Current cars still use the Halo, and F1rCOs changes more or less revolve around the carrCOs power-
train, moving from mainly fuel-based to an equal use of fuel and electric systems.
from
https://www.yankodesign.com/2026/02/22/formula-1-closed-cockpit-concept- shows-the-future-of-the-halo-as-a-safer-enclosed-canopy/
Formula 1 rCyClosed CockpitrCO Concept shows the future of the Halo as a Safer Enclosed Canopy
By Sarang Sheth-a 02/22/2026
Imagine a car weighing nearly 1700 lbs (770kg) landing on your head.
Sounds implausible, but itrCOs something thatrCOs happened a bunch of times in the F1 races. In the 2021 Italian GP, Lewis Hamilton nearly had his
head crushed when Max VerstappenrCOs car launched into the air and landed
on his, being deflected only by HamiltonrCOs helmet and the protective
Halo on his car. Later on, Toto Wolff of the Mercedes team told Netflix
how much he fought against the addition of the Halo to the F1 car design back in 2017, only to now be thankful for it. This isnrCOt the first time
a Halo has saved a life. LeclercrCOs helmet showed the battle scars of Fernando AlonsorCOs tire from a similar incident in the Belgian GP in 2018.
The Halo has played a controversial but incredibly pivotal role in F1.
Most teams hated it, but now thank its presence in the face of nearly
fatal accidents. The FIA also dabbled with the idea of a closed cockpit
for even safer driving, but the ideas were all shot down because a
closed cockpit proved to be more harmful in the event of a bad crash.
What if the driver couldnrCOt exit a blazing vehicle? Or get out swiftly after crashing? Designer Olcay Tuncay Karabulut has a clever fix to
these questions. Dubbed the rCyCanopyrCO, this design detail takes the Halo and gives it a set of upgradesrCa in a way that still makes it safe for drivers to exit vehicles.
Designer: Olcay Tuncay rCyKarabulutrCO
Most teams who opposed the Halo back in 2016-17, did so for two reasons. First, it was an insult to the F1rCOs open driving heritage. Second, the HalorCOs design obscured the driverrCOs view. But, as much as the Halo blocks a driverrCOs vision, itrCOs also incredibly good at blocking dangerous obstacles from smacking the driver at forces of nearly 10 Gs. ThererCOs no way a helmet could protect against something that powerful.
The FIA (the regulating body for the Formula series), however, did test closed cockpit designs before arriving at the Halo. According to the
FIA, the advantage a Halo has had over most closed cockpits, is that the
two sides make it easy for drivers to enter and exit vehicles. More components, more details, and more safety can often mean more time
required to exit a car (the Halo avoids that). Think of the seatbelt on
your average car. The seatbelt, as safe as itrCOs claimed to be, has been responsible for multiple people being trapped in cars longer than they
need to be. For the FIA, the closed cockpit has had the exact same set
of problems.
OlcayrCOs rCyCanopyrCO concept addresses this by borrowing from the closed cockpit designs of a jet. The canopy hinges at the front, opening and closing to allow the driver to enter and exit on demand. However, in the case of an emergency, multiple panels in the canopy can be pushed out to provide different points of exit. If the canopy ever breaks or fails,
simply punch out any of the glass panels on the top or the sides and the driver can easily exit through the opening, just the way they would
through the Halo.
OlcayrCOs canopy design relies on a robust framework built using Carbon-
Ti, a strong carbon-fiber, titanium, and aluminum alloy known for its ability to withstand pretty much any sort of abuse. Unlike the Halo
which is Y-shaped, the Canopy is H-shaped, with panels on the front,
top, and the sides. The front panel acts as a windshield that provides a clear, unobstructed view, while the top and side panels can be ejected during an emergency exit.
Is the Canopy better than a Halo? Well, yes and no. Sure, a closed
cockpit is way more secure than an open one. We all remember Felipe
Massa getting struck in the face by a loose spring in the 2009 Brazilian
GP. A canopy would absorb that impact, shielding the driver from damage. However, that impact would also crack the glass, obscuring the driverrCOs vision and probably making them less safe. In the rain or in muddy conditions, drivers keep their vision clean by simply peeling away protective film from their helmet visors whenever it gets dirty. ThererCOs really no way to peel mud or water away from a canopy, so this would be
a nightmare in rainy racesrCa unless the sheer force of wind pushes any
dirt or debris away from the clear glass. WerCOre also completely sidestepping the potential worst-case scenario where the Canopy along
with its ejectable panels fail to open, trapping the driver in a
nightmare situation with really no exit until someone intervenes.
OlcayrCOs justification for designing the canopy is to protect the driver from any form of tiny debris that the Halo would miss. Sure, the Halo
keeps the driver safe the way a carrCOs roll cage keeps drivers safe in regular vehicles. But the Halo would do nothing to stop shrapnel from
the car in front of you flying towards your face or body. The enclosed design of the Canopy provides 360-# cover, although yes, it needs to be sufficiently tested.
The Canopy tech was conceptualized for the year 2030, with 4 more years
to test out the system. Current cars still use the Halo, and F1rCOs
changes more or less revolve around the carrCOs power-train, moving from mainly fuel-based to an equal use of fuel and electric systems. Will we
see something akin to this in future F1 cars? Well, OlcayrCOs work is entirely conceptual, but it bases itself in a stark reality that F1
still has ways to go when it comes to driver safety. After all, the Halo wouldnrCOt be able to stop what happened to Felipe Massa in 2009. Only a Canopy would.
Add as a preferred source on Google
SHARE
On 26/02/2026 5:51 am, a425couple wrote:
Current cars still use the Halo, and F1rCOs changes more or less revolve
around the carrCOs power- train, moving from mainly fuel-based to an
equal use of fuel and electric systems.
<snipped>
This is what annoys me about the way people who should know better are talking about this new formula. It's still 100% 'fuel based'! No other
power source is available. It's just a different way of using the fuel, extracting power from the ICE in parts of the track where traditionally
it wouldn't be producing power.
This formula makes me think of the old Williams flywheel energy storage device. It's a shame they couldn't get past the fact that rotating mass
was needed to store energy and adding mass to an F1 car is a no-no.
I don't know why they can't just wind up a rubber band like I used to do with model aeroplanes. </s>
LOL, American software is trying to get me to correct the spelling of 'aeroplane' to 'airplane'. Surely an airplane is a pneumatic wood
finishing tool?
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 59 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 18:08:19 |
| Calls: | 810 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,287 |
| D/L today: |
10 files (21,017K bytes) |
| Messages: | 193,396 |