Kimi Raikkonen, Ferrari, Circuit de Catalunya, 2016

Halo head protection system debuts in testing

2016 F1 seasonPosted on | Author Keith Collantine

Ferrari is testing a version of the FIA’s planned head protection system at the Circuit de Catalunya.

The ‘Halo’ system was originally proposed by Mercedes and has emerged as the front-runner from three different designs which were under consideration.

Kimi Raikkonen, Ferrari, Circuit de Catalunya, 2016
Halo obstructs the driver’s vision less than the alternatives
The designs were tested by the Global Institute for Motor Sport Safety by firing an F1 wheel from a cannon towards the structures at speeds of up to 225kph (139mph). The Halo successfully guarded the helmet area from the wheel and performed well in other tests.

Lead researcher Andy Mellor praised the Halo device in an interview with the FIA’s magazine Auto. “It’s very impressive that although the structure is positioned close to the driver’s helmet to provide protection from all angles, it is still able to prevent the wheel from contacting the helmet,” he said.

“In the very short distance available, a huge amount of energy is absorbed and the wheel is successfully redirected.”

The two other designs tested were the Additional Frontal Protection system, a series of three vertical find mounted in front of the drivers’ helmet, and the Centre-Line Roll Hoop, which affixed three bars extending from the roll hoop to the front of the cockpit.

The Halo designs presents less of an obstruction to the driver’s vision than these designs. “We need to avoid creating any blind spots as that would introduce an unacceptable additional risk during racing,” said Mellor.

“We’re looking to achieve a structure that provides a full panorama of forward and sideways binocular-vision, allowing only very small areas of monocular-vision restricted by the structure.”

The Halo adds around five kilogrammes in weight to the car.

2016 F1 season

Browse all 2016 F1 season articles

Posted on Categories 2016 F1 seasonTags

Promoted content from around the web | Become an F1 Fanatic Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 200 comments on “Halo head protection system debuts in testing”

    1. A link to an article showing tests with 2 alternative solutions ( ) – it shows a tire being fired at the Halo and at a system that has 3 steel bars that “flex”.

      We have seen earlier videos of a full jet fighter canopy and a partial cover from hard plastic as well as the “cage” idea that was proposed before they came to the Halo (the cage had 2 big pillars blocking view)

      1. @bascb I know it’s easly days. But I don’t think Ill ever get used to seeing cars with that kind of protection over the cockpit.

        1. I guess we will get used to it over time @fer-no65

        2. RaceProUK (@)
          3rd March 2016, 13:19

          I’m willing to bet people said the same about front and rear wings when they were introduced. Oh, and sidepods, and barge boards, and the engine moving behind the driver, and many other things :)

          1. @raceprouk But isn’t it a bit different when we’re talking about a new part a team has invented to make their car faster, rather than a non-performance part which the governing body will force all the teams to use?

            1. Wonderbadger
              3rd March 2016, 15:10

              I don’t think its that dissimilar because its a change in vehicle aesthetics, perhaps a more relevant comparison is the changes the FIA have enforced which change the look of the car rather than it being an evolution introduced by a tream – such as raised cockpit sides, lowering of the nose/raising of sidepods to improve the risk of a car riding up during a crash, the change to narrower cars, wider front wings and taller/narrower rear wings etc – they all get adverse reactions initially while fans get used to them but once they become the norm for a few seasons they are ignored by the majority of fans which no doubt is due to the generosity of the FIA and Mr E continue to give us all something new to complain about on a regular basis.

            2. RaceProUK (@)
              3rd March 2016, 15:27

              Nope, for the reasons Wonderbadger has outlined :)

            3. I believe Wonderbadger has #nailedit

        3. Wait till Williams try it.
          Everything looks good when you put Martini stripes on it.

      2. Many thanks for that link.

    2. Isnt that Halo thing reduces the direct view of the driver? i dont know what the drivers who tested it said but i think the direct view of the driver must be total clear.

      1. Rob Blackburn
        3rd March 2016, 8:36

        The drivers look so far into the distance, the halo with be out of focus. Hold your phone about a foot from your face, and look past it. You’ll get about half an inch where your vision is fully obstructed. They already have peto tubes and radio antenna sticking out of the top of the car, and they’ve been unperturbed by those for ages.

        1. Looking at this picture and considering how low the driver’s eye line is, I don’t think it’ll actually be that much of a problem.

          Some people have pointed out it may be difficult to see the starting lights but that’s a one-off situation, they can always be moved.

          1. That picture shows how cleverly designed the Ferrari’s livery is.
            Well done publicists, well done.

          2. I think the biggest problem is where there circuit has gradients such as spa and COTA.

          3. It seems that a nicer design aesthetically speaking would be to eliminate the front brace. That would allow for better visibility but probably weaken the system. However, if they can integrate the two rear armsinto the roll hoop, and utilize hinges at the rear for egress then it doesn’t seem too bad.

      2. nah, the direct view ahead is far less important thatn being able to see into the corners. That is why they already put antennae and pitot tubes on the middle of the nose @bleuchris.

        It will surely have an impact on front visibility (but the teams might be able to integrate some things into this, like that rearward viewing camera that was introduced this year), but importantly it will leave the view towards apexes and the mirrors unobscured. Heck, maybe the rear view mirrors (or cameras?) could be integrated into this

      3. Here’s an interview Will Buxton did with Ant Davidson, who did some testing with the Halo (simulator runs as far as I know) –

      4. Have a look at some onboards from LMP1 cars and check out the view they get! The halo will make about the same difference as windscreen wipers – they are there but you look past them.

        If you look at your monitor or TV from about 2 foot away, try blocking the screen by holding your finger inbetween your eyes and the screen whilst still focusing on the screen. You’ll see straight pass/through your hand.

        1. Yea some LMPT / GT drivers are like tank commanders… this halo is no big deal from the visability perspective. We as fans will get used to the look.

        2. I think it ought to be tested in poor visibility conditions. Thoroughly.

    3. I don’t understand, by running it on the car, what do they want to achieve? The only way to test this would be to crash the car dangerously, surely?

      1. I’d assume practical usage would lead to driver feedback, aerodynamic influence, and of course, fan, team and sponsor reactions.

        1. As @hare mentions @strontium, if they want to use this solution they will now have achieved publicly “outing” it to the fans and media (to get used to the view) and they will get some reaction from the driver (and first data) with regards to how it changes behaviour of the car and view. They have already tested that in the simulator, but now they can correlate data.

          Oh, and given that Kimi brought the car back in one piece, that myth of dangerously crashing with it due to bad visibility is already debunked today!

      2. It looks pretty good. It changes the profile of the car and gives it a 21st century look. Every generation has had its evolution. This might be the latest.

