576 replies to this topic

[Kalmake]

Indycar does not have to come up with something that fills FIA demands; they should come up with something that meets Indycar requirements. How the f*kc does it escape people that the windscreen and the halo are probably (because I have not seen specific specs) designed for different scenarios?

Yeah I've been trying to get that point across. The "blame" for halo lies with FIA, not F1.

 

Would be nice if Indycar could tell us what their requirements and scenarios are.

[paulb]

FWIW, transparent ceramics are a part of our everyday lives. Transparent armor is also a mature technology.

 

I would surmise that the cost and manufacturability of transparent ceramics made them a non-player for the windscreen.

[Radoye]

As dreadful as the Halo is, I can see it stopping a flying tyre. This thing, not so much. Perhaps I'm wrong, which would be great in this case, but it seems to have a huge open area behind it that's going to leave the drivers just as vulnerable to flying debris as before.

 

The debris is not coming from the side or from above, it comes from the front. Or, at least, in a coordinate system centered on driver's helmet in a racecar moving at racing speeds the significant component of the impact force will be always coming from the front. Even if you have a tire jumping across the track from one side to the other, it is not the tire that comes into the cockpit from the side, but rather the car running into it. Likewise, the nosecone that killed Justin Wilson didn't fall straight down on top of his head, he ran into it as it was coming down. So putting something in the right place forward and slightly above of the helmet would at racing speeds provide more than enough assurance that any debris will be caught. Halo works on the same principle, that's why they say it will catch 100% of large objects (and 17% of small ones) despite that huge gaping hole at the top.

As for the strength, i haven't seen any test results for this particular application but i've seen tests done with this same material in military applications, and at least in such it shouldn't have any problems to stop a stray wheel.

[Risil]

Yeah I've been trying to get that point across. The "blame" for halo lies with FIA, not F1.

Distinction without a difference, surely? The blame for my morbid obesity lies with sugar, not my eating two boxes of donuts a day. The FIA is F1's rulemaking body and if F1 doesn't like it they can find a new one. 
 

Would be nice if Indycar could tell us what their requirements and scenarios are.

 

I agree, but we don't need a running commentary from them while they're still testing it. Requirements and scenarios can change, and Indycar is correct to manage expectations by not publishing their goals until they've found a solution they're happy with.

[Nonesuch]

Likewise, the nosecone that killed Justin Wilson didn't fall straight down on top of his head, he ran into it as it was coming down. So putting something in the right place forward and slightly above of the helmet would at racing speeds provide more than enough assurance that any debris will be caught.

 

Right, that's it - enough. If Indycar feels this is indeed good enough, I won't argue otherwise as I neither know what they consider 'enough' nor how all the various factors would need to be adjusted to get slightly better results, better aesthetics, etc.

 

I recall this subject being a bit of a back and forth in the Halo threads, with some arguing it is impossible that a moment of intersecting trajectories could come a fraction of a second later, but I don't particularly mind either way.

 

I'll wait and see what they come up with and adjust my viewing accordingly, which is all I can do being, well, a viewer of these series.

[Afterburner]

I know it’s easy to think that it’s flimsy because it’s transparent, but if experience has taught me anything, never underestimate the strength of a military polymer.

[Taxi]

so much better than the hallo. 

[Radoye]

Right, that's it - enough. If Indycar feels this is indeed good enough, I won't argue otherwise as I neither know what they consider 'enough' nor how all the various factors would need to be adjusted to get slightly better results, better aesthetics, etc.

 

I recall this subject being a bit of a back and forth in the Halo threads, with some arguing it is impossible that a moment of intersecting trajectories could come a fraction of a second later, but I don't particularly mind either way.

 

I'll wait and see what they come up with and adjust my viewing accordingly, which is all I can do being, well, a viewer of these series.

 

I'm pretty sure the target for preventing the large projectiles (such as wheels and nosecones) hitting the driver's helmet for both IndyCar windscreen and F1 halo is the same = 100%. And i'm pretty sure they both meet that target.

[RA2]

I'm pretty sure the target for preventing the large projectiles (such as wheels and nosecones) hitting the driver's helmet for both IndyCar windscreen and F1 halo is the same = 100%. And i'm pretty sure they both meet that target.

