Indy car windscreen

[FW17]

the Indy screen is designed to protect drivers from scenarios that have injured or killed 10's of drivers over the same period!

And what are those scenarios?

[djos]

the Indy screen is designed to protect drivers from scenarios that have injured or killed 10's of drivers over the same period!

And what are those scenarios?

Flying debris hitting drivers in the head is frightening common, e.g. Massa, Justin Wilson, James Hinchcliffe, Tony Kanaan (Just the ones I can recall).

The last 2 didn't result in injuries Iirc but the Indy screen is the mos likely to protect drivers imo from common accidents resulting in flying carbon fibre etc.

[jjn9128]

the Indy screen is designed to protect drivers from scenarios that have injured or killed 10's of drivers over the same period!

And what are those scenarios?

I agree, this is a problematic assumption - even though the FIA and Indycar have been sharing data, Indycar haven't actually announced any of their design load scenarios. I read in an article, which I can't find again, that Indycar have performed some initial ballistic cases but not to the extent of the halo tests (the released videos don't show every test, good scientists perform repeats - the FIA aren't mythbusters!!). Whereas if you go through the F1 rules you can see the loads the halo and chassis has to withstand, which are enormous!!! It's not just the wheel test the FIA designed for - the halo can survive the weight of a London bus sitting on top of it.

[J.A.W.]

the Indy screen is designed to protect drivers from scenarios that have injured or killed 10's of drivers over the same period!

And what are those scenarios?

I agree, this is a problematic assumption - even though the FIA and Indycar have been sharing data, Indycar haven't actually announced any of their design load scenarios. I read in an article, which I can't find again, that Indycar have performed some initial ballistic cases but not to the extent of the halo tests (the released videos don't show every test, good scientists perform repeats - the FIA aren't mythbusters!!). Whereas if you go through the F1 rules you can see the loads the halo and chassis has to withstand, which are enormous!!!
It's not just the wheel test the FIA designed for - the halo can survive the weight of a London bus sitting on
top of it.

Ok, so yes - the halo does look as if it is a capable of use - as a veritable bus-level axle-stand..
- but are you seriously suggesting the structure it is fixed to, can resist such a weight-bearing test, too?

[djos]

I agree, this is a problematic assumption - even though the FIA and Indycar have been sharing data, Indycar haven't actually announced any of their design load scenarios. I read in an article, which I can't find again, that Indycar have performed some initial ballistic cases but not to the extent of the halo tests (the released videos don't show every test, good scientists perform repeats - the FIA aren't mythbusters!!). Whereas if you go through the F1 rules you can see the loads the halo and chassis has to withstand, which are enormous!!! It's not just the wheel test the FIA designed for - the halo can survive the weight of a London bus sitting on top of it.

Halo is a political solution to a problem if I ever saw one, it's basically the Homer Car of protection systems.

[jjn9128]

Ok, so yes - the halo does look as if it is a capable of use - as a veritable bus-level axle-stand..
- but are you seriously suggesting the structure it is fixed to, can resist such a weight-bearing test, too?

Yes. The halo must fail before its chassis mounts fail. It's why the teams were complaining about the increased chassis weight.

[FW17]

Halo is a political solution to a problem if I ever saw one, it's basically the Homer Car of protection systems.

I agree it was political as the results of the Red Bull aeroscreen was as promising as the halo

But calling the INDYCAR solution better doesn't make sense.

[djos]

Halo is a political solution to a problem if I ever saw one, it's basically the Homer Car of protection systems.

I agree it was political as the results of the Red Bull aeroscreen was as promising as the halo

But calling the INDYCAR solution better doesn't make sense.

The Indy car solution protects against a far wider range of flying debris scenarios. Halo is a one trick pony that can only reliably protect against a flying wheel.

Even then you could potentially get large bits of e.g. front wing flaps come into the cockpit thru the large gap and hit the driver.

I'd be willing to bet the Indy screen can protect against wheels too.

[MrMuffins]

Hello everyone, I have been lurking the forum for a few months and decided to make myself an account.

Anyway, there is an interesting article by Motorsport which is an interview with Jeff Horton, the Indycar director of Engineering/ Safety with details about the recent test, what changes they plan to make and the next steps in the deflector screen implementation.

https://www.motorsport.com/indycar/news ... t-1003988/

[mclaren111]

1000% better than the the Halo.

Why is it that Indycar does so many things better than the FIA ??

Just look at the difference

https://imgr3.auto-motor-und-sport.de/I ... 146081.jpg

One is developed over years with crash tests and science, data from previous crashes and all those kinds of things and the other one we don’t know anything about apart from a single road test and a few pictures.

And Indy doing so many things better? It became a spec series... if F1 would go that way we could close this forum to start with.

Side Note:
A few years back both Nascar and Indycar was bigger / higher turnover than F1.
Iirc: Nascar $ 4.2 Billion,Indy: $ 3.8 Billion and F1 was $ 3.2 Billion. Can't remember the year now

The FIA conducted tests of a similar windshield system for Formula 1. However, Sebastian Vettel reported that it had made him feel dizzy and the proposal was dropped. The governing body subsequently opted to make the Halo system mandatory for all teams in 2018.