        1. oh come on stop grasping at straws here… it looks awful and not “modern” at all

      3. ” The only way to test this would be to crash the car dangerously, surely?”
        With Maldonado unavailable they had to go with Raikkonen @strontium.

        1. @coldfly
          I almost spit my coffee! XD

        2. @coldfly ahahah that was a good one :D

      4. @strontium To assess its effect on visibility.

      5. Danny Williams
        5th March 2016, 14:41

        Hi they already have ran tests ina lab,in which a wheel has been rammed into a static mock up,at 135mph from different angles…and with success.

    4. How long until it starts getting manipulated for aerodynamic effect, or are they a standard design?

      1. I am almost convinced that they would go for a standardised design (like with the side impact bars) that can then be used by F1 and also implemented in Indycars, GP2, GP3, F3 etc. in the near future.

        1. @BasCB they would have to be very very clear in the rules. You know what F1 teams are like :)

        2. I think that should be the priority, looking at the situations some F3 and Indy Lights drivers get themselves into. Dallara should be involved to develop a workable, affordable design that’ll go on Indycars (who arguably suffered the greatest tragedy) and all the cars they build in various junior series.

        3. As this would not have saved Bianchi and not stopped any injury to an F1 driver in the last 20 years it should be priority for Indy Cars where there have been a few deaths? This seems like football altering their rules due to serious injuries in cricket.

          1. Saving Bianchi is not something one could have achieved by any changes to the car. It could have been avoided only by not being on track/going at snails pace at that moment.

            1. Or by simply not allowing recovery vehicles on the track without SC, or by Red flagging the race.. (either of which would have been much wiser). Oh yeah — how about not running the race at twilight when a hurricane is coming?

          2. RaceProUK (@)
            3rd March 2016, 13:22

            So because it wouldn’t have worked in one particular scenario, it’s not worth pursuing for the lives it may save in other scenarios?

            1. Not at all it should be studied to the Nth degree I just feel to look at all aspects good and bad will take longer than having this in by 2017. Autonomous F1 cars would 100% result in zero driver deaths but hopefully that would never occur. I cannot think of one scenario where a driver has been hurt in over 25 years where this halo would have helped. On another note I am amazed nothing has been done in the form of some from of covers for recovery vehicles that would of prevented the death of Bianchi.

            2. RaceProUK (@)
              3rd March 2016, 15:30

              I cannot think of one scenario where a driver has been hurt in over 25 years where this halo would have helped.

              Henry Surtees, Justin Wilson, and possibly Ayrton Senna and Felipe Massa. It would also have likely avoided Alonso’s near-miss at Spa, and Raikkonen’s near-miss at the A1 Ring.

              On another note I am amazed nothing has been done in the form of some from of covers for recovery vehicles that would of prevented the death of Bianchi.

              Covers aren’t needed; just keep recovery vehicles off the track until the F1 cars are safe in the pits.

            3. Fascinating subject, I wonder why no consideration is given to using the pit lane speed limiter on the cars when recovery trucks are out and also having more protection on the recovery vehicles themselves, just seems so much safer and less complicated than putting all the cars back in the pits and restarting the race with aggregate times.

              I will clarify my point on the halo not helping drivers in the last 25 years I meant in F1. The FIA report into the Bianchi crash said a form of cover would not have helped him? (may have been a canopy though). The near misses mentioned were just that, misses and if anything having this halo may have made the issue worse as currently F1 cars have good sight lines to cover the driver in such instances, had the front of the Halo been sticking out where there is currently nothing the spinning car would easily break this and in a freak circumstance that centre section can end up through the driver like the suspension arm with Senna. The Massa incident would still occur as there is huge gap for debris like a spring to fit through and since then helmet design has changed to prevent this. At the moment I feel the Halo may solve some potential incidents in F1 but create others, I guess it is what is the lesser of 2 evils, with or without?

              On the looks, I quite like it but then again I do not think twice about wearing white socks with black trousers so what do I know about looks or style.

            4. RaceProUK (@)
              3rd March 2016, 18:32

              On the looks, I quite like it but then again I do not think twice about wearing white socks with black trousers so what do I know about looks or style.

              There’s nothing wrong with that combo; in fact, it’s a classic combination.

    5. WilliamB (@william-brierty)
      3rd March 2016, 8:30

      I have always been very supportive of the “halo” concept – it is an elegant solution to a problem F1, and single seater racing more broadly following the tragic loss of Justin Wilson, simply must address. Seeing it on-track today has only affirmed my sentiments: this solution has enormous potential.

      At worst, from the fans’ perspective, it obscures the driver’s helmet, making identification a bit of a challenge, but this could be solved by the simple application of large, Sauber-esque numbers on all of the cars.

      1. They would probably paint the halo to match the driver’s helmet – or at the very least have two distinct colours to identify one driver or the other.

        1. I thought of that too altitude2k – to give the Halo’s a distinct colouring for better identification

          1. Or you guys could just look at the camera colors… @bascb

            1. Many people have a problem recognizing the driver from those @beejis60, that is why it was brought up here. But I am sure we could colour the whole Halo instead!

            2. BJ (@beejis60)
              5th March 2016, 3:26

              @bascb I disagree. That’s by the far the easiest thing to differentiate the drivers.

            3. sorry, but its a fact (just look at this thread) that many people DO have issues keeping drivers apart on track @beejis60s, regardless of whether you have any issues with that and despite knowing that apart from the Helmets, the numbers the T-bars are differently coloured.

        2. WilliamB (@william-brierty)
          3rd March 2016, 8:56

          Whilst it would be nice if halos could be personalized for the drivers, you fear it’s an all too convenient and prominent advertising space. @bascb

          1. Most likely, yes. But you could just reverse the colours. For example, look at the logo on the Ferrari one – white on black. You could just have a black logo on a white halo on Vettel’s car.

          2. @william-brierty Inb4, the halos will be the new driver canvas for special livery, and in 2018 FIA ban changes to halo livery because Vettel have special livery for every GP in 2017 ;)

      2. @william-brierty

        this could be solved by the simple application of large, Sauber-esque numbers on all of the cars.

        Or people could just use the T-bar colours for identification – it’s been possible to distinguish between cars this way for years now.

        1. juan fanger
          3rd March 2016, 10:37

          I use the T-bars, but it was much easier when one was fluoro red and one was fluoro green.

          Nowadays with just black and green I have to look hard to differentiate – particularly the black one as I’m not sure I’m just not seeing the green, if you know what I mean.

          Bring back the red!

          1. Weren’t they red and yellow? Green was something else if I remember correctly.

          2. It’s black and day-glo yellow, isn’t it? I find it pretty easy to distinguish between those!

            1. @keithcollantine Unfortiunatly that doesn’t always go for colorblind people. For me personally the cars need to be directly in the right position with the right ammount of light to destinguis them.

        2. WilliamB (@william-brierty)
          3rd March 2016, 12:11

          @keithcollantine I have been told this, but have always had issues retraining my brain to look at the T-bar rather than directly at the driver. I guess I will have no choice if the halo system is adopted.

          1. The same. My eye just refuses to go there and many times i have a hard type remembering what T-bar color is for what driver because i rarely look at them. Some times is even hard to see them.
            This halo thing is gonna be very obvious though and in direct side in the place the driver sits so if it is different for each driver it will be very easily recognizable.

            Maybe they can put the driver number on the thick part also.

      3. I kinda like it, it’s the lesser of two evils.

        As long as Formula One stays open cockpit (like it does now with the halo concept), I’m happy.

    6. Good to see F1 has its priorities right, and there’s a giant logo on the very first one.
      No doubt space for that will be a key part of the selection process. Don’t worry, the drivers can move their heads to see round it.

    7. It really looks like a standalone part – which it obviously is. They better integrate the final concept within the head rest.

    8. On the upside, it provide some very clear advertising space from different angles.

        1. You have a very keen eye! Could be two seperate halos.

        2. I think they have two examples.

        3. seems to me that Ferrari put a Claro logo over the FIA institute one.

    9. For all who mention how poor of a solution it is and how it wouldn’t have helped either Massa, nor Wilson, I just had a look again at Wilson being hit and I am pretty sure that the debris that hit him WOULD have been deflected (at least partially) by the Halo (it came from the front/right) and he could have had a better chance.

      1. I think that is what they are going for yet retaining the open cockpit. At first everyone thought the HANS device was odd. It is undeniable though in its effectiveness.

      2. @bascb A Halo may not have helped Massa or Bianchi, but I sure think Henry Surtees and Justin Wilson could have walked away unharmed.

        1. It even may have saved Senna’s life, to add to the drama.

      3. Wilson was in Indy Car not F1. Indy car should try bringing their safety standards up to modern F1 it should not be for F1 to add things they do not need due to the inadequacies of Indy Car safety.

      4. In the other hand a halo *might* have helped Massa. You don’t know if that piece of debris had made contact with the halo and deflected, nobody does.

        1. But deflected in the wrong way into the visor? Kind of like in off the post.

    10. This must be test to get feedback from the driver and/or create a general opinion for the halo system. What Ferrari is using here is a system that look molded to the main bodywork and therefore not removable which look dangerous to me. At the same time it shows that the system is wider than other drawings we have seen from the halo system and it looks too low. A Maldonado would be able to fit a wheel on the inside of it.

      1. yes, this is a prototype to test the form for feedback, not the full solution (wich is still being developped)

    11. If the rear parts were extended and raised it could replace the the roll hoop.

    12. Looks like a giant g-string to me…

      While I agree that this may well have given a degree of protection to some of the tragic accidents lately, surely a more aesthetically pleasing solution is out there. If the dong noses weren’t bad enough, now this?

      I still cannot understand why a wholesale change including a canopy cannot work. The FIA tests shown on video looked ok to me, McLaren & Red Bull have both produced concept ideas with closed cockpits, LMP1 cars use them safely and have done so for decades, and some of the best looking race cars in history have closed cockpits. I mean if a Perspex canopy is good enough for a mach 2+ fighter plane surely it’s ok for a race car?

      1. “I mean if a Perspex canopy is good enough for a mach 2+ fighter plane surely it’s ok for a race car?” nope @clay. Because in a fighter plane going mach 2+ you never need to look at something real close, so distortion is still an issue, but not as big. And in the air with those speeds you don’t have any buildup of dirt film on the canopy either.

        Also, a fighter jet can jettison a canopy and have the pilots ejected with ejection seats. You cannot do that on a car racing on the ground. LMP1 cockpits are far wider and they have space for doors.

        1. You HOPE you never have to look at anything up close in a jet :D

          1. yeah, its certainly not what they are built for to be good at @mrboerns.

        2. So what about home built aircraft which travel at F1-esque speeds and have no vision issues? Or aircraft which compete in the Red Bull Air Race? They need good visibility and have no issues. Certainly better than what I’ve seen so far of the Halo.

          1. Again, aircraft travel at greater speeds and are not racing as close up as open wheel cars are on track @clay. Distortion is still an issue, but not as critical. And their cockpits are wider than an F1 cockpit.

          2. RaceProUK (@)
            3rd March 2016, 13:29

            Planes also don’t have to deal with chunks of discarded rubber, oils thrown up from the tarmac, dust and grit spread from off-track excursions, surface water, and the traces of oil that might leak from an engine or gearbox.

            1. LMP1 deal with that for 24hs without problems.

            2. RaceProUK (@)
              3rd March 2016, 15:31

              LMP1 cars have windscreen wipers, which only work because the cockpit is wide enough

        3. While you don’t need to look at anything closely, the level of visual acuity required is extremely high – being able to see clearly and accurately is rarely as important as when you’re trying to spot a target to drop ordinance on, especially when close to friendly forces. From my own experience of cockpits, the level of distortion is low enough not to be an issue when driving.

          The buildup of dirt may be an issue too, although I don’t have the knowledge to properly comment on the problem or any solutions to it. But as for the ejection issue, there is an aircraft that has the same problem – the Harrier. In a “normal” jet, the forward flight of the aircraft ensures the canopy is removed out of the way when ejected, but in a Harrier the canopy needed to be removed even when hovering. To solve this, there are thin strips of explosive in the canopy which can be detonated to shatter it. My understanding (I’ve never actually experienced it myself) is that this is more than unpleasant, especially if you don’t actually eject yourself, but I think there’s a reasonable chance that nearly 50 years after it was developed we can come up with a similar method that would be suitable for F1.

          1. thanks for chipping in here with some first hand knowledge there @fluxsource! I guess the even narrower cockpit of a single seater and having everyting close up makes distortion more of a problem for a race car (Davidson mentions its a bit of an issue for sports cars too).

            I understand that the tech issues (and their safety implications on a possibly tight and packed track – and maybe also the cost?) to solving extraction and visibility are what prevents implementation of canopies any time soon. And I am pretty sure that its also a step too far for almost anyone to close the cockpits.

      2. A perspex canopy causes far more problems than it solves. What about visibility when following someone who’s leaking stuff from their car? You can’t rip off a strip like you can on visors. And that’s before you talk about safety – a canopy sounds great until a driver dies because they were unable to get out after the release mechanism fails.

        1. F1 has some of the best engineering minds on the planet. Explosive strips, canopy ejection systems and the like could be designed with fail safes by the kind of minds available to F1. If the biggest issue will be dirt build up, what a product placement opportunity for Rain-X or similar?

          Closed LMP cars may have doors, but why can’t F1 manage something to get drivers out? It is a problem that is far from insurmountable.

          Again, anything is better than the monstrosity that is the Halo!

          1. And how much will that development add the already over-burdened financials of the mid and bottom field runners? And the extra weight of the mechanisms? Airflow to the driver? The unavoidable added risk (think of getting out with a full canopy when the car is upside down)?

            You may think the halo is a monstrosity, but it is the most elegant solution by a LONG way.

          2. Closed canopies also have the issue of air-recycling, conditioning and demisting in the ‘cabin’. No decent engineering solution is a five-minute job.

          3. RaceProUK (@)
            3rd March 2016, 13:30

            canopy ejection systems

            Will be totally useless when the car is upside-down in a gravel trap.

        2. For all those Perspex cockpit advocates…

          It is a far more engineered item than that and in the event of a bird strike or similar (which has been known to break them thus rendering the issues of Wilson or Bianchi type accidents moot as the results would have been exactly the same) the deflection of the flexible clear material is significant. It essentially deflects and bounces.

          Thus we go from protecting (possibly mind) a driver to killing perhaps a few spectators as, say, a wheel launches itself into the crowd.

    13. Seems Red Bull will test their version – with transparent plastic filling the gap between Halo and cockpit side – in a show run in April to evaluate this idea.

      1. @bascb Are they then going to need Halo tear-offs?

        1. Probably, like they do in sports cars @keithcollantine

          1. It’s like they are being drawn towards being sports cars, without actually meeting the criteria of actually being a sports car, in order to maintain the open cockpit heritage.

            1. Funny as LMP1 fans complain every time the holes on the top of the wheel arches are made larger that they are becoming more like single seaters.

          2. RaceProUK (@)
            3rd March 2016, 13:32

            It’s a lot easier to do it in sports cars though, as the larger screen area means they can also use wipers.

      2. Anyone who has raced open and closed cockpits in the rain will know that covering the view with Perspex suddenly completely changes the dynamic and kills one of the challenges of open racing.

        But there we are – more fodder for the ‘it’s too easy’ crowd…

        1. RaceProUK (@)
          3rd March 2016, 13:33

          What’s more important, driver safety or ‘racing purity’?

          1. Way to create a false dichotomy and to trivialise the subset you disagree with and villify.

            1. RaceProUK (@)
              3rd March 2016, 15:32

              And you have completely missed my point. Well done.

        2. You tell me when a bouncy canopy has all likelihood of not only distorting vision, particularly in wet races and causing more problems but bouncing any wheels etc at an increased speed into the viewing public?

          Or as in fighter planes, smashing or breaking when some small, sharp item destroys the canopy (been there just so you know)

          Or fails completely to protect anyone another Bianchi type accident but the FIA feel ‘safe’ in the knowledge they can let a 10 ton tractor on the circuit because the cars have a ‘canopy’ with a static test far removed from a 125mph impact with three ton of steel at eye height?

          Or in a Wilson type accident, they can’t get him out and he bleeds to death from injuries caused not by the accident, but from the explosive bolts accidentally going off while he was in 130r?

          Racing is dangerous. I know it, they know it – we all know it and while all attempts to eradicate danger should be taken, making things worse just to resolve an issue that incrementally has been reduced significantly and could be in Bianchis situation, totally by banning the tractor or fitting them with skirts, all while using the application of materials that are unproven in such an environment in a knee jerk, suck it and see?

          Well, no so much…

    14. It would be integrated into the (head) side protection structures so that driver egress and extraction won’t be problems, no?

    15. Looks horrible, obstructive, should also do a test in wet weather on how the water drops effect on visor. Also difficult to remove the visor screen tear off.

      1. *water drops falling of the halo on visor.

    16. Aren’t they kinda bring stupid by letting kimi of all people Test this?
      “So kimi, how was Visibility affected by our Concept?” “I don’t know. It’s the same for everybody.”

      1. *being . For Fudges sake.

        1. Kimi already made it clear last year that he’s not a big fan of closed cockpit concepts on F1 cars. I tend to agree with him. I mean you don’t want to see anyone getting hurt, but I do think that danger is a part of F1 (which has already been reduced significantly throughout the years.) Now I don’t say that’s a bad thing, yet again some things should just stay as they were. I mean if you want to live in a bubble, you probably shouldn’t become a F1 driver.

      2. It’s interesting that mentions:
        “However, it was decided that Kimi Raikkonen would be a far better person to conduct early visibility tests on track because he would offer a far more impartial view on its impact on the drivers.” Not sure if that means Vettel was very much a fan (or against?), but it seems they wanted Kimi’s monosyllabic (always nice how that’s such a long word for …) answer …

        1. @bosyber

          ‘So Kimi can you give us valuable feedback on the new Halo concept, like or not, visibility and safety etc,…’
          Kimi; ‘Yes, it was on the car.’

      3. RaceProUK (@)
        3rd March 2016, 13:34

        You do know that the answers he gives to the press aren’t necessarily reflective of the answers he gives his team or the FIA, right?

    17. If only the FIA was sane.
      How can we resolve the tragic events that all happened last year and several years before?
      1) the next rule must be implemented – if there is a need to use a tractor or crane to remove a car from the track, then the safety car must be deployed immediately. The crane must not be issued on the track unless all the cars slowed down sufficiently (e.g., to 30-50kmph). No marshals/other people on track unless the safety car is deployed.
      2) in order to avoid accidents similar to what happened with poor Wilson, the track owners must remove brick-and-mortar walls that stand directly after the asphalt coat is over.
      3) in order to ensure the wheels do not come off and hit anyone, every team must constantly improve the fixing mechanism/straps.

      That is it. Surely, there are such accidents like in SPA-2012. But such a thing as ‘halo’ wouldn’t survive under that immense load of the Grosjean’s car. Besides, if ‘halo’ is broken, it may even pierce the driver.
      ‘Halo’ will never be 100% safe because the debris can hit the driver from the top or even fly through the free space between the car and the ‘halo’ arm.
      The last, I suggest that we all recall the accident with Kubica in Canada-2007. He directly hit the wall at 200kmph speed, but he didn’t break his legs. His accident is very similar to what occurred to Bianchi. But Kubica is still alive.

      1. Besides, if ‘halo’ is broken, it may even pierce the driver.

        I’m sure any solution will be required to be structurally capable of supporting a car’s weight, like the roll-hoop currently is.

        There will also always be a measure of risk – Let us not forget that Senna’s death and Massa’s injury were exacerbated by structural components entering the drivers helmet at the worst location. At least F1 learned from those events and beefed up protection accordingly (enclosed cockpits, zylon strips on helmets).

      2. Michael Brown
        3rd March 2016, 15:28

        Similar? How so? Kubica hit a wall and rolled. The roll hoop and front crash structure are what saved his life. The halo wasn’t necessary in that case, but it wouldn’t have hurt.

