesFan]

Whilst still advocating a cockpit canopy, I'll admit on first sight that doesn't look too bad.

I could even foresee a tear off over frontal section that a driver could reach... wouldn't want to pick up someone else's in a brake duct or side pod though.

It's hard to see how quickly it drops from the front highpoint down to the headrest height. It could offer some protection from horizontal debris coming from off centre too.

I do still have reservations however regarding anything that is coming from above the horizontal, it would only been to be a few degrees above to miss the screen and hit the helmet.


As an aside to safety, it'll be interesting to see how long the team can run it on the car, it looks like it cold push air over the airbox and so seriously hamper cooling.

[S griffin]

Looks like an alien from the outside, sort of looks like a sprint car from the onboards

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I suspect they feel they are solving two different problems. For example I suspect they don't expect the screen to do everything the existing safety cell already does. It is just additive and clearly focused nearly 100% on deflection of objects that come directly from the front and not from the top. And even then the drivers will still be still be required to wear a full face helmet (additional intrusion protection). It is rightly using the "defense in depth" strategy with multiple layers of protection.

There is also the practical nature in that it provides structure for attachment of steering wheel, etc. and having the a smaller hole in the structure helps it maintain its overall physical integrity. And lastly... it allows teams to not have to redesign the safety cell ($$$) if new features are additive. Clearly ANY solution will impact aero design.

Richard

Sensible comments Richard (as always). One point I would make is that surely, the biggest risk to driver injury is from objects that come directly from the front purely because an F! spends a lot of time moving forwards at a high velocity. At 200 odd MPH something coming from directly above would have (literally) a small window of opportunity to hit the driver.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

BBC reporting that it will be the Halo that will be on all cars for the 2018 season.

BBC Sport webite

[Matt]

Sources say nine out of 10 teams voted against the Halo, but the FIA said it would become part of the regulations for 2018 on safety grounds, albeit with "certain features of its design" being "further enhanced".

How typically F1.

[Akrapovic]

Ignoring how ridiculous it is...start lights?

[chillibowl]

i remain skeptical that these will be on the cars come OZ 2018.

but something is needed...hopefully this shames the teams into properly working on a viable alternative so at worst the halo will be short lived.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Ignoring how ridiculous it is...start lights?

That just looks wrong.

[JeremySmith]

Its a rubbish idea..full canopy please ..

[ciscotex]

Well, after only 54 years I guess this is my last year as a bleeding F1 fan. Everything has to end some time.

Reading the FIA's justification for the halo cramdown (when 9 of the 10 teams opposed it) is typical political crap. F1 cars over all the years have, for the most part, been somewhat attractive. Calling that hideous piece of ironmongery (carbonmongery?) a halo is merely calling a painted turd a work of art. If I wanted to watch sprint or midget cars, I'd watch them.

Motor racing is dangerous. If not, it is merely another game. While I don't wish to see a repetition of Henry Surtees, Justin Wilson's, or Massa's tragic accidents, if aesthetics counts for anything (and the new owners seem to think it does) this cure might be worse than the disease.

Paul

[ScotsBrutesFan]

Ironically I can see the mandating of the halo, and so implementing froward head protection. That the only way to get rid of it will be with something better.

Hopefully it will lead to full and proper investigations into a full canopy solution.

[F1Guy]

A sad day in Formula One's history.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

Its a rubbish idea..full canopy please ..

I agree. They could have done some that would have been safer and looked better, but picked the Halo instead. I suspect the fan outcry in 2018 will be tremendous and may result in reverting back to pure open cockpit later. Potentially an overall setback for safety long term.

Richard

[bjohnsonsmith]

The GPDA have backed the Halo.

http://classic.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/130845

[Pingguest]

Although the Halo might protect the drivers' head from debris, it might cause a safety risk as well. Imagine Alonso's crash during the 2016 Australian Grand Prix with a Halo; it is foreseeable that the Halo would have caused servere head injury.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

The GPDA have backed the Halo.

http://classic.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/130845

In other words the GPDA have been told by the FIA to back the device.

[S griffin]

In my view the Halo has still too many question marks, like visibility and if the car rolls over. Maybe Vettel's dizziness with the shield prompted this decision

[spider]

Looks utterly terrible. If there has to be clear head protection, as mentioned, a canopy makes sense. This just looks utterly ridiculous. Oh well. C'est la vie.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

What ever decision the FIA were to make had to be done now, some designers might even say before now.

There was disruption to cooling when running with the Halo, so the teams will need all the time they can get to ensure their airflow modelling resolves that.

[Lola]

Booooo!!!!!!

Its supposed to be dangerous, if it wasn't, we would all be doing it.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Lola

Booooo!!!!!!

Its supposed to be dangerous, if it wasn't, we would all be doing it.

No.

I hate this response so much in general. Racing is still stupid dangerous, trying to protect drivers from something like a flying bit of car isn't making the whole thing less dangerous. It's keeping the drivers safer so they can continue to do what they're good at.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Lola

Booooo!!!!!!

Its supposed to be dangerous, if it wasn't, we would all be doing it.

It's also very expensive. There are lots of dangerous things to do, that don't require the financial resources it takes to race in F1.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Matt

No.

I hate this response so much in general. Racing is still stupid dangerous, trying to protect drivers from something like a flying bit of car isn't making the whole thing less dangerous. It's keeping the drivers safer so they can continue to do what they're good at.

I agree 100% with respect to "It's dangerous" argument. It's a completely ridiculous argument. It's both obvious and a pointless thing to mention but also a sideways dig at pretty much any safety measures.

Queue up the comments about the heroics of how it was "back in the day" and let's not forget the most important one... heritage.

Richard

[ASCII Man]

Well, I don't really have anything against safety, but what grinds my gears is F1 and the FIA are always looking for their own solutions, no matter how inane, ineffective and stupid they may be, completely ignoring tried and true concepts that have been implemented elsewhere, simply because it just wouldn't be F1. F1/FIA is exactly like Vince McMahon, if it's not his idea, he will discard it. The fact that F1/FIA is not just 1 person, but a multitude of people that thought of this, thought it was a good solution and pushed it through is simply put embarassing.

I'm embarassed to be an F1 fan.

[Adam43]

This is not going to protect the drivers against a giant meteorite. Or chicken pox.

Will this make F1 less popular? Hopefully. Then sky won't want to pay for it and it can return to the Beeb. Ticket prices will fall. Bring it on. It is the saviour.