Ahead of the Hungarian Grand Prix in Budapest the FIA' s F1 Director, Charlie Whiting & Safety Director, Laurent Mekies detailed the extensive R&D and the resulting data that has lead to the selection of Halo as the preferred additional frontal cockpit protection system for introduction in the 2018 F1 season.
Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
The 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.
The Indycar screen does - it is made by Red Bull Technologies so you assume any F1 version would have converged on that design.
#aerogandalf "There is one big friend. It is downforce. And once you have this it’s a big mate and it’s helping a lot." Robert Kubica
The 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.
The Indycar screen does - it is made by Red Bull Technologies so you assume any F1 version would have converged on that design.
I guess its important to distinguish between what was trialed and what was actually implemented on track. Here is the 2019 post by Red Bull Advanced Technologies; https://www.redbulladvancedtechnologies ... r-indycar/
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.
The Indycar screen does - it is made by Red Bull Technologies so you assume any F1 version would have converged on that design.
I guess its important to distinguish between what was trialed and what was actually implemented on track. Here is the 2019 post by Red Bull Advanced Technologies; https://www.redbulladvancedtechnologies ... r-indycar/
Agreed. The one being raced in the US is NOT the same as was trialled in F1.
Favourite driver: Lando Norris
Favourite team: McLaren
Turned down the chance to meet Vettel at Silverstone in 2007. He was a test driver at the time and I didn't think it was worth queuing!! 🤦🏻♂️
I posted this in the race thread...but should have done so here:
"I hope the FIA is keeping a close tab on these incidents and analyzing the "what-ifs"...and not simply drinking their pro or con HALO Kool-Aid. Gros was saved by his HALO today...Jules would likely be alive. However, had Stroll's car caught fire today...or Hulk's a bit back, I believe outcomes would have been different...as both were in their cars a good bit more than 20 seconds (albeit Lance was not as incentivized as was Gros...Hulk did fear he was on fire and could not get out).
FIA needs to constantly be evaluating these incidents and analyzing different scenarios to perfect these driver protections. Today, I am grateful Gros is still with us and thank God we had the HALO."
If Strolls car had caught fire he would have got out just like he actually did during the race.
I posted this in the race thread...but should have done so here:
"I hope the FIA is keeping a close tab on these incidents and analyzing the "what-ifs"...and not simply drinking their pro or con HALO Kool-Aid. Gros was saved by his HALO today...Jules would likely be alive. However, had Stroll's car caught fire today...or Hulk's a bit back, I believe outcomes would have been different...as both were in their cars a good bit more than 20 seconds (albeit Lance was not as incentivized as was Gros...Hulk did fear he was on fire and could not get out).
FIA needs to constantly be evaluating these incidents and analyzing different scenarios to perfect these driver protections. Today, I am grateful Gros is still with us and thank God we had the HALO."
If Strolls car had caught fire he would have got out just like he actually did during the race.
Exactly. Stroll's car being on fire wouldn't have changed the outcome - he'd have wriggled out in exactly the same way he did on Sunday.
Hulkenberg's roll against the barriers would have been the one that caused the problems. He couldn't get out. But then he's not the first drive to be trapped in a car and needing it to be upended before getting out - focusing on the halo as being an issue isn't fair. The halo has so far saved more than it's lost.
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.
I posted this in the race thread...but should have done so here:
"I hope the FIA is keeping a close tab on these incidents and analyzing the "what-ifs"...and not simply drinking their pro or con HALO Kool-Aid. Gros was saved by his HALO today...Jules would likely be alive. However, had Stroll's car caught fire today...or Hulk's a bit back, I believe outcomes would have been different...as both were in their cars a good bit more than 20 seconds (albeit Lance was not as incentivized as was Gros...Hulk did fear he was on fire and could not get out).
FIA needs to constantly be evaluating these incidents and analyzing different scenarios to perfect these driver protections. Today, I am grateful Gros is still with us and thank God we had the HALO."
If Strolls car had caught fire he would have got out just like he actually did during the race.