Yeah and the Europeans are so dumb that they could not call PPG and ask for material for commercial air plane windows which is apparently stronger than titanium wrapped with carbon fibre

[Radoye]

Yeah and the Europeans are so dumb that they could not call PPG and ask for material for commercial air plane windows which is apparently stronger than titanium wrapped with carbon fibre

 

Europeans didn't even bother to try to come up with a solution. All the F1 teams have signed an agreement that they will be put up proposals for ways to improve cockpit protection, and except Red Bull (whose proposal was rejected, because of visibility / distortion and safety issues - the helmet would be bouncing off of it in a crash) nobody moved a finger. Sure, they could've called PPG (or any other manufacturer) but they choose not to and rather hoped the problem will somehow go away by itself. In the meantime, FIA came up with the halo - i'm sure they had good reasons to go with that particular design, but i'm also sure that if the best and brightest of the F1 world put their minds to the task they could do much better. Even the half-arsed Red Bull proposal could've been modified and worked into something truly functional, but there was no will to do it. I guess it's because this is not seen as something that can give an advantage over other teams, so it's not worth the effort. They'd all rather spend their time and resources on twiddling with their front wing endplates or something that could gain them an extra 0.00000001 s than try to prevent **** hitting their drivers in the head.

[Sterzo]

The debris is not coming from the side or from above, it comes from the front. Or, at least, in a coordinate system centered on driver's helmet in a racecar moving at racing speeds the significant component of the impact force will be always coming from the front. Even if you have a tire jumping across the track from one side to the other, it is not the tire that comes into the cockpit from the side, but rather the car running into it.

What you say is usually true, but I believe the wheel in Henry Surtees's accident arrived from above and probably wouldn't have hit the screen. That doesn't undermine your general point, though.

[Radoye]

What you say is usually true, but I believe the wheel in Henry Surtees's accident arrived from above and probably wouldn't have hit the screen. That doesn't undermine your general point, though.

 

I don't want to watch the video again, but IIRC the wheel was coming from his left bouncing across the track, and when his car stopped there was a scuff mark visible on the front right side of his helmet just above the visor. It appears that he caught it as it almost passed him already, so unlucky.

 

The point that i'm trying to make is that with the car speed factored in any significant object that would come to contact with the driver's head would have to pass through the area just in front of him a fraction of the second before. If there's a barrier in that place it would deflect any such object before it gets a chance to hit the helmet.

 

For an object to come into contact with the helmet straight from above or straight from the side relative to the car, it's velocity component parallel to the movement of the car would have to be equal to that of the car (so that relative to each other the car doesn't "gain" on it). That just doesn't happen - i mean, it could theoretically, but the probability is infinitesimally low if the car is moving forward.

 

Of course, there are other possible scenarios, as in car spinning out or sliding sideways but in that case the speeds involved would be lower and thus the impact forces as well, since they are in proportion.

 

In any case i'm sure people much smarter than I am already looked at all of this when designing the proposed solution, and factored in all the risks and benefits. Ultimately only a fully enclosed cockpit will protect from 100% cases (including the highly improbable theoretical ones), and only 100% safe racing is not racing at all, so it's the matter of where we're willing to draw the line what's an acceptable risk and what's not.

[Kalmake]

What you say is usually true, but I believe the wheel in Henry Surtees's accident arrived from above and probably wouldn't have hit the screen. That doesn't undermine your general point, though.

It would have hit the screen. The wheel assembly was falling but not from great height so it couldn't have had great vertical speed. Surtees was doing 162 km/h.

[RA2]

Europeans didn't even bother to try to come up with a solution. All the F1 teams have signed an agreement that they will be put up proposals for ways to improve cockpit protection, and except Red Bull (whose proposal was rejected, because of visibility / distortion and safety issues - the helmet would be bouncing off of it in a crash) nobody moved a finger. Sure, they could've called PPG (or any other manufacturer) but they choose not to and rather hoped the problem will somehow go away by itself. In the meantime, FIA came up with the halo - i'm sure they had good reasons to go with that particular design, but i'm also sure that if the best and brightest of the F1 world put their minds to the task they could do much better. Even the half-arsed Red Bull proposal could've been modified and worked into something truly functional, but there was no will to do it. I guess it's because this is not seen as something that can give an advantage over other teams, so it's not worth the effort. They'd all rather spend their time and resources on twiddling with their front wing endplates or something that could gain them an extra 0.00000001 s than try to prevent **** hitting their drivers in the head.

 

 

Halo was proposed by Mercedes team

 

While the FIA defined what they wanted before finding a solution, Indycar is finding a solution and then defining what they want to do with it

 

Lame ass excuses of a windshield  since they cant afford a new chassis that would allow them to provide protection for anything other than bugs 

[Afterburner]

Marshall Pruett said on his podcast today that he can’t reveal who is doing the impact testing on the windscreen or where they are doing it, but that people would be ‘impressed’ by them. So there’s an interest in this thing, apparently.

