IndyCar aeroscreen "only 10% as effective as Halo" in Leclerc crash
- Published on 07 Sep 2018 18:53
-
- By: Fergal Walsh
Charlie Whiting has ruled that IndyCar's aeroscreen device that it has tested this year would only have been 10% as effective as the halo in Leclerc's Spa crash. Leclerc was involved in a heart-stopping incident two weeks ago, when the McLaren of Fernando Alonso flew over the top of him.
Alonso's right front tyre made contact with the halo, which broke the suspension on Alonso's car. After the race, Leclerc admitted that he was never a big fan of the halo, but said that he was happy it was over his head that day.
IndyCar is also looking at introducing head protection in the future. In 2015, Justin Wilson was killed following a hit on the head with debris at Pocono. The series has tested the aeroscreen twice this year - however Whiting says that the device would have been much less effective in the Leclerc crash.
"You’ve seen the sort of protection that they have been proposing and they’ve tested, similar to the Shield I think that Sebastian tried a couple of years ago in Silverstone,” said Whiting. “But I think what we’ve seen with Charles’ accident in Spa is that sort of thing wouldn’t have been nearly as effective. We’re looking at 10 percent of the protection that the Halo can offer, generally speaking.”
Robert Wickens was involved in a major crash at Pocono last month, which has left him with major injuries. Wickens' car was flung into a catch fence after making contact with Ryan Hunter-Reay. Despite IndyCar not being governed by the FIA, Whiting says the two are in contact over the performance of the catch fence.
“I think there are lessons that we can probably both learn from that because I think one of the things that was interesting about the accident was the way in which the car, after it hit the fences, what the fences can do at those speeds depending on the angle the car hits the fences.
“It’s supposed to deflect it but it gets hit on those very, very strong uprights which are necessary to stop it going into the crowd, but obviously it can also do things to the car and driver, as we saw with Dan Wheldon, for example,” Whiting added.
8
Replies (7)
Login to replyLightIsRight
Posts: 113
10% of 0 is still 0.
calle.itw
Posts: 8,527
Maybe, but it is a sorta compromise of better safety to better looks. Mind, it can probably be done better than the screen too.
mcbhargav
Posts: 1,332
I wonder why can't one implement a hybrid of both.
xoya
Posts: 583
You need some structure to hold it in place. A hybrid of aeroscreen and halo would only add windscreen to the openings on halo, adding worse visibility in raining conditions and not improving the looks.
I'm thinking F1 will go closed cockpit in the next decade.
calle.itw
Posts: 8,527
That, and I dont really think they serve the same purposes. I dont really think the aeroscreen will help in heavy impact situations, whereas the screen is probably better at reflecting smaller debris coming from the front of the car. A hybrid (e.g scrapping that middlebarn and replacing it with a screen) could probably be able to strike a decent middleground. My only real issue with the screen is that it'd probably get really dirty on F1 tracks.
Ram Samartha
Posts: 1,172
Was expecting a bit more from Charlie than 10% or so generally speaking. It seems the FIA feels justified in their decision to use the halo so time to move on.
Rindtchamp
Posts: 304
Utter speculation by Whiting.