Exactly. Stroll's car being on fire wouldn't have changed the outcome - he'd have wriggled out in exactly the same way he did on Sunday.
Hulkenberg's roll against the barriers would have been the one that caused the problems. He couldn't get out. But then he's not the first drive to be trapped in a car and needing it to be upended before getting out - focusing on the halo as being an issue isn't fair. The halo has so far saved more than it's lost.
True but as you say the halo made 0% difference as he would have been trapped either way.
Having a windscreen around the halo could prove to be problematic in a few cases, like the case of grosjean.
It could obstruct escaping possibilities. I believe, but can be mistaken, that you can't exit the halo sideways with a helmet on. so perhaps there is a need for more space there, who knows.
one thing is certain, having a windscreen around would definately make it impossible to escape sideways.
even if we'd limit escaping only by the top opening, then having a windscreen around in normal circumstances wouldn't hamper too much, but it's the freak accidents we would need to worry about. For example: is it possible, that in grosjean's case, the windscreen's material could have been damaged in such fashion that it could actually enter the cockpit, and not only potentially cut/hurt the driver, but also prevent the driver from escaping?
after all, the material should become strong enough to withstand debris (like the visor does), and thus, one needs to wonder: if it FOLDS into the cockpit in an accident, could the rigidity of the material prevent the driver from moving it aside to escape?
right now, we don't need to worry about these things. perhaps a solution could be a fifth height of a windscreen. like having a little 'screen' that simply deflects material from the visor area of the driver.
the simplest solution would be: leave it as it is.
as for Hulk: yes, the car needed to be flipped so he could escape. PERHAPS if the halo was higher at the front/side area, so that the driver could escape sideways an not through the top (if the driver would be bendy enough that is) this could be looked upon, but then the issue remains: if he was physically injured in such way to prevent him escaping on his own merit, then it would make little difference anyway.
fire indeed is a wholly different story.
apart from that: it's proven to work, why change this clearly successfull design?
i'm also pretty confident that the fire incident is going to get investigated.
here's a question, as i'm not sure on the matter.
Is DIESEL able to burn without being under pressure? i know about fumes being risky, but if diesel needs pressure to be able to be ignited/burn,
then wouldn't a simple solution be using DIESEL as fuel?
since F1 is intending to develop stepping over to fully sythetic fuels in the future, is it possible to make a synthetic (diesel?) fuel, which cannot burn as a fire
the way gasoline does?
"Explain the ending to F1 in football terms"
"Hamilton was beating Verstappen 7-0, then the ref decided F%$& rules, next goal wins
while also sending off 4 Hamilton players to make it more interesting"
One scenario that occurs to me with a screen is that an extinguisher could not be directed directly into the cockpit if needed.
There is also the possibility that flame in there may be concentrated or funnelled around the driver, not only burning him but also disorienting him as he may not be able to see the position of the can and know where to head on exit.
It is one of those things that we will never know for sure until something happens.
I will say I was anti Halo, but that boat has well and truly sailed now.
When arguing with a fool, be sure the other person is not doing the same thing.
One scenario that occurs to me with a screen is that an extinguisher could not be directed directly into the cockpit if needed.
There is also the possibility that flame in there may be concentrated or funnelled around the driver, not only burning him but also disorienting him as he may not be able to see the position of the can and know where to head on exit.
It is one of those things that we will never know for sure until something happens.
I will say I was anti Halo, but that boat has well and truly sailed now.
good point regarding the fire too.
yes, i must say, the Halo's implementation has proven itself permanently now.
I think it's been proven as much as the head protection has proven itself after it's implementation in 1996 in the accident where Jos Verstappen crashed his Arrows/Footwork. Several investigations have mentioned that had the cars been open like the accident where Senna lost his life, Jos would have perished too.
"Explain the ending to F1 in football terms"
"Hamilton was beating Verstappen 7-0, then the ref decided F%$& rules, next goal wins
while also sending off 4 Hamilton players to make it more interesting"
Is DIESEL able to burn without being under pressure?