Conor Daly USAF sponsorship link maybe? Perhaps there’s a reason the impact tests haven’t been made public.

Edited by Afterburner, 02 May 2018 - 16:24.

[juicy sushi]

A thread on head protection technologies/approaches is the last place I would have expected lame-point scoring or weaksauce trolling attempts, but here we are.  If you are insecure enough that you feel the need to "defend" "your" series' honour in this way, you should probably do yourself and all of us a favour and delete your account.

[Radoye]

Halo was proposed by Mercedes team

That's right, they put up the first concept proposal that was later developed into the FIA halo. I stand corrected.

Still, that's only 2 out of (then) 11 teams that put forward a proposal. The rest couldn't be arsed.
 

While the FIA defined what they wanted before finding a solution, Indycar is finding a solution and then defining what they want to do with it
 
Lame ass excuses of a windshield  since they cant afford a new chassis that would allow them to provide protection for anything other than bugs

 

I guess bugs only is what the same stuff is protecting F-16 pilots too, eh?

BTW, there is a new IndyCar chassis (one, or more) coming in a few years time.

Edited by Radoye, 02 May 2018 - 16:59.

[maximilian]

I am always amazed at the astonishing level of expertise displayed by some on the forum, who know just exactly how materials in general, and the deflector specifically, will behave in all conceivable situations, as well as just exactly what angle things approach a cockpit at speed, and exactly what will and won't work to protect a driver.  It's great we have all these experts around, and don't need amateurs like PPG and other material scientists to conduct excessive tests, let alone experts in the field of high-speed racing make determinations on what works best, because they clearly all don't have the slightest clue what the hell they are doing. 

[RA2]

That's right, they put up the first concept proposal that was later developed into the FIA halo. I stand corrected.

Still, that's only 2 out of (then) 11 teams that put forward a proposal. The rest couldn't be arsed.
 

 

I guess bugs only is what the same stuff is protecting F-16 pilots too, eh?

BTW, there is a new IndyCar chassis (one, or more) coming in a few years time.

 

 

Lotus put out the front roll cage

 

Just because F16 uses a full canopy with poly carbonate which can deflect a wheel at speed does not make the same thing happen when it has a opening the size of the cockpit on the top of it

 

Canopy fixed on all sides (like a dome) deflect the debris much better than a wind shield which is fixed on one end (like a diving board) 

[Radoye]

Lotus put out the front roll cage

And what did the remaining 8 teams put out?
 

Just because F16 uses a full canopy with poly carbonate which can deflect a wheel at speed does not make the same thing happen when it has a opening the size of the cockpit on the top of it
 
Canopy fixed on all sides (like a dome) deflect the debris much better than a wind shield which is fixed on one end (like a diving board)

Except it's not fixed just on one end like a diving board, but rather on three sides.

 

[maximilian]

That is about the most beautiful picture I have ever seen of a diving board! 

[ANF]

so much better than the hallo.

Except it doesn't work (yet).

Following its track tests, IndyCar’s windscreen, made from the ballistic material Opticor manufactured by PPG, has undergone impact testing at the company’s facility in Alabama where, according to the series, more development is needed “before INDYCAR could implement its use.”
https://racer.com/20...tection-device/

So for 2019 IndyCar will instead introduce this 3 inches tall titanium "piece":


https://www.indycar....-Protection-AFP

Edited by ANF, 19 February 2019 - 23:11.

[jonpollak]

They get satellite radio with that?
Jp

[ANF]

They can even get 1080p streaming video cast to the steering wheel.

[jonpollak]

A better rear view mirror.
Jp

[Frood]

Anything to help improve safety is welcome. I must admit I'm sceptical regarding effectiveness, but it's been designed and developed by far more intelligent people than I am.

Edited by Frood, 20 February 2019 - 00:03.

[Kalmake]

Except it doesn't work (yet).

Following its track tests, IndyCar’s windscreen, made from the ballistic material Opticor manufactured by PPG, has undergone impact testing at the company’s facility in Alabama where, according to the series, more development is needed “before INDYCAR could implement its use.”
https://racer.com/20...tection-device/

So for 2019 IndyCar will instead introduce this 3 inches tall titanium "piece":

 

"Advanced Frontal Protection"  

 

I think this three-fin thing FIA tested a long time ago had a baby: