Indy car windscreen

[Andres125sx]

E.K. for a 2lb (0.91kg) bird at 460km/hr is 7.4kJ - an 11kg (25lb) wheel and tyre at 240km/hr is 24.4kJ.

But a fighter canopy need to keep intact after the impact, while a car windscreen don´t need to, it only need to deflect the object

[sandrosm]

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.

Wowowowow It almost seems like you are paid to sell the Halo or something!

First of, I agree with you we can't compare this with a completely closed canopy, however, the cars are not travelling at mach 1 speeds either.

Then, do you know how much effort they actually put to develop it or are you also "throwing stuff in the air"? You don't know the engineering behind it.

Third, the halo was not chosen only because it's supposed to be safer. You have to understand that since F1 is not a spec series, it would be much harder to implement something like the "indyscreen" since you would have to rewrite a lot of aerodynamic rules which would mean a complete redesign of the car's aero. It doesn't mean it is the safer option.

And lastly, even if the screen shattered, it doesn't mean it failed. Carbon fiber shatters on impacts but it absorbs a lot of energy. That's what really matters.

For the people bringing the distortion argument, if done properly you almost have no distortion at all. You have thick, very curved windscreens in lmp cars and they are good enough for navigating through much slower traffic and even at night without anyone complaining about getting dizzy while driving for 3/4hrs straight.

[aral]

"And lastly, even if the screen shattered, it doesn't mean it failed. Carbon fiber shatters on impacts but it absorbs a lot of energy. That's what really matters."
The screen would not be made of carbonfibre....you cannot see through that. It would be made of polycarbonate which can be bulletproof.

[Manoah2u]

E.K. for a 2lb (0.91kg) bird at 460km/hr is 7.4kJ - an 11kg (25lb) wheel and tyre at 240km/hr is 24.4kJ.

But a fighter canopy need to keep intact after the impact, while a car windscreen don´t need to, it only need to deflect the object

as much as that is true, there are additional concerns; the shards of the windscreen could potentially be hazardous for driver's health when desintegrating like the FIA screen shows and could, not necceserialy will, inflict harm. As such, the result of a windscreen that doesn't stay intact is unacceptable. Added to that, if it doesn't stay intact, chances are bigger that it neither will deflect enough and thus still harm the driver's head. the halo 100% deflects a wheel impact (or other potentially dangerous debris) and as such is the better choise, even if it's conciderably less 'attractive' to look at - but let's be honest here, that is a matter of aesthetics and that is always up for debate as it is based upon personal opinion.

at this prototype/test mount, the indy screen doesn't look too bad, but in it's full, it might even look worse. Above all, to me, it looks rather like a big windscreen and nothing at all that is able in the slightest to protect. Windscreens of this size are nothing new and have been run many times in the past.

all we have now is some visual presentation, but a complete and total lack of proof of testing, and as such, it is doubtfull it has any real significance.

Nevertheless, it provides - even if it is the slightest - another level of protection from f.e. small debris. As long as it doesn't shatter to pieces, which, again, could result in sharp shards which could inflict harm on the driver.

if we compare the fia's halo to this, in a situation where the car ends up on it's side with the cockpit top hitting the wall - not at all uncommon in indy - then this windscreen will provide 0% protection or deflection from such an impact. it will guaranteed shatter and provide more debris - versus the halo, which has been mandated to withstand rather powerfull forces, will hit the wall and either absorb or above all deflect the impact, providing in essence a full rollcage, where the driver's head will not be able to hit the wall despite the car being on it's side.

additionally, the halo will protect the driver's head from a wheel hitting the helmet, whether that wheel has come loose, or that is still mounted to a car, is irrelevant - the halo fully protects the driver, this aeroscreen not by any means.

[Manoah2u]

Wowowowow It almost seems like you are paid to sell the Halo or something!

what a ignorant thing to say

First of, I agree with you we can't compare this with a completely closed canopy, however, the cars are not travelling at mach 1 speeds either.

Then, do you know how much effort they actually put to develop it or are you also "throwing stuff in the air"? You don't know the engineering behind it.

exactly, we only have a image of something that has been proven by the FIA to fail. if we don't have proof of indy tests succeeding, we can only base on proof of it failing.

