Technical Can we talk about the Halo?

F1's Halo Device?


  • Total voters
    40
My point exactly. An engine fire, not a crash. It's not hard to get out a car even if it does have a halo and it's on fire. Halo crashed and on fire maybe a different matter.
 
A major risk in the event of a fire is a lack of breathable air for the driver, hence the need for rapid egress from the vehicle, flame retardant overalls minimise the risk of burns, not the risk of suffocation.
 
It's unlikely there would be a fire. It's even less likely a fire would be so intense to envelope the drivers cockpit and reduce his breathable air. It's even less likely that this would of happened and a crash had occurred. It's even less likely that this crash would of happened in such a way that the Halo specifically stopped the driver from escaping. It's even less likely that marshals wouldn't be able to put the fire out very quickly.

Could a halo protect a driver from death in a crash? yes! Could a halo be the direct cause of a drivers death in a crash? Extremely unlikely!
 
Pictures from Sky:
upload_2016-4-21_8-18-54.png

Oh & is it me or does this look like a Speedboat?
upload_2016-4-21_8-19-49.png
 
I like that, and also how the supports are lined up with the mirrors so they don't add to a drivers blind spot.

*I thought ferrari were supposed to be the kings of 'sexy' design?
 
Much sexier & let's not forget the Aero, imagine the option as they develop the Canopy, with vanes and trims, now that's going to be sexy too....
 
Doesn't look to shabby. If they have to have something then this looks the best option so far. Might be some weird vortices in the cockpit though. Considering how little of the driver you can see in todays cars anyway, I don't have a problem with losing sight of the driver due to a canopy / cover. As long as the cars are damn fast. But, the on-board shot showing the driver's hands and display, whilst also showing the road ahead, might be compromised. That would be a shame.
 
Thinking about it, it would also adhere to the 'no tear offs rule', as you could fit tear offs to the screen and remove them at pit stops. No litter Win all round.
 
It's that old Bernie principle at play. You know most people don't want something so you introduce something that everyone agrees is absolutely awful. Then, you get someone else to introduce what you really want and every one says "oh that's much better" forgetting that they never wanted it in the first place.
 
I've said it before and I will say it again. I really don't buy into the whole Bernie has a secret plan thing. I think people credit the weirdo with too much reverence when things go right and are too keen to pass the buck when things go wrong.
 
I was just talking about a tactic he has used in meetings on a number of occasions (as quoted in at least 2 F1 biogs I have read) and noticing the similarity with the Halo. I'm not implying that Bernie wants the Halo in.

What I'm suggesting is that the design of the first idea was rushed out and tested in the full knowledge that most people would be shocked at how ugly the thing looks and, when a more subtle version arrives, everyone would then agree that it's the best option and it's job done.

I wonder if we ran the poll again with the options 'nothing' 'halo' 'windscreen' which one would come out on top. My bet is that of all those that originally suggested that there was no requirement for a device of this type, a significant number would shift their votes to the 'windscreen' design.
 
To keep that windscreen in place there are columns. In ordinary life columns create viewing problems, why would that be any different for an F1 car?
 

This vid shows how a full cockpit structure has the elasticity to withstand a high-speed tyre impact, but a canopy doesn't. Guessing that's where the columns come in.

If the angle of the wheel had been reversed it may have been a different outcome.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom