John wrote: ↑3 years ago
Were the sausage kerbs a safety feature per se? I thought they were there to punish drivers who ran wide.
In which case you might argue that they did their job with regards to Peroni running wide.
Well........
I suppose @Ian-S's answer to your question has sort of excused me from looking silly. I think I was trying to say that grass and gravel was replaced with tarmac run-off to make it 'safer' and these launch ramps are part of that 'safety feature'.
I have been saying this for maybe 15 years now, but the FIA's strategy has always been 'Find a crack, wallpaper over it'. They don't remove the problem at the source, they just patch it up with something else which creates a new problem, then they try to patch that up and it goes on. We are only having this discussion because the FIA decided to focus on protecting the drivers' heads instead of removing the things they were banging them on, e.g. the underside of a JCB digger.
And as always, they just create new problems. We didn't have any problems with drivers running wide and gaining from it in the 1990's.
John wrote: ↑3 years ago
Were the sausage kerbs a safety feature per se? I thought they were there to punish drivers who ran wide.
In which case you might argue that they did their job with regards to Peroni running wide.
Well........
I suppose @Ian-S's answer to your question has sort of excused me from looking silly. I think I was trying to say that grass and gravel was replaced with tarmac run-off to make it 'safer' and these launch ramps are part of that 'safety feature'.
I have been saying this for maybe 15 years now, but the FIA's strategy has always been 'Find a crack, wallpaper over it'. They don't remove the problem at the source, they just patch it up with something else which creates a new problem, then they try to patch that up and it goes on. We are only having this discussion because the FIA decided to focus on protecting the drivers' heads instead of removing the things they were banging them on, e.g. the underside of a JCB digger.
And as always, they just create new problems. We didn't have any problems with drivers running wide and gaining from it in the 1990's.
PTRACER wrote: ↑3 years ago
The halo looks suitable for F1, the aeroscreen for Indycar. Switching the two would look inappropriate.
So, I vote for both, and neither.
Well the Indycar aeroscreen is a mix. It's just a halo with a screen added.
The original Indycar version was what was tested in F1, basically:
I wish the original had worked, though. Looks much better:
I wonder what was wrong with it.
Oscar Piastri in F1! Catch the fever! Vettel Hate Club. Life membership.
Well the Indycar aeroscreen is a mix. It's just a halo with a screen added.
The original Indycar version was what was tested in F1, basically:
I wish the original had worked, though. Looks much better:
I wonder what was wrong with it.
I seem to recall that Vettel tried one at Ferrari and having done a few laps he reported distorted vision caused by the curve of the glass, and IIRC it made him feel dizzy. The test was curtailed because he couldnt cope with it basically and we ended up with a halo rather than screen as a result.
I remember thinking at the time that Sports Cars (LMP) have windscreens and those are curved.... dont see their drivers complaining of distorted vision or dizziness.....
* I started life with nothing, and still have most of it left
“Good drivers have dead flies on the side windows!” (Walter Röhrl)
* I married Miss Right. Just didn't know her first name was Always
Well the Indycar aeroscreen is a mix. It's just a halo with a screen added.
The original Indycar version was what was tested in F1, basically:
I wish the original had worked, though. Looks much better:
I wonder what was wrong with it.
I seem to recall that Vettel tried one at Ferrari and having done a few laps he reported distorted vision caused by the curve of the glass, and IIRC it made him feel dizzy. The test was curtailed because he couldnt cope with it basically and we ended up with a halo rather than screen as a result.
I remember thinking at the time that Sports Cars (LMP) have windscreens and those are curved.... dont see their drivers complaining of distorted vision or dizziness.....
Scott Dixon tested it on an oval of all things and said it was fine as well.
Oscar Piastri in F1! Catch the fever! Vettel Hate Club. Life membership.
The one Vettel tried wasn't a continuous radius, the one Scott Dixon tried was this is why he didn't get dizzy, the reason Indycar scrapped it was becuase it failed in crash teta and common sense prevailed, i.e. You might save the guy from being hit on the head by a wheel, but it won't be much help if a shard of the screen goes through his head instead.
Catch fencing replaced grass, catch fencing ended up decapitated people.
Gravel replaced catch fencing as a result, it resulted in cars being launched into spectator enclosures.
Tarmac replaced gravel and because drivers used it to gain an advantage organisers put in sausage curbs, said curbs had watched too many NR2k3 videos on YT and got bad ideas.
Every "safety improvement" bought in over the last few decades has usually created more new problems than it solved, we haven't seen the downside of HALO/Aeroscreen yet...
I am very sorry if you find my posts long and boring, I like to type and often go off on a tangent.
If this is the case, you may click here to solve the problem, or alternatively here too.
Ian-S wrote: ↑3 years ago we haven't seen the downside of HALO/Aeroscreen yet...
The downside with the aero screen is ventilation, but they're working on that.
The downside with the halo is that it won't stop a smaller object from hitting the driver, such as a spring. These cars are near on fireproof these days so I'm not too worried about drivers getting trapped a la Roger Williamson.
"In the first Iowa race last weekend, Will Power crashed when his front-left wheel came loose having not been attached properly in a previous pitstop. That wheel then brushed Power’s aeroscreen, but did not enter the cockpit." - The author
"Some debris from Herta’s car then flew clear of the accident and hit Ericsson’s car, which was on the inside line and had avoided the crash up until then.
“When it [the VeeKay/Herta crash] happened, I was just focusing on trying not to get involved in the accident and not hit one of the two cars,” Ericsson explained.
“I told the team that there was some debris hitting me but I thought it was nothing serious, should be all fine.
“But then obviously after the race I watched the replays, I could see that it was quite a big piece – his wing or whatever – that hit around my aeroscreen area."
John wrote: ↑3 years ago
Interesting take from "Might still be a FWDC" regarding the aero screen.
"F1 should switch to the aero screen"
To me to stands to reason that they'll introduce a screen element at some point.
Massa's spring incident at Hungary was constantly cited as a need for for helmet protection, but there's no guarantee that the halo would protect against it.
Oscar Piastri in F1! Catch the fever! Vettel Hate Club. Life membership.
erwin greven wrote: ↑3 years ago
Not every brain reacts in the same way. Some can feel disorientated when their view is altered by a screen/window of any kind.
Waiting for the Vettel-bash comments.
What you say is so true about vision varying from person to person and how certain things can disrupt your balance very easily. Even certain types of pattern can disorientate some people (myself included). Not that pattern is an issue here of course.
Okay this is a serious question, if you have the clear screen instead of just the halo, what happens when it rains? I mean surely that would make it impossible to continue racing wouldn't it? You'd never be see anything. Ditto couldn't they also mist up in certain conditions? That to me is why I would always think a halo is a better option.
My vision is very impaired when it is raining and my screen is not clean enough. Gnats, oil and so on.. Combined with the fact that i wear glasses.
Plus i am very sensitive for light. I usually wear night glasses when i have to drive in the evening.
Brian Redman: "Mr. Fangio, how do you come so fast?" "More throttle, less brakes...."
Star wrote: ↑3 years ago
Okay this is a serious question, if you have the clear screen instead of just the halo, what happens when it rains? I mean surely that would make it impossible to continue racing wouldn't it? You'd never be see anything. Ditto couldn't they also mist up in certain conditions? That to me is why I would always think a halo is a better option.
The screen is covered with Rain-X. The water just disperses and visibility is actually better than without it.