Third, the halo was not chosen only because it's supposed to be safer. You have to understand that since F1 is not a spec series, it would be much harder to implement something like the "indyscreen" since you would have to rewrite a lot of aerodynamic rules which would mean a complete redesign of the car's aero. It doesn't mean it is the safer option.

F1 provided an aeroscreen and it failed to meet the demands.

And lastly, even if the screen shattered, it doesn't mean it failed. Carbon fiber shatters on impacts but it absorbs a lot of energy. That's what really matters.

LOL! did you even read the post?! if it shatters, IT FAILES. it doesn't PROTECT.

hey, a crashtest shows a commuter vehicle disintegrates completely when hit with an object. did it fail? YES, it didn't protect. did it absorb a lot of energy? sure. so it isn't 'all that matters'.

For the people bringing the distortion argument, if done properly you almost have no distortion at all. You have thick, very curved windscreens in lmp cars and they are good enough for navigating through much slower traffic and even at night without anyone complaining about getting dizzy while driving for 3/4hrs straight.

yet the aeroscreen provided dizzyness.

there is no proof or tests whatsoever that the indyscreen doesn't result in the same simply we have not seen any test at all with it at any point. only the mounting of some high windscreen as in the op.

it is of absolute importance that when things like this are tested or 'mandated', then it must actually work, and that means it needs to have proof.

the 'worrying' part is that there has been zero proof of this working, whilst there is proof of it failing.
versus the halo has all the proof that it works.

it's as simple as that.

the last thing i wanted to see in f1 is a horse's shoe ring around a driver, but we can't keep ignoring the facts, and 'evolution' of f1 has been in a standstill too long.

i'm all open for the indyscreen.
but again, there is zero evidence this is actually an improvement.

[sandrosm]

"And lastly, even if the screen shattered, it doesn't mean it failed. Carbon fiber shatters on impacts but it absorbs a lot of energy. That's what really matters."
The screen would not be made of carbonfibre....you cannot see through that. It would be made of polycarbonate which can be bulletproof.

I understand. The point is, if it shatters BUT it absorbs enough energy, it's all good, that's what I was trying to say.

[sandrosm]

We have no proof about it working or not, that's my point. The solution tested was the F1 one, not the indy one. It can either work or not. We will see, we can't assume it doesn't, that's all.

LOL! did you even read the post?! if it shatters, IT FAILES. it doesn't PROTECT.

hey, a crashtest shows a commuter vehicle disintegrates completely when hit with an object. did it fail? YES, it didn't protect. did it absorb a lot of energy? sure. so it isn't 'all that matters'.

Even if it shatters, if it absorbs a lot of energy as you say, that absorbed energy won't hit the driver. That's the point.

About the crash test example, commuter cars have crumple zones: zones of the car designed to crumple/desintegrate in order to absorb as much impact energy as possible. The "only" thing that is made as strong as possible is the passenger cabin. A safe car is not a rigid one, otherwise the energy transfer to the body of the passengers would be so high it would be deadly.

yet the aeroscreen provided dizzyness.

there is no proof or tests whatsoever that the indyscreen doesn't result in the same simply we have not seen any test at all with it at any point. only the mounting of some high windscreen as in the op.

Those screens can have an optical correction. That's what they do to fighter jet canopies, and if done properly, there will be no dizzyness complaints.

[Manoah2u]

We have no proof about it working or not, that's my point.

yes, we do. the video link has been posted above.

The solution tested was the F1 one, not the indy one.

in all it's essence, it is exactly the same. even more, the F1 solution seems even more rigid. point is, the only point of reference we have is the 'F1' one. and that one, failed. hence, the evidence suggests it fails. Indy thus has to come up with proof that it does not fail - which is at this point, non-existant.

It can either work or not. We will see, we can't assume it doesn't, that's all.

based upon actual evidence, we actually can assume it does not work.

LOL! did you even read the post?! if it shatters, IT FAILES. it doesn't PROTECT.

hey, a crashtest shows a commuter vehicle disintegrates completely when hit with an object. did it fail? YES, it didn't protect. did it absorb a lot of energy? sure. so it isn't 'all that matters'.

