djos wrote: ↑03 Feb 2018, 01:46
Manoah2u wrote: ↑03 Feb 2018, 01:39
mate, a jet fighter windscreen is a full canopy, enclosed and added
with steel frame reinforcement, something totally absent here. let's see some crash tests (like the way the FIA propelled wheels at prototypes) and see that first.
yeah sure it is, at the very back.
https://i.stack.imgur.com/m6j63.jpg
The F-16 is designed to withstand 2 pound bird strikes at ~460 kph without damage:
https://youtu.be/ibJ3aXrvaCs
PS, I have seen mention they are rated for birdstrikes @ up to 550kts (1,000 kph) but I cant find a solid source atm.
missing the point completely again. a full closed canopy has a completely different structural integrity, especially with a hoop at it. offcourse it's completely closed, it's a jet fighter. but that is what gives it it's strenght.
cut it in half, and obviously, without any question, you're going to lose a good amount of strenght.
in other words you can start throwing things in the air like birdstrikes mach 1, but those are all designed with a closed canopy in mind that has a reinforcement AND additionally also has another material composity. thicker, added with other transparent material, whatever. it can weigh much more than you'd want in F1 / Indy because the jet fighters have completely different applciations AND other power usages.
you're comparing the wrong things.
hence you can be as stubborn as you want by throwing stuff in the air, the fact is, they are 2 different designs and thus cannot be compared, and as such, you cannot project fighter claims on F1/indy cars as if it automatically has the same result.
Exaclty because of that, you don't have it in F1. Thinking indy can come up with a better solution than F1 without any effort is sticking your head in the sand. the FIA has researched thorooughly what to do, and came up with the halo as the best solution right now. To think the FIA has not been eyeing the same thing we see in indy now is the most ignorant thing to come up with. They spend precious amounts of money, and again, came to the conclusion that to protect the driver from the impacts, debris, and dangers faced with, neither the aeroscreen, nor this windscreen will have been sufficient to the demands.
which can only mean 1 thing; this thing is not up for the same job the Halo is, and additionally, there is the issue of oiling up/dirt piling up on the windscreen.
there are only a few arguments to place for the indyscreen, and that is because indy and f1 don't neccesarily share the exact same dangers, and the competition is different, decisions can be made differently. that's it really.
and again, we haven't even slightly seen this device put up for the test, except for what FIA has already done, and it FAILED. the screen SHATTERED.
get your head out of the sand.
ignorant response for the win. with such clueless responses, i don't even know why i took the effort to reply to you.