Frye said that IndyCar had been consulting with the armed forces about materials used in military applications such as the canopies of Lockheed Martin F-16 fighter jets,
More significant is Lowe's assertion that the intention of the Halo is to deflect chunks of debris rather than the wayward spring that struck Felipe Massa such a potentially devastating blow.
The Halo system’s ability to guard against large impactors adequately addresses the incidents that claimed the lives of Henry Surtees and Justin Wilson. However, it doesn’t address the small-object events such as Massa’s being struck by Barrichello’s spring. Light debris such as bits of klag or carbon can be safely deflected by the driver’s helmet, but larger, more massive objects such as a spring, a wheel nut, or a suspension member carry energies capable of overwhelming even modern helmet systems.
The Halo would have been minimally effective at preventing the spring that struck Massa from intruding on the cockpit. This is an area where the Shield system is substantially more effective.
Are there pros and cons to both systems?
Yes
Do you need to be insulting?
No
I still say the original idea was not for the HALO to fend off a flying car but a knee jerk reaction to Massa's incident.
While called a roll hoop, which it does quite well, the hoops purpose is to also fend off objects from above. Which it also has done quite well for ages. Can anything protect from every unexpected event? Certainly not.... not even the HALO.
Strength properties of the shield:
To achieve anything, you must be prepared to dabble on the boundary of disaster.”
Sir Stirling Moss