    18. But its ugly!! Surely there must be a way to make the cars safer yet better looking! They are the best engineers in the world and they can take inspiration from artists like Andries van Overbeeke to make something similar to his work.

      1. @ripudaman07z A pretty picture is not the same thing as a fully engineered solution. Would those designs withstand the kind of testing described above?

        1. @keithcollantine Most likely they won’t, thats not my point. But a clear canopy which is capable of withstanding the forces of an F1 car crash cant be impossible to make right? And it looks way better! And so does a small front wing! An engineered solution which is developed to be safe and look a certain way must be possible, be it at a higher cost!

          1. @ripudaman07z

            capable of withstanding the forces of an F1 car crash

            That’s not what it’s being designed to withstand. And having a full canopy would introduce other problems as discussed here earlier.

      2. if you look at the first proposed “roll cage” thing, that WAS far uglier @ripudaman07z! And it was less effective and posed quite an obstructed view for the driver

      3. I appreciate everyone has a view (as noted above) but come on folks – canopies etc? It’s open cockpit racing. The risks are well known and a simply huge amount of work has gone into making it safer than ever.
        Do note that lesser classes, for example, grass roots Superkarts regularly reach 170-180mph on the similar circuits, accelerate and stop in similar ways and yet they have no seat belts nor have any frontal or rear crash protection at all, no hoops no nothing?. I do not see the FIA working too hard on those series?

        F1 fans, I assume are also aware that there are chaps racing around in MotoGP at very similar and sometimes higher top speeds with absolutely no protection other than the (hugely complex and clever) suits and helmets?

        Where does the quest for ‘safety’ (and given I used to race at speeds of over 170mph without seat belts and with open cockpits, I think I am more than entitled to comment) start becoming invasive to the actual skill?

        No one would ever want another Bianchi, Senna or even Massa but the solutions proposed would absolutely not avoid any such tragedies. Thus the only beneficiary is the FIA.

        Frankly it would be far more effective to simply stop tractors on circuit in the wet or fit them with the canopies and skirts!

        In Massas case – the drivers of today with their lower position and hugely changed cockpit structure, a similar accident is so unlikely it’s incalculable – further, helmets and their safety has moved on hugely, as have many other aspects of safety both passive and active. You just can’t see it and assume everything is the same!

        I am in no way suggesting we do not quest for more safety. However, when it fundamentally changes the very DNA of the series and STILL would not avoid the accidents they are attempting to prevent?

        Let alone putting spectators and marshals at possibly even more at risk from trampolined wheels or exploding canopies?

        Forgive me for seeing another agenda.

        All you are really seeing is an FIA trying to protect itself from litigation all in the name of ‘Health and Safety’ following some well documented screw ups.

        Just take a look at their intervention when a two superkart racers were killed at Brands Hatch some years ago.

        Or when Surtees was killed at the same track a few years later…

        Not a lot covers it…

        If this is to happen it needs a sensible long term carefully researched strategy with a great deal of investment from the FIA, not a few quid and see what you F1 teams can do!

        And we are complete fools for accepting anything such.

    19. How does this affect the requirement for a driver to get out of the car in 5 seconds, and then replace the steering wheel within a further 5? Looks to have made the exit route even narrower.

      Also, in a violent roll over incident, like Kvyat had in Japan, how likely is this just to shear off and hit the driver anyway, or will the finished version be far more integrated into the chassis rather than a “bolt on” and unlikely to do this?

      1. This is a test version, the final version is supposed to be integrated @cdavman, and be able to swing up to make getting out easier; just like other crash protection, it is also supposed to be firmly connected to the chassis, otherwise it would defeat the purpose. The tests they did showed it sustaining a lot more then they expect

        1. sorry, posted before finished writing; “… than they expected, so it seems unlikely it would shear off” there.

    20. Wow… simply terrible!!! Booooooooo!

      I agree 110% that something should be done in order to protect better the driver’s head, but this is too much. How about something smaller and more elegant, like some curved bars that start from the air vent area above the driver’s head and that meet the body next to the mirror’s area of that Ferrari? And the side bars should be connected by another curved bar right above the driver’s head? This way the view wouldn’t be affected at all, while the protection should be quite high too.

      1. this would introduce dead angles (similar to a-pillars in cars), leave the driver’s head open for a frontal impact and maybe complicate the exit in case of a rollover (not sure how good is the current design with that

        1. Do not know about the dead angles, but I think in F1 they’re not that important. From my knowledge, the mirrors in F1 are not really that usable anyway and the driver cannot move his head much too either. Also, I think heads’ safety is more important now than dead angles. OK, if the frontal impact is made with some small object (see Felipe Massa) or some bar for ex… then the current design cannot help much either. It’s obvious that something like a bar (exhaust) can cause easily damage. If the impact is made with a bigger object – a wheel – then shouldn’t be any problems at all with my design either. You can see that the mirrors are well ahead of the driver’s head… and I specified that the bars from my design should meet the mirrors. Basically, my design would be some sort of crown… so I do not see how a design like that wouldn’t be good. Those who made the current design obviously thought about a head-on impact with a crane (see JBianchi).

      2. look at the article I posted a link to in my first post @corrado-dub. They tested something along the lines of what you propose – it does impair visibility quite a bit more than the Halo does though and as @watertank mentions, it also complicates extraction of the driver

        1. Had a look at your posts, did not see anything close to the design I envisioned.
          OK, did not think about the extraction part, but I do not agree with the visibility part. 1st, look where the mirrors are placed on the car. Do not think the driver looks so much (much = angle) to the sides “by default”. Then think about that those side bars of the design I envisioned are placed 5-10cm to the rear compared to the mirrors. In my opinion, the bars of the design I envisioned would imped the view mostly when the driver would want to have a look and see if there’s another car by his side (but still somehow behind). Maybe the head-on view is not the most important, but it’s still verrrryyy important… and the current design is a problem in this matter. I’m pretty sure the current design will increase the number of small incidents/accidents because it impeds the head-on view.

          1. the head on view is the least important by far @corrado-dub, the drivers need to see apexes etc all the time and then off course they look to the sides in traffic.

            Extraction is a crucial point though, that disqualifies your vision unless you find a good way to get it out of the way within a second (to maintain the 5 second extraction times)

    21. BTW, is it me, or the top of the head it’s not protected at all?! I mean, if a car lands with one of the wheels on the driver’s head…. this system seems useless!

    22. Could they have come up with an uglier solution?

      Im all for safety but daaaaammmn daniel.