Even if it shatters, if it absorbs a lot of energy as you say, that absorbed energy won't hit the driver. That's the point.

are you ok? a car that completely disintegrates does NOT protect the driver or passengers and will hit the driver and thus injure them.

the video provided in the link shows that it fails HUMONGEOUSLY and the steel bar passes through the windscreen and would MURDER the driver.

a screen that shatters does not actually absorb the energy - it can't handle it and thus it shatters. as the video shows. so the projectile will continue it's course, even if it carries fractionally less energy due to hitting an 'obstacle'.

About the crash test example, commuter cars have crumple zones: zones of the car designed to crumple/desintegrate in order to absorb as much impact energy as possible. The "only" thing that is made as strong as possible is the passenger cabin. A safe car is not a rigid one, otherwise the energy transfer to the body of the passengers would be so high it would be deadly.

can you read? the car completely disintigrates, there is no talk about crumple - the example was about completely desintigrating - just like the half canopy shown in the FIA video. it thus FAILS.

yet the aeroscreen provided dizzyness.

there is no proof or tests whatsoever that the indyscreen doesn't result in the same simply we have not seen any test at all with it at any point. only the mounting of some high windscreen as in the op.

Those screens can have an optical correction. That's what they do to fighter jet canopies, and if done properly, there will be no dizzyness complaints.

and in the halo vs aeroscreen discussion topics, exactly that has been discussed that fighter jets and f1 drivers have a different focus point and thus are not comparable.

above all, i'll repeat, since reading is hard;

the evidence shows that aeroscreens tested by f1 drivers caused DIZZYNESS. you seriously think Ferrari and RedBull, and FIA for that matter, come up with half-assed jobs? hell no. is there room for improvement? sure.
is that available right now? evidence shows not. and that evidence is that there are no aeroscreens in f1 or any other formula class.

only indy comes up with an 'alternative' that has been proven to FAIL.

it's that simple. it is up for indy to prove that it meets the demands, and then to show what exactly those demands are because those demands can differ from F1.

the simplest evidence is already there; the indyscreen will NOT protect a driver from a wheel entering the cockpit; let that be from the side or top atleast - protection is insufficient. the helmet will be half exposed and thus can be hit. the halo provides 100% protection.

it cannot get any simpler.

as for frontal impacts; again - the indyscreen MIGHT provide sufficient protection. but we have not seen evidence that it DOES. we DO HAVE EVIDENCE that it fails.

again, it can NOT get any simpler.

[wesley123]

as much as that is true, there are additional concerns; the shards of the windscreen could potentially be hazardous for driver's health when desintegrating like the FIA screen shows and could, not necceserialy will, inflict harm. As such, the result of a windscreen that doesn't stay intact is unacceptable.

So, just to be clear; Indycar shouldn't run a device protecting the drivers heads because they might get cuts(something of which you aren't even certain)? Looking at it that way, I don't know how you can then be pro-halo. Titanium too can disintegrate, probably easier than the polycarbonate screen. The sole difference is where the screen would shatter in small shards(assuming it does in any motorsport application), the halo would be larger pieces, which then has much more chance to inflict harm. I sincerely doubt if a small polycarbonate shard could do more damage than a piece of a 10kg steel beam.

Added to that, if it doesn't stay intact, chances are bigger that it neither will deflect enough and thus still harm the driver's head.

Yes, something that is shattered doesn't deflect things as well. Just like a bent halo would, for example.

the halo 100% deflects a wheel impact (or other potentially dangerous debris) and as such is the better choise

And why exactly wouldn't a polycarbonate screen?

Above all, to me, it looks rather like a big windscreen and nothing at all that is able in the slightest to protect.

Dude, it's polycarbonate, not cardboard(or something)

Windscreens of this size are nothing new and have been run many times in the past.

Where, exactly?

all we have now is some visual presentation, but a complete and total lack of proof of testing, and as such, it is doubtfull it has any real significance.

I'd consider a fighter jet withstanding objects at ~500kph quite a good indication of it's strength. The application here would be at much lower speeds.

This isn't a 5 by 5 meter panel we are talking about, it is much smaller than that, and connected at many points to the chassis. It's not like they cut the top off of the canopy of a fighter jet.

if we compare the fia's halo to this, in a situation where the car ends up on it's side with the cockpit top hitting the wall - not at all uncommon in indy - then this windscreen will provide 0% protection or deflection from such an impact.

