Well it 100% did, the last time a driver went through a barrier like that he was decapitated.thestig84 wrote: ↑30 Nov 2020, 00:30You simply cannot say it 100% saved his life. I am very thankful for it being fitted today but we won't continue to learn by guessing it 100% saved him. What if barrier actually got caught on halo leading central pillar and actually pulled him in!? I am not saying this happened but we need to still investigate in case there is along those lines to learn and improve.astracrazy wrote: ↑29 Nov 2020, 23:48It saved his life today 100%. It has already saved potential major injury too in Spa 2018 when Alonso's car hit the halo and not Leclerc's head.
Nico's crash - he even admitted himself he wasn't sure if the Halo was even in his way (https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/ ... prix-crash) and the car did catch fire with that one. All be in no where near today.
Stroll crash today - non issue, he was able to escape easily. Easiest of the three.
Grosjean by far had the hardest escape of all three in the worst circumstances and was able to do so.
Could it be made easier? I have always been surprised they haven't looked into the sides being able to release if needed.
Personally though I think the focus of investigation from todays will be the barriers. That should not happen in 2020.
Here's what I wrote about that in the other halo thread:
Perhaps the mods should merge the two currently running halo threads?Would the impact with the aeroscreen shown in the thread, with the vertical supports midway back along the screen and no front support, have deflected the armco barrier? Or would the barrier have broken the plastic and then lodged under the hoop and so made the space available to exit much smaller? Would broken pieces of the plastic have become lethal "knives" that would be flying towards the driver or even just bent around by the armco and so presenting "teeth" to the driver as he was trying to evacuate from the tub?
These are the sorts of questions that would need to be answered to know whether the aeroscreen would have been as good as the halo.
The aeroscreen requires a halo-type device to provide the real strength to the device, so that tells us that the screen part is not as strong as the halo is on its own.
The key issue with the aeroscreen is: does it present an increasing risk of driver injury in the even of an impact leading to structural failure of the plastic in the screen? Sure, it's "bulletproof" plastic, but we are talking about loads orders of magnitude higher than any bulletproof plastic will be designed to handle.
Then there is the other question: is the issue that the barriers aren't good enough? It appears that armco type barriers are not suitable unless faced with something else to prevent penetration by the tub. A triple layer of tyres with conveyor belt fronting would probably have been enough to prevent the penetration and the impact forces that caused the car to fail. A cheap thing to add to any such barrier. Would that have resulted in a driver loading that exceeded the 54g received by Grosjean? Perhaps. But it would have been without the fire.
You absolutely can say it saved his life. 100%. You can see the witness mark on the upper armco where the front of the halo pushed the top rail upwards and over the driver's head. The centre rail has just been punched through by the front of the tub. The front face of the roll hoop didn't go through the barrier - the T-camera is still in place on top of the roll hoop so there wasn't penetration further than the front face of the roll hoop before the pendulum masses at the rear of the car rotated the tub and it quarter rolled around and below the top rail of the armco.thestig84 wrote: ↑30 Nov 2020, 00:30You simply cannot say it 100% saved his life. I am very thankful for it being fitted today but we won't continue to learn by guessing it 100% saved him. What if barrier actually got caught on halo leading central pillar and actually pulled him in!? I am not saying this happened but we need to still investigate in case there is along those lines to learn and improve.
Why not, the aeroscreen can take loads greater than the halo?
The fire was outside of the canopy, so if he were 'enclosed' in the cockpit it would give rescue workers additional time to get to him and put the fire out before the tub is compromised and maybe the fire would not have reached his hands and helmet so quickly.
Yes, I was under the impression that IndyCar buy the halo from the same supplier that F1/fia does and then add the plastic around it. The only difference being that the F1 tubs are mandated to go thru higher load test because they are specifically designed for the halo whereas it is more of an add/bolt on part for the IndyCar tub which was designed over 5 years ago.jjn9128 wrote: ↑30 Nov 2020, 14:56The aeroscreen is a halo with a plastic screen. Same load rating. The reason the screen failed FIA tests was the lower side around the back where it joined the cockpit surround - driver could be hit in angled cases. This is why the indycar screen is higher at the rear.
Pretty sure it lacks the central titanium pillar of the halo though? Which is what appeared to lever the barrier out of the way instead of it hitting Grosjeans helmet.jjn9128 wrote: ↑30 Nov 2020, 14:56The aeroscreen is a halo with a plastic screen. Same load rating. The reason the screen failed FIA tests was the lower side around the back where it joined the cockpit surround - driver could be hit in angled cases. This is why the indycar screen is higher at the rear.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/motorsport ... creen/amp/Diesel wrote: ↑30 Nov 2020, 19:14Pretty sure it lacks the central titanium pillar of the halo though? Which is what appeared to lever the barrier out of the way instead of it hitting Grosjeans helmet.jjn9128 wrote: ↑30 Nov 2020, 14:56The aeroscreen is a halo with a plastic screen. Same load rating. The reason the screen failed FIA tests was the lower side around the back where it joined the cockpit surround - driver could be hit in angled cases. This is why the indycar screen is higher at the rear.
I also wondered this, I don't see any reason why there shouldn't be a tyre wall with a belt infront of all metal barriers, regardless of their location.Big Tea wrote: ↑30 Nov 2020, 12:35I thought it had been decided that all ' triple barrier type' fencing had to be faced with belt to stop ingress or wedging following the result of accidents in other series where cars dived under the barrier? There are also usually bound tyres for the same reason.
Not an expert on the rules, just seem to remember it. could it be that the barrier was in a place no one expected it to be struck? It is not the 'usual' track
I know that's a stupid statement because unexpected accidents are always in the wrong place or time.