    23. This is horrific. It looks so ugly it’s unreal! I really don’t see why it’s necessary either.
      This wouldn’t have saved Bianchi, and frankly F1 should have its risks. They’re driving cars round at 200mph, there should be risk, and excitement.
      That’s not me saying I want people to die, it just I think at the moment, every rule that is being put into place is awful!
      There are very few deaths in F1, in fact, as a sport, it must be one of the safest.
      The whole, halo safety thing has been pushed forward by Bianchi’s death, but when it wouldn’t have saved his life, what really is the point?

    24. I think the FIA need to be commended on their swift response to the clear need for added head protection in open seater racing formulas. I certainly wasn’t expecting anything to be at a level where it could undergo preliminary testing for months.
      There is no excuse not to act on this safety issue and even though it will take some adjustments to enable it to be most effective the sooner it is brought into use the better.
      I can’t help but wonder how Justin Wilson’s wife and brother and Henry Surtees loved ones feel seeing the ‘halo”?

    25. With regards to the hampered view of drivers, surely the ‘boffins’ of F1 can come up with a clear / opaque solution to provide the same safety with minimal visual impairment?

    26. FlyingLobster27
      3rd March 2016, 11:33

      It looks like an unfinished rollcage, a little daft. Although I like the first pic, it shows why the front mount is in the middle. Maybe it can be made to look better, but it needs to be tolerated it as it’s a safety feature that will no doubt deflect loose wheels efficiently, which is what (and pretty much all) it is designed to do.

    27. Looks good, remember drivers already have direct forward visibility impaired. This looks pretty safe. Does anyone have Seb’s comments on driving with it?

      1. @jureo Kimi is the only one who has driven it.

        1. AH yes, i’ve googled it around a bit. And Kimi describes in fashion only he can… “Visibility is OK.”

          So Visibility is OK.

    28. Horible!!!
      How can the drivers see the lights at the grid!?

      1. That is one concern apparently (seeing the grid lights, not that they’re horrible).

    29. I prefer no halo above this, but also a fully closed cockpit above this. If we’re going all for the safety argument they should copy a cockpit from the LMPs.

      1. LMP cockpit seems pretty wide for F1 standards. But then again, does anyone think F1 car wouldn’t look amazing with closed cockpit?

      2. RaceProUK (@)
        3rd March 2016, 13:36

        If we’re going all for the safety argument they should copy a cockpit from the LMPs.

        A typical LMP cockpit is twice the size of an F1 cockpit; are you really advocating making F1 cars that much wider?

    30. It doesn’t look quite as bad as I expected, but then it doesn’t look good either. But I guess the idea is not to look good but rather to keep the drivers safe. F1 cars would look great without all the safety features. Noses could be thinner and higher, sidepods much tighter, the side head protection could be removed to make the driver more visible. But we just accept these things as being normal now. Probably given time this would just appear normal too.

      I’d love to see a fighter style canopy, but the issues with it are pretty insurmountable.

    31. There’s one problem with this solution that is small, nevertheless dangerous debris as was the case with Felipe Massa’s accident in Hungary 2009.

      The full canopy has its downsides compared with the Halo, but I’m sure that a capable group of engineers would eventually come up with a fully functional solution for this problem.

      1. as you mention @taiago, EVENTUALLY. Until then we will likely get this Halo

    32. I think the ‘solution’ with the windscreen is the best (if I can really call it that) solution I’ve seen so far. At least that would have almost certainly been useful in situations such as Massa’s accident and James Hinchcliffe’s accident in the Grand Prix of Indianapolis in 2014. It also allows for sportscar-style tear-offs.

      I’m still not keen on the concept however, as there are certainly flaws, such as extracting a driver and a driver getting out quickly (especially if the car is rolled over in the case of Perez at Hungary last year – what if that car burst into flames?) and safely.

      One thing we must remember though, is regardless of whether you have a roof over your head or not, racing cars are very dangerous.

    33. Not sure if anyone has posted this already (didn’t see it mentioned above)…

      BBC article on the halo, giving a driver’s eye view:

    34. Why don’t the drivers just wear giant super size helmets?

    35. no sorry don’t like it.

      this monstrosity is far uglier than things like stepped noses or appendage noses!

    36. This is a bit silly really I think. It’s a very specific solution to prevent one particular kind of accident, and only partially at that.

      If they’re going for this solution I don’t see why they can’t put a windscreen in the location of the 2 spaces formed by the “halo” (which is better described as a tripod in my opinion) At least then it would prevent debris such as what struck Massa and wouldn’t cause the problems of escape as with a full canopy making it a solution that prevents at least more than 1 type of accident.

      As for the overall shape, I foresee this being another penis-nose fiasco in the media due to the G-string shape. Does make me wonder what they’ll think of next, maybe boob-shaped sidepods?

    37. Really not a fan of this solution, it’s quite ugly in my opinion. I’d be interested to know how it would effect driver extraction if a car was to land upside down after an accident. If F1 must move to a closed cockpit I’d rather they waited a few years to implement a proper canopy rather than this rather unattractive half way house.

    38. I’ve learnt a lot about fellow f1 fans over the last 2 years I’ve been using this website, and the biggest thing I’ve learnt is how no one is ever satisfied. If they go down the fully closed cockpit route then people will surely complain about the heritage of open cockpit having been ruined. I’m sorry but for open cockpit, open wheel formula, developments such as the halo and the current tyre bumpers on indy car are good things. It doesn’t look that bad really does it? And surely safety should come first. As for the endless comments on how it wouldn’t have saved Bianchi, that’s irrelevant, there are so many scenarios that have to be accounted for. Please, lets look to the future and hope that the halo saves lives.

    39. RaceProUK (@)
      3rd March 2016, 13:37

      To everyone who’s complaining about how ugly this is: look up the definition of the word ‘prototype’.

    40. For me they should go to a wide, fully enclosed, clear, non-reflective canopy. Sealed cockpit with no batteries inside, obviously. F1 aircon and wash-wipe. Replace helmets with a headband for HANS, put a camera in the cockpit and ban shades while driving.

      I’m constantly impressed with how fans invent imaginative new problems for safety devices to have. If the car is upside down rescue has to be there in less than 2 minutes and meanwhile the driver is protected from any fire and more likely to be alive.

      They should’ve painted today’s halo red though. I’m looking forward to seeing what Red Bull have done.

      1. RaceProUK (@)
        3rd March 2016, 15:38

        I’m constantly impressed with how fans invent imaginative new problems for safety devices to have.

        Yes, I’m sure the fans are responsible for the contents of the FIA’s investigation reports, and the reports of F1 engineers and safety experts the world over.

        meanwhile the driver is protected from any fire

        What do you think is better: being trapped in a burning car, or being able to get out and run away from it? Hint: there’s only one right answer.

        1. @raceprouk A more relevant question is which is the more common threat to an F1 driver’s safety: being trapped in a burning car or being hit by a piece of debris?

          Clearly it’s the latter, which is why providing a line of defence against that trumps the former.