Please explain, because I'm not sure how this wouldn't but a halo would, as they cover a very similar area.

it will guaranteed shatter

This is some baseless BS.

and provide more debris - versus the halo, which has been mandated to withstand rather powerfull forces,

Because why would they ever require the screen to withstand a certain strength, right?

will hit the wall and either absorb or above all deflect the impact, providing in essence a full rollcage, where the driver's head will not be able to hit the wall despite the car being on it's side.

Unless the thing compresses or moves out of shape, of course.

But to make a small jump back; Debris. The shield covers the whole area, whereas the halo does not. The shield will prevent debris from entering the cockpit, whereas with the halo it can freely enter the vehicle and hit the helmet.
We all have seen it in Hungary 2009, and with the halo the small piece would still have hit Massa's helmet, whereas with the screen, it would collide with the screen. And even if it would shatter(which it most likely would not), it will take away a large amount of energy. Oh, and it would still deflect as it collides with an angled surface.

additionally, the halo will protect the driver's head from a wheel hitting the helmet

So does the screen.

whether that wheel has come loose, or that is still mounted to a car, is irrelevant - the halo fully protects the driver, this aeroscreen not by any means.

I'm sorry, but why do you assume that the aeroscreen does absolutely nothing and is just placed on there "for fun"? You have absolutely no reason to assume that the aeroscreen would not work, yet your whole argument is based around the idea that they would just put a useless piece of plastic on the car for some reason.

This makes me wonder; Why do they put it on the car if it does nothing? Seems rather pointless to me and a reason to not place the screen on the car, considering it was designed without one. And considering how it would be pointless; it's very plausible that the screen actually does something.

[Manoah2u]

as much as that is true, there are additional concerns; the shards of the windscreen could potentially be hazardous for driver's health when desintegrating like the FIA screen shows and could, not necceserialy will, inflict harm. As such, the result of a windscreen that doesn't stay intact is unacceptable.

So, just to be clear; Indycar shouldn't run a device protecting the drivers heads because they might get cuts(something of which you aren't even certain)?

there is proof the windscreen shatters into pieces. those pieces could cut drivers. you seriously don't think we're talking papercuts here right? shards that could potentially hit an artery.

Looking at it that way, I don't know how you can then be pro-halo. Titanium too can disintegrate, probably easier than the polycarbonate screen. The sole difference is where the screen would shatter in small shards(assuming it does in any motorsport application), the halo would be larger pieces, which then has much more chance to inflict harm. I sincerely doubt if a small polycarbonate shard could do more damage than a piece of a 10kg steel beam.

look at the fia halo test evidence and be proven wrong and answered in fullest.

Added to that, if it doesn't stay intact, chances are bigger that it neither will deflect enough and thus still harm the driver's head.

Yes, something that is shattered doesn't deflect things as well. Just like a bent halo would, for example.

and evidence provided shows the halo does not bend.

the halo 100% deflects a wheel impact (or other potentially dangerous debris) and as such is the better choise

And why exactly wouldn't a polycarbonate screen?

proof shows it doesnt. LOOK AT THE VIDEO.

Above all, to me, it looks rather like a big windscreen and nothing at all that is able in the slightest to protect.

Dude, it's polycarbonate, not cardboard(or something)

look at the video, it DISINTEGRATES.

Windscreens of this size are nothing new and have been run many times in the past.

Where, exactly?

F1, indy. 80's. 90s.

all we have now is some visual presentation, but a complete and total lack of proof of testing, and as such, it is doubtfull it has any real significance.

I'd consider a fighter jet withstanding objects at ~500kph quite a good indication of it's strength. The application here would be at much lower speeds.

it is not at all even at the slightest the same

This isn't a 5 by 5 meter panel we are talking about, it is much smaller than that, and connected at many points to the chassis. It's not like they cut the top off of the canopy of a fighter jet.

and it obviously fails, as provided in the videos by the FIA.

if we compare the fia's halo to this, in a situation where the car ends up on it's side with the cockpit top hitting the wall - not at all uncommon in indy - then this windscreen will provide 0% protection or deflection from such an impact.

Please explain, because I'm not sure how this wouldn't but a halo would, as they cover a very similar area.