Diesel is basically kerosene.
In a pinch you can run kerosene in your diesel car.
Kerosene is also called #1 diesel fuel oil, whereas regular diesel is designated as #2 diesel fuel oil. Some people consider it similar enough that they may try to use it interchangeably with regular (#2) diesel fuel.
Kerosene doesn’t contain very high levels of aromatic compounds; they typically get concentrated in the #2 and heavier diesel fuel oils. This is part of the reason kerosene burns drier, with less lubricity, than #2 diesel.
The most common concern cited is the dry burn of kerosene that may damage fuel pumps. Kerosene has very little lubricity compared to #2 diesel. Without the lubricity, fuel pumps experience a lot of wear and may burn out when running on kerosene. Some people will cite additional parts that will wear, like rings and gaskets and valves. The easy fix for this is to add some automatic transmission fluid to the kerosene. 2-cycle oil also works in this situation.
To achieve anything, you must be prepared to dabble on the boundary of disaster.”
Sir Stirling Moss
One scenario that occurs to me with a screen is that an extinguisher could not be directed directly into the cockpit if needed.
There is also the possibility that flame in there may be concentrated or funnelled around the driver, not only burning him but also disorienting him as he may not be able to see the position of the can and know where to head on exit.
It is one of those things that we will never know for sure until something happens.
I will say I was anti Halo, but that boat has well and truly sailed now.
Take a look at some of the incidents that have occurred in IndyCar. Multiple reports of the screen protecting from fire, debris and general cockpit intrusion. This incident in particular was a side hit with the barrier that did not compromise the poly screen (nor embed the cockpit into the barrier);
After shot of the car;
Red Bull and IndyCar should perform an analysis on what might have occurred in the Grosjean case. If the Halo hooked the armco and caused the car to split that may be something to look at.
I know I'm going to sound like an IndyCar fanboy now, I didn't even watch a race this year, but they do have an incredible safety program. Their safety crews are second to none. Something that I'm surprised F1 isn't more in line with instead of waiting for marshalls to respond vs several highly trained safety crews located around the track who are on scene sometimes before the car stops (an exaggeration but not far from the truth). Imagine the fate of Grosjean if the medical car wasn't following the pack around on the first lap. I'm not too impressed with Masi, he seemed to dismiss the accident as ... wow, that sure was a lot of energy to make that happen, not much you can do about that.
I 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.
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.
The reason is the same as in ovals, soft materials wich reduce deceleration on crashes like tires, techpro barriers, etc. also trap the car, causing a sharp spin (high G loads) when the car could just bounce on the barrier and continue its path.
There must probably be an angle limit they use to install soft protections or not, something like, if the crashed car will hit the barrier with an angle lower than 30º it´s safer to not install soft protections as they would only increase G load when the car is trapped, if it can hit the barrier with a higher angle than 30º then soft protections are mandatory to reduce G load
To me main problem in this crash was the nose of the car got stuck into the barrier when the angle was quite low, so those barriers should have deflected the car to the track. Instead of that, the nose entered the tiny gap between barriers, getting trapped and causing a violent deceleration, wich caused the car fracture, wich caused the fuel to be spread around, wich caused the fire.
This still feels like a knee-jerk reaction to Bianchi's death. The sport is dangerous, the drivers know that and I'm pretty sure they accept it every time they get in the car otherwise they would be sitting at home watching on TV like the rest of us.
9 out of 10 teams said no to it, and they pushed it through anyway? Good work FIA
Aha! First one!
I'm picking out the naysayers in the thread.
I hope i wasnt one of them though...
This still feels like a knee-jerk reaction to Bianchi's death. The sport is dangerous, the drivers know that and I'm pretty sure they accept it every time they get in the car otherwise they would be sitting at home watching on TV like the rest of us.
9 out of 10 teams said no to it, and they pushed it through anyway? Good work FIA
Aha! First one!
I'm picking out the naysayers in the thread.
I hope i wasnt one of them though...