          1. RaceProUK (@)
            3rd March 2016, 16:08

            We’re talking about the benefits of a canopy versus the halo, so the relevant question is which is the better solution when all factors are taken into account. Which, by the way, is the question I was positing, and I like to think that people actually read what I write in full before responding; unfortunately, all too often, I see evidence people don’t bother.

        2. What do you think is better: being trapped in a burning car, or being able to get out and run away from it? Hint: there’s only one right answer.

          There is more than one right answer I think @raceprouk.

          If you are trapped in a burning car – by your legs or having sunk into gravel upside down or being deep in a tyre wall or with a car on top of you or being unconscious – would you rather be IN the fire, with your overalls soaked in fuel, or would you rather be in a sealed bubble while the fire raged outside?

          There is more than one nightmare scenario, after all. On top of which as @keithcollantine says the fire scenario isn’t that common, even though it’s a massive instinctive fear of course.

          1. RaceProUK (@)
            3rd March 2016, 17:33

            would you rather be IN the fire, with your overalls soaked in fuel, or would you rather be in a sealed bubble while the fire raged outside?

            Since the helmet and overalls are fireproof, I see very little difference. And before you mention the dangers of smoke inhalation, that danger exists whether you have a canopy or not. After all, air has to get into the canopy somehow; smoke will follow.

            1. You’ll still get more burned in any given period of time, @raceprouk, if your overalls are on fire than if the fire is outside a canopy. It’s being 5mm from the heat source versus 200mm+.

              There used to be an oxygen supply to the helmet didn’t there? Not sure if there still is or not. Anyway there’s a volume of air inside a cockpit that will last a few minutes if it’s just sealed.

            2. RaceProUK (@)
              3rd March 2016, 18:29

              You are aware that Nomex is not just flameproof, but also highly thermally insulating, and that F1 racing suits are designed to withstand the heat of a fire long enough for the emergency response units to extinguish the fire and extract the driver, right? And if it gets so hot the Nomex fails, then any canopy will have already melted or shattered.
              The fact of the matter is that the risks a canopy would add far outweigh the meagre benefits it would offer; if that wasn’t the case, then the FIA wouldn’t have chosen the halo.

            3. The ‘facts of the matter’ are far from clear @raceprouk. It’s certainly not a fact that the combustion temperature of Nomex is the same as that of whatever blend of polycarbonate and perhaps glass that a canopy would be made of. Nomex is thin anyway, and in contact with the skin. A race suit is a huge compromise obviously since drivers have to drive in it. It’s good but a canopy would be perhaps 16mm thick and some number of inches away.

              Nor is it a fact that the risks of a canopy outweigh the benefits.

              FIA have taken a first step, with the halo. There are more steps to come, as Red Bull are showing already. More problems to solve, one of which is fans adjusting to the concept.

            4. RaceProUK (@)
              3rd March 2016, 20:41

              How many more times do I have to say it? Nomex is flameproof: it WILL NOT BURN. Certainly not at any temperature achievable by burning petrol.

              But hey, if you’re willing to ignore basic scientific fact, then there is no point in continuing this asinine ‘debate’.

            5. The fabric doesn’t have to flame itself @raceprouk, it just has to get hot. Like a red hot poker. Or the glass door of an oven. Things can transfer heat, from flames, without bursting into flames themselves. You get instant skin damage from contact with something that’s 80 degrees, whether it’s Nomex or anything else (apart from some weird low-conductivity materials).

            6. RaceProUK (@)
              3rd March 2016, 22:24

              And now you’re conveniently forgetting that race suits are design not to transmit heat. But, if I’m honest, I expected that.

            7. Of course race suits transmit heat @raceprouk, otherwise drivers would cook and die of hyperthermia every race. Everything transmits heat. Have a look at

              “When exposed to extreme heat Nomex® changes its properties to give valuable extra seconds of protection from heat transfer.”

              It just reduces heat transfer. Reduces, not eliminates. It’s great, and clever, but not as great as a canopy.

            8. RaceProUK (@)
              3rd March 2016, 23:03

              Right, because it’s impossible to design a material that lets heat out without letting heat in. Just like it’s impossible to make a material that lets light pass in one direction only, or one that allows small things to pass through but not big things.

            9. Lol, well I dunno @ raceprouk. Read “extra SECONDS of protection from HEAT TRANSFER” that I just posted, from Dupont, who make Nomex.

            10. RaceProUK (@)
              4th March 2016, 11:28

              How many seconds? One? Ten? A million?

              Come back with some numbers, and maybe you’ll have a point.

    41. It doesn’t look quite right at the moment but its important to remember that this is a prototype retrofitted to a current 2016 car so there’s surely some work to do on integrating the concept into the 2017 chassis which would probably improve the aesthetics.

      I’m not yet convinced by the arguments relating to extraction of the driver. At the moment, the chassis requirements are such that the roll hoop, side impact spars (SIPS) and monocoque (amongst other elements) protect the driver in the event of a crash and/or if the car is rolled over and at the moment the basic structure of the car does not deform on impact. It’s difficult for drivers to be extracted when a car is upside down anyway so removal of any protective device would not seem, to me, to be a significant hindrance.

      What we’re trying to prevent is a very specific type of incident (i.e. flying car parts/debris or a car getting launched over another) damaging the driver’s head. The impacts we’re talking about will be very specific in the kind of forces they generate. If we look at other bodywork elements (i.e. wings, floor, diffuser etc.) they are very strong when they experience loads according to how they were designed. Any loads applied in the wrong direction result in failure.

      It cannot be beyond the abilities of the engineers in F1 to use different carbon-fibre lay-ups, mounting devices etc. to produce a device that protects the driver as required, but can be quickly and simply detached from the car under any circumstances. We won’t end up with a situation akin to a road car accident where the door won’t open because the chassis has deformed. F1 car monocoques, SIPS and roll hoops do not deform significantly so are not likely to prevent the device from being removed from inside or outside in an emergency. If the accident was violent enough to deform these chassis elements, the driver wouldn’t be relying on the ‘Halo’ to protect them anyway and would have far greater concerns with G-Forces. If the driver is incapable of removing the device because of injury etc., they wouldn’t be able to get themselves out of the car anyway so I do not foresee a scenario where the driver ends up trapped by the ‘Halo’ or whatever device ends up being used.

      While it would be great if whatever device ends up being used looks good. To be honest, whether the solution looks good or not, if it saves even one life or prevents a serious injury is that not enough to warrant its introduction?