How can the FIA rely on only one driver's "subjective" view ??


Scott Dixon:

“When you look through something like that, it does change," he acknowledged. "Not the magnification, but almost like a magnification.

"Your brain and eyes just need to catch up with it. The longer I ran, I got more adapted to it.” He added that the windshield had actually helped improve his vision in the harsh late-afternoon sunlight.

To my mind the FIA was short sighted and persued the wrong solution.

[Neno]

not first time FIA made wrong decision. They just continue to kill this motosport on daily basis and put in jeopardize future of same sport. Since 2009 their mistakes are just mindblowing.

I congrats Indy for pursuing different path. You just got one fan more in me.

[Jolle]

1000% better than the the Halo.

Why is it that Indycar does so many things better than the FIA ??

Just look at the difference

https://imgr3.auto-motor-und-sport.de/I ... 146081.jpg

One is developed over years with crash tests and science, data from previous crashes and all those kinds of things and the other one we don’t know anything about apart from a single road test and a few pictures.

And Indy doing so many things better? It became a spec series... if F1 would go that way we could close this forum to start with.

Side Note:
A few years back both Nascar and Indycar was bigger / higher turnover than F1.
Iirc: Nascar $ 4.2 Billion,Indy: $ 3.8 Billion and F1 was $ 3.2 Billion. Can't remember the year now

The FIA conducted tests of a similar windshield system for Formula 1. However, Sebastian Vettel reported that it had made him feel dizzy and the proposal was dropped. The governing body subsequently opted to make the Halo system mandatory for all teams in 2018.

How can the FIA rely on only one driver's "subjective" view ??


Scott Dixon:

“When you look through something like that, it does change," he acknowledged. "Not the magnification, but almost like a magnification.

"Your brain and eyes just need to catch up with it. The longer I ran, I got more adapted to it.” He added that the windshield had actually helped improve his vision in the harsh late-afternoon sunlight.

To my mind the FIA was short sighted and persued the wrong solution.

I agree with anyone that a screen like the one used in the indy test is better looking then a halo, but... that was one test you're talking about, not the many (different) crashtests, rules about loads, integration into the chassis, etc etc. The Vettel test was more set up to fail then to test something for real. The halo is designed for more then just a wheel or bouncing spring. It can take the load of a whole car (just browse through all the forums here and you'll find some of the FIA's findings). A piece of thick curved polycarbonate can not compete against a Y-bar of titanium.

Nascar and/or Indy might accumulate more revenue or have a bigger turnover, but a spec series with a balance of performance? really? that is almost club racing... In a field full of F1 rejects or senior drivers (to put it bluntly). Of course Alonso had a good run at the Indy 500, Sato won.... a 41 y/o that never ever even came close to, lets say, his teammate Button 14 years ago. And Nascar, I read somewhere that their latest technical innovation is fuel injection? still no overhead camshafts?

Indycar and Nascar are good fun, a good show, but not an innovative technical sport.

[jjn9128]

Hello everyone, I have been lurking the forum for a few months and decided to make myself an account.

Anyway, there is an interesting article by Motorsport which is an interview with Jeff Horton, the Indycar director of Engineering/ Safety with details about the recent test, what changes they plan to make and the next steps in the deflector screen implementation.

https://www.motorsport.com/indycar/news ... t-1003988/

Welcome. It's interesting to hear the issues from the horses mouth so to speak. They obviously thought about and worked with the manufacturer to minimize distortion - which F1 apparently did not do with the aeroscreen - hence the difference in the screens RE compound vs single curvature. There will be a difference in the aerodynamic impacts of the 2 screens though.

It's also interesting to me that he seemed to give a politician type answer to the question about rain and dirt accumulation. Obviously dirt is solvable with tear offs, and I suppose stint lengths are short enough that the drivers should cope between stops, but it's not like a drivers visor, the focal distances being different. I'm also yet to be convinced that internal soiling won't be an issue with an open top. The way he answers about rain also gives the impression they've not got to that point in their testing.

They also didn't ask about the design conditions for the ballistic and crash requirements of the device.

[Zynerji]

The real question with this windscreen, is will they use amber tear-offs with polarization to help with glare?

I also could see a development here for additional safety.

Imagine a set of paints that the screen is "tuned" to polarize, and hi-light. You could have the lines on the track painted in these colors, marshal flags, as well as having prescribed areas on the car (corners), so judging closeness and alerting the driver visually that they are on a converging line. It would be just like a passive HUD.

[J.A.W.]

Auto-tint, light-reactive lenses - have been available for eye-glasses - for decades,
& Boeing have used 'smart glass' tinting in their new airliner passenger windows - so no more slide down shades.

Any reason why this tech - ought not be incorporated into an aero-screen, for open-wheeler racing?