F1 Banter Online Forums
Halo scope for interpretation? - Printable Version

+- F1 Banter Online Forums (https://www.f1banter.co.uk)
+-- Forum: Formula 1 Discussions (https://www.f1banter.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Technical Talk (https://www.f1banter.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: Halo scope for interpretation? (/showthread.php?tid=112)

Pages: 1 2


Halo scope for interpretation? - morini - 01-02-2018

I think this has been touched on already in another thread, but as we are stuck with it what scope do the teams have for being creative? Not much I wouldn't think, but what do I know?  These F1 engineers are very creative thinkers, what can they do aero wise with the ugly monstrosity? Or are they all going to look identical apart from being painted to match liveries?


RE: Halo scope for interpretation? - Jody Barton - 02-02-2018

The general shape, and area for coverage are set by the rules, as is the strength testing and the amount of load the structure should be able to take... However... nothing I saw on the rules stipulated it couldn't be used as an aerodynamic device. So do I expect turning veins and winglets, or leading and trailing edges to be sculpted like wings? Answer, yes. Didn't McLaren test a small wing on top of the halo at one race? I'm sure they did.

The really big issue though is one of weight. I think some teams are saying it's adding as much as, or in excess of 10kg to the cars. The FIA said 6Kgs max. Well... I believe the 6 teams whining about the weight, so when the likes of Merc rock up with a 4Kg Halo that passes the load tests that'll be the real advantage. The team that makes theirs the lightest. But if the leading teams have as much as a 6Kg advantage over the others, that's a hell of a lot of lap time.


RE: Halo scope for interpretation? - Monster Hesh - 02-02-2018

The 'Halo' it self is made by three different FIA picked companies. The teams then get to pick which supplier they want. Whether these companies are allowed to be innovative with their materials structures etc: to meet the regulations but also be more competitive; weight, size, etc, is something I would like to find out, or whether FIA have supplied the complete specification.

Aerodynamic regulations for the F1 2018 championship allow a 30mm(I originally said 20mm) "wrap" zone around the Halo for fairing. This is tight to try and tidy up the aero impact, but there is scope for potential vortex generators and management.

As Jody mentioned about the weight, the biggest weight probably has come from creating the support structure within the chassis. All of which will be in excess of what the FIA allocated. Solutions will probably be a broad range and consequently as Jody said, wide lap time deltas.

A couple of piccys from the Abu habi test.
[Image: XPB_920545_HiRes.jpg]
[Image: XPB_920582_HiRes.jpg]

As you can see McLaren had, quite frankly, a lovely bit of aero porn on top of the halo. 3 tiered element aiming to generate vortexes, with a tailing edge at the back of the halo to channel the airflow close to the sides of the airbox and not disrupt airflow to the rear wing.

P.S. I don't really know what I'm on about.


RE: Halo scope for interpretation? - Jody Barton - 02-02-2018

Yeah, I thought they'd trialed a winglets or three. We'll see more of that I'm sure.


RE: Halo scope for interpretation? - forzaferrari - 02-02-2018

(02-02-2018, 02:24 PM)Jody Barton Wrote:  Yeah, I thought they'd trialed a winglets or three. We'll see more of that I'm sure.

With Indy set to trial an aeroscreen next week do you think IF they get it right, F1 will have another look at it or stick with the halo?


RE: Halo scope for interpretation? - Jody Barton - 03-02-2018

Forza if they get it right then yes. But the technical problem of get a screen with only mounting support at the bottom to not flex and deform under impact and basically be all but useless at deflecting stuff is bloody hard.

I tried finding the autosport article on it written by an aerospace engineer and it was fascinating. Essentially right now there is no form of glass or Perspex that can pass the FIA tests without being fully enclosed. Well that was his take. He also made the point that to get to that stage anyway would mean the materials properties would likely have an optics affect and distort the drivers view...

So let's just say I am not optimistic.


RE: Halo scope for interpretation? - morini - 03-02-2018

(02-02-2018, 10:53 PM)forzaferrari Wrote:  With Indy set to trial an aeroscreen next week do you think IF they get it right, F1 will have another look at it or stick with the halo?

Don't like either myself. Sorry.


RE: Halo scope for interpretation? - Monster Hesh - 11-02-2018

Taken from crash.net

"McLaren’s chief of aerodynamics Peter Prodromou says the installation of the new Halo safety device will provide short-term chances for performance jumps in Formula 1 at the start of 2018.

Prodromou has confirmed McLaren’s MCL33 has passed all FIA safety tests at its first attempt including new tests for the Halo cockpit protector which becomes a mandatory safety piece for F1 cars this year.

While the challenges faced integrating the Halo efficiently has ‘excited’ the engineering brains at McLaren, Prodromou predicts a variety of different fairings experimented with by F1 teams when getting up to speed with the new device.

The McLaren aerodynamics boss believes any F1 team could find a performance gain tweaking the aero impact of the Halo regarding air intake for the engine as well as added downforce potential.

“Aero wise it is certainly not penalty free and I think there is a challenge to either cope with it in the first insistence, let’s call it damage limitation,” Prodromou said. “Thereafter I think it is about opportunity and exploitation. It does open up some avenues which are possibly interesting to look out.

“I am sure there will be a variety of different solutions out there but the scope is quite limited to the allowance around the basic shape but there is opportunity there.

“Everyone is going to be faced with how it impacts the flow into the engine and the flow into certain cooling ducts in that area, including ourselves, as well as the flow to the rear wing. On the flipside there may be opportunities to tap into which you couldn’t before.”

However, Prodromou has played down the lasting advantage of the Halo in terms of aerodynamic performance as he expects all F1 teams to catch-up with each other by the middle of the 2018 season.

“The advantage is likely to be short-lived with the rest of the field catching up midway through the season,” he said. “I’d probably give it half a season and I imagine everyone will have converged, that would be my rough guess.”

In IndyCar, an alternative to the Halo - the windscreen - has passed its first tests on track at Phoenix last Thursday which is made of a proprietary Opticor advanced transparency material used to produce fighter jet canopies. It passed initial tests on how it impacted vision through the prototype in varying light conditions." Haydn Cobb


RE: Halo scope for interpretation? - Jody Barton - 12-02-2018

Yeah, there is a lot of scope on the aero side of things, still think the biggest issue will be weight for most teams though. I expect Merc, Ferrari, RBR and McLaren to have achieved the safety standards with minimal weight gain, teams won't be closing that up much during the season.


RE: Halo scope for interpretation? - forzaferrari - 12-02-2018

(12-02-2018, 12:38 PM)Jody Barton Wrote:  Yeah, there is a lot of scope on the aero side of things, still think the biggest issue will be weight for most teams though. I expect Merc, Ferrari, RBR and McLaren to have achieved the safety standards with minimal weight gain, teams won't be closing that up much during the season.

Am I correct in thinking any saving of weight can only come from the `mounting` side as the actual Halo is provided to teams by a third party?