    42. I am all for protecting the drivers, but in Justin Wilson’s case this design may still not have saved him. To think that Massa was nearly killed by an object as small as a spring puts it into perspective. Having said that the halo is F1’s best shot unless they cover the cockpit completely, something that the sport understandably is nervous about doing.
      At the end of the day, its up to the drivers’. They are the ones risking their lives. Remember, many
      disapproved of the HANS device at first and that has gone on to become standard practice. In oval racing in many cases the debris from a crash is forced back onto the racing line due to a car hitting the outside wall, there is no run off, nowhere to go. Most F1 circuits have huge runoffs, in most cases, large pieces of debris end up off the racing line. Wilson was approaching Karam’s wrecked car at around 195MPH with no
      time to react to the debris infront of him, nearly all of which was still scattered all over the track.
      I love Indycar as I do F1, but ovals are something that you can never make safe.

    43. Michael Brown
      3rd March 2016, 14:26

      I’ve been critical of the halo, simply because it’s a cheap solution to keep the current cars from being redesigned for closed cockpits. I think closed cockpits are the future; to hell with the heritage and tradition argument.

      Though the only change I would make to this halo design would be to split the central support into two smaller pillars that form a triangle gap in front of the driver’s eyes, so they can look forward unobstructed.

      This, I can accept, though.

    44. Hope we don’t have a situation in which Webber’s halo is taken and given to Vettel. Could cause issues within the team.

    45. When i see detached wheels bouncing, they would still have the ability to strike the drivers helmet with the current halo design.

      1. RaceProUK (@)
        3rd March 2016, 16:24

        It’s very rare for a wheel to be bouncing high enough that coming down directly on top of the driver will both miss the halo and be a hard enough impact to injure; on balance, it’s better to allow quicker extraction than protect against a one-in-a-million chance.

        And before the vultures inevitably descend, remember that the above scenario will already have been considered by the FIA and safety specialists, and they will have reached the same conclusion, as will anyone who applies sufficient critical thought.

        1. I do recall bouncing wheels at monaco & spa during recent years. it is true, that flying wheels have been reduced, however i only referenced wheel contact due to the article. I honestly believe the wing / body parts after contact are a danger that is ignored by the halo vs a canopy.

          1. RaceProUK (@)
            3rd March 2016, 18:35

            It’s true that a canopy would offer better protection against smaller debris, but then you run into other issues, like driver extraction and vision distortion.

            At the end of the day, you have to strike the right balance, and currently, the halo strikes the best balance.

    46. They could add a sun visor for races like in Abu Dhabi when they drive through sunset.

      1. RaceProUK (@)
        3rd March 2016, 18:35

        Why? They already wear a tinted helmet visor.

    47. I like the design. It looks better than I expected.

    48. Spanish news with some striking “quotes” from Kimi: “You can throw it to the waste bin”.

      Take it with a pinch of salt though, because the writing deserves the same bin treatment, but on the other hand is the kind of comment you could expect from Kimi…

      1. RaceProUK (@)
        3rd March 2016, 18:41

        I know I’m using Google Translate, but I can still tell you’ve pulled that quote out of context, intentionally or not. In context, he’s referring to how it doesn’t really obstruct getting in and out of the car, which is one of the main reasons it’s being tested.

    49. Easy solution to limited front visibility… Make tires that encourage drivers to take every corner sideways in glorious drifts Fangio style.

    50. Awful, just awful.

    51. SaturnVF1 (@doublestuffpenguin)
      3rd March 2016, 19:06

      Kimi’s opinion was only ever going to be “Eh, is fine.”
      It would’ve been nice to hear more of a reaction from another driver.

      But I’m glad someone ran it. It’s nice to see some progress on the matter and I think we’ll get used to the Halo pretty quickly.

    52. A bit more. Design is already growing on my eyes. As far as I care bring it in 2016.

      Safety wise…. What happens on side impact.with these stupid low noses ramming right inbetween Halo and sidepod? Would Halo be designed to lift easily in cases like this?

      In any case it seems to only offer protection for front impacting tires and such.

      How about last year Seinz Russian GP crash, bet this would come in hand then?

      In any case, noses need to lift about 10cm, and Halo needs to come asap.

      Then F1 will be as safe as possible without canopy.

      A sturdy carbon fibre halo tends to protect about tires better than canopy. Atleast according to avalible FIA tests.

    53. I do agree that something must be done regarding the drivers’ head protection, yet I cannot befriend myself with the halo concept. However, coming from another profession and therefore having no skills at all in CFD or similar I just painted a solution in good old MS paint that I had on my mind for some time now. Maybe it is just utter nonsense as I am not an engineer, but anyways: Why not extend the airbox to a point that is vertically just shortly ahead of the driver’s helmet and let it act as some kind of deflector for bigger debris such as tires?
      As the halo concept’s idea is to deflect only bigger debis such as tires and maybe medium-sized parts of the bodywork, this solution should be sufficient insofar as that it still matches the aesthetics of an open wheeler with an open cockpit and additionally doesn’t hinder the driver’s view. If done right the area ahead of the driver’s head should be a little smaller than the surface of a tire and therefore in case of a frontal accident a tire should hit the airbox first and already lose a ton of energy before hitting anything else. Maybe the cockpit sides should in that case be extended to that given line to furthermore help the driver’s safety.
      Due to its increased length the airbox should furthermore be supported by mandatory braces with a given area that should protect the driver in cases of side impacts. If designed correctly drivers should – although a more tricky admittedly – still be able to exit their cockpits in less than 5 seconds.

      Just a thought with some draws. Nonsense or worth thinking about?

      Version a:

      Version b:

      Original Williams FW38:

      1. RaceProUK (@)
        3rd March 2016, 22:30

        In order for the airbox to do the job, you’d need to extend it so far that the driver wouldn’t be able to get in the car, let alone out. Plus, it doesn’t do that great at the sort of angles tyres and bodywork is most likely to fly in at; it’s just too high. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not a bad idea; I just don’t think it’s practical unfortunately.

    54. This looks like a thong.

    55. I cannot un-see this can i. Take it off! This really I’m afraid isn’t practical i don’t think. Maybe this could be a choice for the driver? if he feels safer with it then he can have it! Give the driver the option! if not more power to you.

    56. I have a bad feeling about this..

    57. Erm, not at all. The comment may be out of context but that is not my doing, I clicked to read the piece because that was the quoted text in the front page of ‘El Pais’.

      The story literally says:

      Las mayores dificultades que plantea el halo es no solo su fijación en la carrocería del monoplaza, sino fundamentalmente que no perjudique la entrada y la salida del piloto en el cockpit. “Ya lo pueden tirar a la basura”, expresó Raikkonen tras bajarse del coche este jueves, en Montmeló.

      Which translates (I believe I am a bit better than google translator):

      The main difficulties that halo presents are not only the fixation to the car, but also is key to not impede entry and exit of the pilot to the cockpit. “They can throw it to the waste now”, said Raikkonen after stepping out of the car this Thursday in Montmelo.

      Which reads IMHO quite harshly. But I did not write it!

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.