if you go to the Indy car site they have a prototype they're testing that's also a windscreen. in the end that's how they'll go.
A few teams have wings up on the halo. Ferrari at Barcelona: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/R%C3%A4ikk%C3%B6nen_Ferrari_SF71H_Testing_Barcelona.jpg Force India at Barcelona: https://www.motorsport.com/f1/photo/main-gallery/esteban-ocon-sahara-force-india-vjm11-15960611/ McLaren at Barcelona: https://www.motorsport.com/f1/photo/main-gallery/fernando-alonso-mclaren-mcl33-15977692/?sz=9&r=200599&s=-6&oft=47&id=15977692&i=5 Williams: https://www.motorsport.com/f1/photo/main-gallery/lance-stroll-williams-fw41-15977488/?sz=9&r=200599&s=-6&oft=47&id=15977488&i=30 STR: https://www.motorsport.com/f1/photo/main-gallery/pierre-gasly-toro-rosso-str13-15977462/?sz=9&r=200599&s=-6&oft=47&id=15977462&i=42 RBR does not: https://www.motorsport.com/f1/photo/main-gallery/max-verstappen-red-bull-racing-rb14-15973373/?sz=9&r=200599&s=-6&oft=273&id=15973373&i=243 MB does not: https://www.motorsport.com/f1/photo/main-gallery/lewis-hamilton-mercedes-amg-f1-w09-15974968/?sz=9&r=200599&s=-6&oft=191&id=15974968&i=182 Renault does not: https://www.motorsport.com/f1/photo/main-gallery/nico-hulkenberg-renault-sport-f1-team-rs18-valtteri-bottas-mercedes-amg-f1-w09-15970854/?sz=9&r=200599&s=-6&oft=406&id=15970854&i=393
To me, the darker halos are less obtrusive than the lighter ones. I still say that they should all be painted 18% neutral flat gray, or at least some dark color.
First real driver complaint that Halo will cause problems. http://www.planetf1.com/news/ugly-halo-could-cause-problems-at-eau-rouge/
IIRC early on in the discussion last year I posted a link to a picture of what Eau Rouge would look like and some folks commented that this was just a simulation and it wouldn't be so bad etc etc. Well, maybe, hopefully it is as bad. The sooner the drivers cannot cope with this monstrosity the sooner it gets removed again. Can't wait.
Anyone know what they raised the mandatory cockpit evacuation time to? It had been that drivers had to be able to exit the car in five seconds. (Since the '80s or '90s, I think. I remember when Eddie Cheever left the Alfa team because he was too big to meet that time.) With the halo, there was talk of raising it to 10 seconds. Or 8. Anyone know where it landed?
I watched the race with a friend I tend to watch most races with for years. We both concluded that the Halo isn't having any notable impact on our viewing experience. I didn't like it when it was proposed and there is questions about its performance. But certainly it doesn't affect my F1 experience as a viewer.
Unless you get the drivers eye level from the side...then as Bas said looks like they crashed into some scaffolding.
As I think I stated a year or so ago, the whole halo thing is a CYA reaction to Bianchi's crash...a crash that was completely avoidable had he not been overdriving for conditions. Yes, yes, I know there's a legitimate case to be made that the race should have been red flagged, and that the recovery equipment was out of position. Still, the ultimate responsibility is and always will be the driver's, particularly when there is no other car or apparent equipment failure involved. FIA had to be seen as "doing something" and it was Napoleon Todt to the rescue.....
We saw some of this in Melbourne. Looks like the halo is really a hindrance to get out of the car in a jiffy.
Maybe the halo should be like an F-16 cockpit canopy: hinged at the front and latched at the back. They should be able to design those so that they won't fail in a crash.
Well, that could be a problem if they blow inadvertently, or if the driver blows off the halo and then runs into something where it would have been useful. Heck, if you're going that far, why not add an ejection seat? James Bond had one in his DB5.....
So then you're going to need to add air-con to the cars because of how hot they will get inside that green house - Especially in places like Bahrain and Abu Dhabi! (modern day fighter jets all have air-con cockpits) Then you've got the problem of oil and tyre/track debris collecting on the surface of the canopy, causing problems for the driver, so they will have to keep pitting to have the cockpit cleaned, or have a massive tear-off ripped away. And let's not forget the issue of vision distortion that such a small canopy would create (F16 fighter jets actually have quite large canopies) - When Ferrari tried a screen on their car, Sebastian Vettel started having dizzy spells. A full canopy would only be worse. Added to all of that, how would an F16 type canopy cope with a wheel/tyre dropping on it from a great height?, or an engine/gearbox dropping on it? - Because that's what the FIA are trying to counter: The sort of accidents that befell Justin Wilson, and Henry Surtees, and not Jules Bianchi's accident. The difference is, Justin Wilson and Henry Surtees were killed by an external impact on their helmets - Something a Halo device would prevent (had both drivers had a Halo device on their cars, chances are both would still be racing today!). Jules Bianchi died from an internal brain impact caused by a sudden deceleration of his helmet/skull, and the Halo is not designed to prevent that kind of impact (chances are, in Jules Bianchi's case, with a Halo fitted, his helmet would have hit the Halo and still caused the internal brain impact). As for the Indy style screen: It may help in a lateral impact from a wheel/tyre combination, but I doubt it would be so effective with a wheel/tyre or engine/gearbox dropping on it from above, in the way that the Halo device does (and I doubt it would be of much use should a car come flying at it in the style of Grosjean at Spa, when he slew across the cockpit of Alonso's Ferrari!)