IndyCar Series

[Andres125sx]

The clue is that the fighter canopy is a canopy and not a screen. A canopy is inherently more robust because it doesn't have a huge hole cut in the top of it. We've been through this already.

What´s the reason to not implement a solid arc made of steel or carbon fiber at the top so the screen goes into a closed frame? Imagine current halo without the front leg, and a screen going from the top arc of the halo down to the cockpit

The front leg does two things - it stops stuff coming in from the front, and it supports the front of the hoop.

The hoop will be relying on the screen to help transfer vertical loads down on to the chassis in your idea. This might be possible but I don't know the characteristics of the screen material. Without the support from the front leg / screen, the rear mounting points of the hoop will have to resist some very large moments from any vertical load at the front of the hoop. These loads will have to transferred in to the chassis tub. That may, or may not, be feasible. It may be easy or it might require lots of additional material in this area. Any laterally applied loads at the front of the hoop are also resisted by the front leg. These loads apply a shear force in to the front leg's mounting to the chassis. The screen would have to take these lateral loads which may not be a problem depending on the material characteristics. If the screen can't resist these loads, the hoop's rear mounts will be subjected to higher shearing forces as the hoop's length makes it a long lever.

I´m sure it will resist it. Polycarbonate is very resistant and can handle serious loads. A screen without the upper frame will tend to bend backwards, the pivot point will be the support with the cockpit and the upper part will bend downwards/backward.

Halo without the front leg will tend to bend downward, the pivot point will be the rear supports.

Once you joing both, both movements will be right to each other, so neither of them will be possible, each part will reinforce the other, the frame will stop the screen from bending backwards, and the screen will stop the upper frame from bending downwards, making a solid piece extremelly resistant me thinks

I'm sure these issues could be solved, however it may be that doing so is not worth the effort. The cost/benefit balance isn't great if the only benefit is "aesthetics".

That´s a different debate I can even agree with

[Just_a_fan]

I´m sure it will resist it. Polycarbonate is very resistant and can handle serious loads. A screen without the upper frame will tend to bend backwards, the pivot point will be the support with the cockpit and the upper part will bend downwards/backward.

Halo without the front leg will tend to bend downward, the pivot point will be the rear supports.

Once you joing both, both movements will be right to each other, so neither of them will be possible, each part will reinforce the other, the frame will stop the screen from bending backwards, and the screen will stop the upper frame from bending downwards, making a solid piece extremelly resistant me thinks

The next question is "how do you join the hoop and the screen?". The connection will need to resist bending moments if it is to help support the hoop. Any connection must not impinge too greatly on the eye line of the driver, and it must also not cause deformation of the top edge of the screen. The obvious solution would be a channel running along the bottom of the hoop but that will make the hoop very deep and so reduce the driver's eyeline. It will also look very bulky.

It's an interesting exercise to figure out how one might build such a device.

[FW17]

You are aware of this one right?

[jjn9128]

You are aware of this one right?

https://cdn-4.motorsport.com/images/amp ... screen.jpg

The only problem was that that design impinged on the free air volume around the driver - so where people incorrectly claimed Hartley hit his head on the halo in Canada (he definitely didn't) he certainly would with that version of the aeroscreen. I think Indaycar have backed themselves into a corner by flat out rejecting the halo, it also discounts any sort of braced screen which blocks the same portion of vision.

[FW17]

You are aware of this one right?

https://cdn-4.motorsport.com/images/amp ... screen.jpg

The only problem was that that design impinged on the free air volume around the driver - so where people incorrectly claimed Hartley hit his head on the halo in Canada (he definitely didn't) he certainly would with that version of the aeroscreen. I think Indaycar have backed themselves into a corner by flat out rejecting the halo, it also discounts any sort of braced screen which blocks the same portion of vision.

I did not want to discuss the shortcomings (allegedly) of the aeroscreen, just wanted to show how screen and frame are joined together

Indycar are not taking the lack of vision stance anymore (or maybe as their primary stance), they have admitted what most people knew already. Halo will require a new monocoque.

They have left it quiet open as to interpretation as to if they would use a halo in future design.

[FW17]

While FIA admitted that they are looking to stop a wheeel with their halo, Indycar still has not defined their purpose of their devise

[Just_a_fan]

You are aware of this one right?

https://cdn-4.motorsport.com/images/amp ... screen.jpg

Would that be the one that didn't work?

[roon]

You are aware of this one right?

https://cdn-4.motorsport.com/images/amp ... screen.jpg

The only problem was that that design impinged on the free air volume around the driver - so where people incorrectly claimed Hartley hit his head on the halo in Canada (he definitely didn't) he certainly would with that version of the aeroscreen.

The hoop of the aeroscreen extends to the outer edges of the side headrests just as the halo does. Helmet should hit the headrest foam first in either scenario.

You are aware of this one right?

https://cdn-4.motorsport.com/images/amp ... screen.jpg

Would that be the one that didn't work?

What aspect(s) failed?

[Andres125sx]

You are aware of this one right?

https://cdn-4.motorsport.com/images/amp ... screen.jpg

Would that be the one that didn't work?

That´s an F1, not an Indy. This project (aeroscreen on F1) was paralized because FIA went the halo route, not because of any fail

Christian Horner said: "At the moment we have suspended all our work on the Aeroscreen because we are awaiting a direction officially from the FIA."

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/red- ... 08/790408/

[Just_a_fan]

What aspect(s) failed?

