HALO Approved for 2018

[Manoah2u]

Ýeah, and they're contradicting themselves as we speak in stating in the last interview regarding this total failure that now they're saying it must be possible to narrow the centre pillar down from 2X+ mm to 16mm if i recall correctly. do they even themselves know what they're doing? i think not actually.

[ChrisDanger]

The centre pillar is the FIA trying to protect the drivers head from another Massa incident...

Do you have a source for this? Because it seems obvious to me it's for structural support.

[Pramesi]

Ýeah, and they're contradicting themselves as we speak in stating in the last interview regarding this total failure that now they're saying it must be possible to narrow the centre pillar down from 2X+ mm to 16mm if i recall correctly. do they even themselves know what they're doing? i think not actually.

There are steps in the design process that requires engineers to follow specific structural requirements (e.g. minimum load capabilities) when creating things like the halo. If they say they can narrow the centre pillar to a certain thickness, they'll most probably make sure that thickness still has the strength to pass their requirements, be it changing the materials, adding structural support elsewhere, etc.

It wouldn't be fair to say the engineers working with the FIA don't know what they're doing, it's their job to know.

Source: Mech Eng student

[Jolle]

The centre pillar is the FIA trying to protect the drivers head from another Massa incident...

Do you have a source for this? Because it seems obvious to me it's for structural support.

Did you watch the press conference? It was explained that it is for structural support and that test for small objects, which isn’t a goal (new helmet rules are) do have a small gain because there is something instead of nothing.

[ClarkBT11]

The centre pillar is the FIA trying to protect the drivers head from another Massa incident...

Do you have a source for this? Because it seems obvious to me it's for structural support.

My source was sarcasm. Are you pulling my leg? It's funny the idea was to stop another Massa incident and all that can stop it is a thong size pillar. =D>

[Manoah2u]

Ýeah, and they're contradicting themselves as we speak in stating in the last interview regarding this total failure that now they're saying it must be possible to narrow the centre pillar down from 2X+ mm to 16mm if i recall correctly. do they even themselves know what they're doing? i think not actually.

There are steps in the design process that requires engineers to follow specific structural requirements (e.g. minimum load capabilities) when creating things like the halo. If they say they can narrow the centre pillar to a certain thickness, they'll most probably make sure that thickness still has the strength to pass their requirements, be it changing the materials, adding structural support elsewhere, etc.

It wouldn't be fair to say the engineers working with the FIA don't know what they're doing, it's their job to know.

Source: Mech Eng student

oh dear. it seems you're completely missing the point the fia claims the pillar also deflects objects coming to the driver's head. so now we're going to narrow that down so that it no longer is able to do that. again, good thinking fia.

[WaikeCU]

Ýeah, and they're contradicting themselves as we speak in stating in the last interview regarding this total failure that now they're saying it must be possible to narrow the centre pillar down from 2X+ mm to 16mm if i recall correctly. do they even themselves know what they're doing? i think not actually.

There are steps in the design process that requires engineers to follow specific structural requirements (e.g. minimum load capabilities) when creating things like the halo. If they say they can narrow the centre pillar to a certain thickness, they'll most probably make sure that thickness still has the strength to pass their requirements, be it changing the materials, adding structural support elsewhere, etc.

It wouldn't be fair to say the engineers working with the FIA don't know what they're doing, it's their job to know.

Source: Mech Eng student

oh dear. it seems you're completely missing the point the fia claims the pillar also deflects objects coming to the driver's head. so now we're going to narrow that down so that it no longer is able to do that. again, good thinking fia.

Might as well take the driver out of the car, if they worry about objects getting hit to the driver's head.

[andrewf1]

Ive always wondered why the central section isn't taken away for two smaller less obtrusive (but still structurally strong enough) pillars don't come down and join on as part of the wing mirrors mounts?

If it was like this, i think it would get a nod form me as it would be much better looking for me, however still grotesque in the terms of the look of a F1 car.

If the pillars were on the side, joining the mirror mounts, they would obstruct the lateral view in the corners quite badly. In that respect, the central pillar solution is the way to go, even if it's ugly.

