Fe2 halo?

Hi all,

Currently running FC, have been a long time lurker of the FE2 class. While I know there’s been discussion about things like paddle shifters to bring it into the “modern era”, I am more interested in updates to safety - namely the HALO. Has anyone heard anything regarding a potential FE3 with a HALO, or an update to bring to the FE2 for such? I believe the protection of the HALO design ran out this year and it is now “free reign” for anybody to implement.

Knowing there is some plan in the future to add a HALO will greatly increase the likelihood I eventually “jump ship” to FE.

Thanks!

I haven't heard any buzz about adding the halo to FE2, but that doesn't mean that discussions aren't being had.

Personally, the FE2 chassis is probably the most robust of all formula classes. If you haven't seen one without its "skin", you'd be blown away at the protection it offers. No, it doesn't have a halo, but (unfortunately) I've seen several roll over (one as recent as March, where the driver literally skidded on his rollbar for 50+ feet before starting to roll again) and the driver walked away. This is not to say that a halo wouldn't be beneficial, but there is a lot of talk right now about upgrades to FE2 - the aforementioned paddle shifters, shock upgrades, and a new nose/front wing assembly. If any (or all) of these come to fruition, we are looking at thousands of dollars in upgrades. There's also no way to add a halo without changing the bodywork on the shock tower and the engine cover to some extent.

I am all for safety, but I would hope that the halo would be an option if they ever implemented one, and not mandatory. The chassis has proven to be about as safe as you can get in a non-pro open-wheel class.

James

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agitator

I haven't heard any buzz about adding the halo to FE2, but that doesn't mean that discussions aren't being had.

Personally, the FE2 chassis is probably the most robust of all formula classes. If you haven't seen one without its "skin", you'd be blown away at the protection it offers. No, it doesn't have a halo, but (unfortunately) I've seen several roll over (one as recent as March, where the driver literally skidded on his rollbar for 50+ feet before starting to roll again) and the driver walked away. This is not to say that a halo wouldn't be beneficial, but there is a lot of talk right now about upgrades to FE2 - the aforementioned paddle shifters, shock upgrades, and a new nose/front wing assembly. If any (or all) of these come to fruition, we are looking at thousands of dollars in upgrades. There's also no way to add a halo without changing the bodywork on the shock tower and the engine cover to some extent.

I am all for safety, but I would hope that the halo would be an option if they ever implemented one, and not mandatory. The chassis has proven to be about as safe as you can get in a non-pro open-wheel class.

James

---

Thanks for the information! The option would definitely be nice in the future - but they definitely seem to be a solid option as is!

If anyone wants to see a current implementation for a halo, you should take a look at Tim Kautz' car (now being driven by his son). That is a really NEAT, SIMPLE, "EASY" implementation on a FF.
Steve, FV80

It would be nice to see pictures of Tim's implementation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Purple Frog

It would be nice to see pictures of Tim's implementation.

---

I've seen it in person.
I do believe that the convenience of the front pivot point somewhat reduces the strength in that location.
I'd be curious to see what the design input parameters were for the piece they came up with.

I have no pix, but it is a HALO built 'standalone'. It has a triangle mount - single forward bolt mount and 2 side bolt mounts at the rear. The normal operation is to remove the 2 rear mounts and then it tilts up to vertical on the front mount for 'service work'. It's pretty cool IMHO. Per the comment above about its constructional integrity, I'll bet that it's at least 10 times stronger in an 'upside down' configuration than it was before the halo. I haven't really had an opportunity to study it thoroughly, but it looks WAY BETTER safetywise.. upside down sliding along a guard rail, than it did before.

Steve, FV80

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Davis

I have no pix, but it is a HALO built 'standalone'. It has a triangle mount - single forward bolt mount and 2 side bolt mounts at the rear. The normal operation is to remove the 2 rear mounts and then it tilts up to vertical on the front mount for 'service work'. It's pretty cool IMHO. Per the comment above about its constructional integrity, I'll bet that it's at least 10 times stronger in an 'upside down' configuration than it was before the halo. I haven't really had an opportunity to study it thoroughly, but it looks WAY BETTER safetywise.. upside down sliding along a guard rail, than it did before.

Steve, FV80

---

My generic concern (in no way related specifically to Kautz’ halo) is if it is under-designed or under-fabricated, and collapses in a roll over, making immediate extraction difficult or impossible…

One time I had a guys rear tire spinning about 2" above my helmet. (GT1Vette said I should not have been back there in the first place) A halo might have been more comforting. I'm thinking of upside down guardrail sliding. A halo would be nice, even a weaker than FIA spec one. In that case jaws-of life is better than the alternative.

We had bolt on roll hoop braces in the 70's. if engineered right. they work. Geez, my Tatuus had a bolt on roll hoop. It and a HANS saved my life 19 years ago. Bolts can work.

When i was with FRP i tried to recruit entries. Many parents told me their kid was going to have a car with a cage. End of discussion. Now on Sunday TV they are watching Indy Car and F1... what do they see.

As always... your mileage may vary.

About 2 or 3 years ago, there was a discussion about the implementation of a Halo type device on an FE2. There was definitely some engineering challenges because of the shape of the FE2 chassis and where its tubing is located. Aside from that, general consensus was that it was not wanted (or at least made mandatory). I know there are definitely some that do want a Halo and while I wouldn't be opposed to allowing it, I personally don't want one. As was discussed earlier, the FE2 chassis is probably the safest of all open wheel cars. I've attached a picture of a barebones chassis.

https://scontent-ord5-1.xx.fbcdn.net...JQ&oe=668DABEB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Purple Frog

One time I had a guys rear tire spinning about 2" above my helmet. (GT1Vette said I should not have been back there in the first place) A halo might have been more comforting. I'm thinking of upside down guardrail sliding. A halo would be nice, even a weaker than FIA spec one. In that case jaws-of life is better than the alternative.