Look at the actual evidence.

it will guaranteed shatter

This is some baseless BS.

it is clearly proven in the video.

rest

check out the videos and read why the FIA opted for the HALO over anything else.

All the above have been mentioned by the FIA in their decision on taking the HALO over the rest.

[sandrosm]

check out the EFFING videos and read WHY the FIA opted for the HALO over anything else.
god d**,.

ALL the above have been mentioned by the FIA in their decision on taking the HALO over the rest.
ALL!!!!

First of, calm down with the caps lock and "effing" curse words. We are trying to have a healthy discussion here, not a word war.

The videos show it working. It deflected the wheel, although it shattered. That's the point of it. It absorbed part of the impact. It wouldn't have hit the driver. Simple.

Edit:
Another video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quOc-eNYH6g

[wesley123]

are you ok? a car that completely disintegrates does NOT protect the driver or passengers and will hit the driver and thus injure them.

Ehhm, yes it does. The disintegration absorbs energy of the impact.

the video provided in the link shows that it fails HUMONGEOUSLY and the steel bar passes through the windscreen and would MURDER the driver.

This is funny, because an object could just pass through the halo.

a screen that shatters does not actually absorb the energy - it can't handle it and thus it shatters.

This is incorrect. The screen shatters because it absorbs the energy, but the energy applied to it is larger than what the screen can take. And because the screen absorbed the energy, the energy of the object colliding with it has significantly been lowered, and thus will apply much less energy to the object that sits behind the screen.

If what you said were true, the screen would have shattered at the slightest touch, because it wouldn't be able to take any force at all. And considering how they got the screen on the car, we can safely assume that this isn't true.

Sorry, but this is basic physics.

can you read? the car completely disintigrates, there is no talk about crumple - the example was about completely desintigrating - just like the half canopy shown in the FIA video. it thus FAILS.

Oh damn, we arrived at the nitpicking part of the argument already

and in the halo vs aeroscreen discussion topics, exactly that has been discussed that fighter jets and f1 drivers have a different focus point and thus are not comparable.

I'm not sure how this different focus point would make it impossible to apply a correction? This different focus point does not change the physical properties of the material.

But this makes me interested; How exactly can LMP cars, motorcycles and various road cars do it, but not a single seater?

you seriously think Ferrari and RedBull, and FIA for that matter, come up with half-assed jobs? hell no. is there room for improvement? sure.

This is funny, because your whole argument thus far has been based around the screen not protecting anything. So either you do think that they would come up with half-assed jobs, or your argument is seriously flawed.
Or both, of course.

only indy comes up with an 'alternative' that has been proven to FAIL.

No it hasn't.

it's that simple. it is up for indy to prove that it meets the demands, and then to show what exactly those demands are because those demands can differ from F1.

But they wouldn't have to, because we already know it doesn't work, right? So which is it.

the simplest evidence is already there; the indyscreen will NOT protect a driver from a wheel entering the cockpit;

Okay, but it the simplest evidence also shows that it can withstand a birdstrike at ~500kph.

let that be from the side or top atleast - protection is insufficient. the helmet will be half exposed and thus can be hit. the halo provides 100% protection.

This is completely false. The front part of the screen will cover the whole driver. The parts on the side cover almost all of the area.

as for frontal impacts; again - the indyscreen MIGHT provide sufficient protection. but we have not seen evidence that it DOES. we DO HAVE EVIDENCE that it fails.

This video shows the screen deflecting the wheel. That doesn't really look like a fail to me.

[Manoah2u]

check out the EFFING videos and read WHY the FIA opted for the HALO over anything else.
god d**,.

ALL the above have been mentioned by the FIA in their decision on taking the HALO over the rest.
ALL!!!!

First of, calm down with the caps lock and "effing" curse words. We are trying to have a healthy discussion here, not a word war.

The videos show it working. It deflected the wheel, although it shattered. That's the point of it. It absorbed part of the impact. It wouldn't have hit the driver. Simple.

Edit:
Another video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quOc-eNYH6g

you're showing the aeroscreen. this is NOT what indy has. indy does NOT have the rigid structural beam.

look at this



the windscreen shatters. it slightly deflects a wheel that has not got a 800+ kgs car attached to it. it fails,
and disintigrates with several shards entering the cockpit, which could potentially harm the driver.
even if it's not the same weight and energy as the object that harmed massa, a sharp polymer could cut through the driver's overall and cause artery damage.