[NathanOlder]

If pillars were in the way while integrated with the morror mounts, that would mean the mirrors well in the way which im sure they are not.

If the mirrors were in the way during cornering then Seb would have got out of the car at the weekend and said something like

"I think I was stuck at turn 7 all day, as everytime I looked in towards the apex I could see a big number 7 right there"

[ChrisDanger]

If pillars were in the way while integrated with the morror mounts, that would mean the mirrors well in the way which im sure they are not.

If the mirrors were in the way during cornering then Seb would have got out of the car at the weekend and said something like

"I think I was stuck at turn 7 all day, as everytime I looked in towards the apex I could see a big number 7 right there"

Yeah, it doesn't look like the engineers really care much about the driver's side view.

[Pramesi]

oh dear. it seems you're completely missing the point the fia claims the pillar also deflects objects coming to the driver's head. so now we're going to narrow that down so that it no longer is able to do that. again, good thinking fia.

Ah, forgive me for misunderstanding! Nevertheless, the FIA did explicitly state that the halo wasn't designed to deflect small objects. It was designed to deflect large objects such as wheels and perhaps large bits of carbon. I believe it was shown to have a positive effect when hypothetically tested against Justin Wilson's accident, as shown somewhere in the video that ChrisDanger posted.

Anyway, a video to help it all sink in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYkGjUHstKY&dummy=1

[Manoah2u]

If pillars were in the way while integrated with the morror mounts, that would mean the mirrors well in the way which im sure they are not.

If the mirrors were in the way during cornering then Seb would have got out of the car at the weekend and said something like

"I think I was stuck at turn 7 all day, as everytime I looked in towards the apex I could see a big number 7 right there"

Yeah, it doesn't look like the engineers really care much about the driver's side view.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/OaJ23kUosLo/maxresdefault.jpg

good point, i didn't realise the view was that blocked. actually, i think the fia should have done something about that and ban wings like those to improve view. i'm sure something can be done with the mirrors too. matter of fact, i'm still surprised that in today's era we don't have cameras and screens to fix that problem, though i think a real mirror still has it's benefits by far. still, just mount a small camera on the vertical wings at the sidepods or a small bulge at the headrest and mount 2 small screens in the dashboard and put the view there. don't come with weight, the combination of a mirrormount and the glass surely will be either the same or more than 2 small camera's mounted and 2 small screens in the car. i'm 100% sure a iphone7 stripped of it's battery is much lighter than a single f1 mirror mount including mirror.

[NathanOlder]

Id say a mirror is lighter. Surely there is no glass in the mirror, so its just a small amount of carbon fibre and a reflective silver sheet with perspex (cheap mirror). Also remember these mirrors are probably bigger than a little iphone. Plus screens are hard to see if sunlight is directly on them, where as a mirror is perfect unless the sun is low enough in the sky to reflect straight into your eye. (Abu Dhabi maybe)

Besides if they had 2 screens and cameras Honda would need to harvest for a few laps before the race just to power these things up lol (joke)

[Manoah2u]

eh no. facts tells you otherwise.

iphone 7 weighs 138 grams including battery. battery weighs about 30 grams. that equals 108 grams without battery.
mirror weight: 160g per unit , right here specified on f1technical.

that's over 50 grams lighter on each side, a 100 grams in total.

how is sunlight going to be direct on them in a frigging tight f1 cockpit. at the worst, they'll put a small lip on the top and add an anti-reflective layer on top of it, really not an issue.

[ChrisDanger]

eh no. facts tells you otherwise.
...

If using a camera and screen was lighter and allowed by the regulations, everyone would be doing it. The regulations clearly define specifications for positioning of the mirrors, which seem to preclude the use of inboard screens, so any argument of what might be a better solution is moot. It's either that traditional mirrors are the optimum solution or it's a case of "it's the same for everyone, so whatever".

Of course, for the sake of academics, if you really must compare, you need to add the weight of any additional housing to hold the screen and cameras, plus figure out where in the cockpit you'll find space for two 150 x 50mm screens, and also you've now lost two flow conditioners.