We had bolt on roll hoop braces in the 70's. if engineered right. they work. Geez, my Tatuus had a bolt on roll hoop. It and a HANS saved my life 19 years ago. Bolts can work.

When i was with FRP i tried to recruit entries. Many parents told me their kid was going to have a car with a cage. End of discussion. Now on Sunday TV they are watching Indy Car and F1... what do they see.

As always... your mileage may vary.

---

Fully agree, not suggesting they can't or won't work, just wondering who designed and fabricated them to what criteria? (it's my aerospace background creeping out again)

The halo on Kautz’s FF was designed by an Apexspeed member and experienced engineer, with the current SCCA roll hoop and brace specifications as a baseline/design guide.
It was designed using CAD and refined with many iterations of FEA.
I’ll reach out to him and see if he would like to respond with details.

Hello and I'm glad to see that there is some energy on this topic. My son and I designed the Halo for Tim Kautz. Tim asked me to help since I was deeply involved with helping Don Sievenpiper design the first three generations of Pipers - Tim's was the third.

Tim and I worked out the concept together including the strength targets, protection zone, driver visibility and emergency exit, construction method, and serviceability. I did the CAD modeling and my son did the FEA using engineering tools he has access to at his aerospace company. We modeled 26 different concepts each of which had up to eight detailed iterations. In all about 80 FEA runs were needed. It took several hundred man hours. The time consuming part was trying to minimize the weight while meeting the strength targets. The first was 36 pounds and the final system weight is 22 pounds. F1 is down to about 18, but they are allowed to use titanium where the SCCA justifiably limits us to steel (we used 4130 chrome molly).

Design targets:
- We could not find any published crash test data to use as a guidepost to select the target numbers
- F1, F2, and Formula E does have their GCR's including the Halo design targets published. So given the safety success of those targets we chose to match them. Their targets are 15G (15 times the cars weight) from above, the side, and the front. We rounded up to 17,000 pounds for our target from each direction for an FF.
- Note. the SCCA GCR's were updated a few years ago to give targets for the rear hoop design VS just tubing diameters and wall thickness it originally included. These have been been reasonable targets since we have never heard of a roll hoop failure. The F1 targets we choose are 25% higher than the SCCA roll hoop criteria.
- Note, given the much higher weight and top speed of an F1 car, they are actually carrying 3.3 times as much energy than an FF. So using their targets seemed like a safe place to be when putting our kids in the cars.
- Like F1, F2, F3, F4, USF2000, and Formula E, we chose to bolt the Halo in place rather than weld it. It made it easier to have it work with existing bodywork plus it could be removed if the SCCA would not let the car run with it. However Tim's son would not be in the car per his Mom without the Halo. Our design target for the joints was 4 times stronger than the hallo (about 66,000 pounds for each joint).

Other points to recognize:
- Note, we modeled Tim's entire frame as its performance is integral with the Halo's. To meet the target numbers, more tubing had to be added to the roll hoop.
- We decided to build the Halo per the GCR and show up at a race rather than ask for prior approval. Back in the Mid-90's I designed a hydraulic paddle shift system for the Piper FC cars that met the SCCA regulations. But when we sent in the homologation paperwork the SCCA decided that they didn't like that idea so they quickly changed the GCR to outlaw it. Since then I've made my living designing AMA and World Superbike road racing motorcycles and had similar experiences that taught me to just show up with legal systems at the track rather than give committees time to discuss how they would treat various innovations.
- The SCCA approved Tim's Halo but have decided not to approve any more until the GCR can be updated with criteria for such devices. They have a very solid point about someone eying up an F1 Halo and simply doing their own interpretation in the garage without any engineering diligence put into the the effort to confirm the integrity of the Halo and the cars frame. Take for example all the good questions coming from this group noted in your posts above. The SCCA has asked us to help write those rules. About a year ago we gave them a detailed report on all our thoughts and methodologies to that end. I do not know what the current status of their efforts are.
-- To tinier point, my son and I designed a Halo for our Spectrum more than a year ago and on that car the frames front roll hoop will need added structure to meet the noted design targets vs the rear roll hoop modifications that generation of Piper needed. This again proves the SCCA's concern about engineering diligence. Not everyone has access to CAD and Finite Element Analysis engineering tools and experience.
- By the way, you can buy and F1 Halo for about $30,000 (they are all forced to buy the same part number from the same supplier) and you can't see the bolts since they put carbon fiber covers over them - each team can do their own interpretation of these.

Lastly, each of you is likely to have your own opinion on how this is done or if it should be done. I'm very comfortable with each person selecting their own path in life. You probably wouldn't want my haircut and I probably wouldn't choose yours. To be honest, my wife chooses mine, its the only thing she likes about me.

I was super impressed with this implementation when I saw it in person at MidOhio.

I would absolutely love to have one for my FE2. I would run it if optional even if I knew it came with an aero penalty.

Surely plenty of people with naysay about how people could be trapped blah blah blah, but for several years of use now, we have yet to see that be a negative factor in various world racing classes. Sort of how people still like to come up with fringe cases of how they are safer without a helmet or whatever.