[wesley123]

there is proof the windscreen shatters into pieces. those pieces could cut drivers. you seriously don't think we're talking papercuts here right? shards that could potentially hit an artery.

You really make up the most interesting situations to defend your argument, don't you?

Looking at it that way, I don't know how you can then be pro-halo. Titanium too can disintegrate, probably easier than the polycarbonate screen. The sole difference is where the screen would shatter in small shards(assuming it does in any motorsport application), the halo would be larger pieces, which then has much more chance to inflict harm. I sincerely doubt if a small polycarbonate shard could do more damage than a piece of a 10kg steel beam.

look at the fia halo test evidence and be proven wrong and answered in fullest.

Yes, I did. I'll describe what happens;
First is the halo example. We see how the wheel impacts against the halo, this halo bends quite closely to the drivers head. The wheel spends quite a lot of time in front of the driver.

It then shows the aero screen. We see how the wheel is deflected; This is important, because you would want the object to move away from the driver. It literally does the thing it was designed to do. What more could it ever have to do? Cure cancer or something?

and evidence provided shows the halo does not bend.

False.

look at the friggin video, it DISINTEGRATES.

Yes, so? That's literally the 'friggin' point.

F1, indy. 80's. 90s.jesus.

I'm fairly certain those screens weren't polycarbonate. Also, these screens never really covered the driver from the front.

all we have now is some visual presentation, but a complete and total lack of proof of testing, and as such, it is doubtfull it has any real significance.

I'd consider a fighter jet withstanding objects at ~500kph quite a good indication of it's strength. The application here would be at much lower speeds.

it is not at all even at the slightest the same

That was the point; in motorsport applications there will be much less force applied to the screen.

I cut out the rest of the "watch the video and agree with me!!!" stuff. It's all cool that you disagree about it, but you are literally bending the laws of physics to suit your opinion.

[Manoah2u]

there is proof the windscreen shatters into pieces. those pieces could cut drivers. you seriously don't think we're talking papercuts here right? shards that could potentially hit an artery.

You really make up the most interesting situations to defend your argument, don't you?

Looking at it that way, I don't know how you can then be pro-halo. Titanium too can disintegrate, probably easier than the polycarbonate screen. The sole difference is where the screen would shatter in small shards(assuming it does in any motorsport application), the halo would be larger pieces, which then has much more chance to inflict harm. I sincerely doubt if a small polycarbonate shard could do more damage than a piece of a 10kg steel beam.

look at the fia halo test evidence and be proven wrong and answered in fullest.

Yes, I did. I'll describe what happens;
First is the halo example. We see how the wheel impacts against the halo, this halo bends quite closely to the drivers head. The wheel spends quite a lot of time in front of the driver.

It then shows the aero screen. We see how the wheel is deflected; This is important, because you would want the object to move away from the driver. It literally does the thing it was designed to do. What more could it ever have to do? Cure cancer or something?

and evidence provided shows the halo does not bend.

False.
https://youtu.be/6XG0GjJLboQ?t=12s

look at the friggin video, it DISINTEGRATES.

Yes, so? That's literally the 'friggin' point.

F1, indy. 80's. 90s.jesus.

I'm fairly certain those screens weren't polycarbonate. Also, these screens never really covered the driver from the front.

I'd consider a fighter jet withstanding objects at ~500kph quite a good indication of it's strength. The application here would be at much lower speeds.

it is not at all even at the slightest the same

That was the point; in motorsport applications there will be much less force applied to the screen.

I cut out the rest of the "watch the video and agree with me!!!" stuff. It's all cool that you disagree about it, but you are literally bending the laws of physics to suit your opinion.

if you don't want to accept that the FIA already debunked all those 'arguments' you come up with, that's your problem.

you should perhaps place a mirror in front of you. you're the one who demands to agree with your views whilst the clear evidence supports that you're wrong in the fullest. as literally provided in the video aswell as countless FIA statements about why they opted for the HALO and why they put the aeroscreen and other solutions on the shelf.

you should really start taking the effort of looking into exactly that.

and again, sharp shards have actually been mentioned by the FIA. but hey, live in your bubble.