When tested, the flying wheel/tyre combination left witness marks on the top of the "head" behind the screen. There is also the issue that there is less room between helmet and screen than with the halo.

[jjn9128]

The hoop of the aeroscreen extends to the outer edges of the side headrests just as the halo does. Helmet should hit the headrest foam first in either scenario.

Not so. The halo hoop sits much further away at 45° to the driver's head, also it sits wider than the cockpit padding, which the screen did not, and further away (slightly) straight ahead. A screen with the hoop radius of the halo would not fit on the cockpit of an F1 car.



From Autosport at the time...

One of the issues that has come to light concerns the free air volume around a driver's helmet in relation to the rim of the aeroscreen.

It was discovered should a car fitted with an aeroscreen be involved in any kind of impact or accident, the helmet would collide with the rim, with the g-forces involved significantly higher.

[roon]

The hoop of the aeroscreen extends to the outer edges of the side headrests just as the halo does. Helmet should hit the headrest foam first in either scenario.

Not so. The halo hoop sits much further away at 45° to the driver's head, also it sits wider than the cockpit padding, which the screen did not, and further away (slightly) straight ahead. A screen with the hoop radius of the halo would not fit on the cockpit of an F1 car.

https://cdn.motor1.com/images/mgl/WeABr ... screen.jpg

From Autosport at the time...

One of the issues that has come to light concerns the free air volume around a driver's helmet in relation to the rim of the aeroscreen.

It was discovered should a car fitted with an aeroscreen be involved in any kind of impact or accident, the helmet would collide with the rim, with the g-forces involved significantly higher.

I think the article is incorrect. Some comparison images I made:



Using the standard cockpit entry as a reference, the images are scaled reasonably closely. Notice the reduced height of the aeroscreen relative to the top of the side headrests, which are a standard height.

Some parallax issues in the following image, but it's also pretty close.



They both reside in approximately the same area. Maximum interior width wider than the cockpit entry, hoop bend approximately above the steering wheel. For both structures, the first point of impact for the helmet during jostle should be the headrest foam. If there were tire brushing incidents it may be due to the aeroscreen being lower in height than the halo.

Edit: revised images.

[FW17]

All those issues of tyre brushing the helmet or helmet impacting the framing could be solved by increasing the dimensions of the aerosceen

This probably was made after Adrian had a look at it and made it as elegant as possible

FIA did not want to use this as it was not as strong as the halo (though it would have passed the tyre test) and the issues with the keeping the screen clean and visibility during a wet session. Those were issues they did not have time to sort as they had already delayed introduction of cockpit protection system by many years.

[jjn9128]

I think the article is incorrect. Some comparison images I made:

https://i.imgur.com/aHCxw1C.jpg

Using the standard cockpit entry as a reference, the images are scaled reasonably closely. Notice the reduced height of the aeroscreen relative to the top of the side headrests, which are a standard height.

Some parallax issues in the following image, but it's also pretty close.

https://i.imgur.com/hFZimUO.jpg

They both reside in approximately the same area. Maximum interior width wider than the cockpit entry, hoop bend approximately above the steering wheel. For both structures, the first point of impact for the helmet during jostle should be the headrest foam. If there were tire brushing incidents it may be due to the aeroscreen being lower in height than the halo.

Edit: revised images.

Aside the obvious and hilarious angle differences and arbitrary lines -- which if anything only show what I already said which is that the forward dimension was slightly shorter on the aeroscreen. But you're also comparing to a halo with a 20mm non-structural fairing around it. You can see the halo fairings all have 2 cutouts on the underside where they impinge on the driver free air volume.

[roon]

I think the article is incorrect. Some comparison images I made:

https://i.imgur.com/aHCxw1C.jpg

Using the standard cockpit entry as a reference, the images are scaled reasonably closely. Notice the reduced height of the aeroscreen relative to the top of the side headrests, which are a standard height.

Some parallax issues in the following image, but it's also pretty close.

https://i.imgur.com/hFZimUO.jpg

They both reside in approximately the same area. Maximum interior width wider than the cockpit entry, hoop bend approximately above the steering wheel. For both structures, the first point of impact for the helmet during jostle should be the headrest foam. If there were tire brushing incidents it may be due to the aeroscreen being lower in height than the halo.

Edit: revised images.

Aside the obvious and hilarious angle differences and arbitrary lines -- which if anything only show what I already said which is that the forward dimension was slightly shorter on the aeroscreen. But you're also comparing to a halo with a 20mm non-structural fairing around it. You can see the halo fairings all have 2 cutouts on the underside where they impinge on the driver free air volume.

https://ad5nqw.by.files.1drv.com/y4ms8k ... pmode=none

http://www.apexoff.com/wp-content/uploa ... 52x440.png

Angle differences do not necessarily hinder analysis when comparing certain linear dimensions. In the first image, the length of the standard cockpit opening can be reasonably compared because the camera perspectives are roughly perpendicular to vehicle centerline. The second photo, despite some squashing of the RB longitudinal dimensions due to parallax, still provides good illustration of proportions in regards to the helmet and the volumes around it.

These images show how close the systems are in size, and how the helmet is located within the headrest and cockpit opening generally, meaning "A screen with the hoop radius of the halo would not fit on the cockpit of an F1 car" and "[Hartley] certainly would [have hit his head] with that version of the aeroscreen" are not accurate statements. These were the statements I've intended to reply to.