planetf1.com

It is currently Wed Dec 13, 2017 7:22 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Jul 22, 2017 12:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12374
Fiki wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
He did hit the tractor but that was not what killed him. It was his diffuse axonal injury that killed him (widely reported). That is not an impact injury as such.
I know, I read the FIA report. But that doesn't change the fact that every possible item that provides extra decelaration in case of an accident is worth implementing. Unless we are happy with the results of the actions taken after Bianchi's accident, which made sense. But if we are, then why do we still accept dangerous driving, running people off the track, etc.

I think putting in the VSC was long overdue, provided one likes a race to go on with the actual racing suspended. But that is another discussion.


Sure, I agree largely, But that's not what was being discussed. It was put forward that the halo would've saved Bianchi. Which it wouldn't. His problem was too much decelaration rather than the head impact with the vehicle.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 22, 2017 12:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12374
Here is the originating quote stream which started this line of conversation. mcdo said the halo would not save Bianchi. You said you felt the opposite was true.


Fiki wrote:
mcdo wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
What is the most recent life this would have saved in F1?

I'm not sure about Bianchi being saved. From what I can recollect the sheer force of the impact caused the diffuse axonal injury. I think the halo would have saved Maria de Villota
Would you mind explaining that? My information is far from adequate, but I would think just the opposite would be the case.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 22, 2017 12:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6831
Location: Belgium
Zoue wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Edit: a thought just popped into my head. The HALO structure could be fitted with airbags, out of the regular lines of sight for the driver. So could a shield or a canopy of course.

Not that I'm an expert on airbags, but it's my understanding they are triggered by sudden deceleration, so unless they can be set off another way I don't think they'd work in an F1 car. But maybe someone with more knowledge than me can confirm?
That's a good point, and I'm not an expert either. Still, the speed at which Bianchi hit, 126km/h, is roughly the speed we do on the motorways.

Thinking of a method of activating airbags earlier, how about when the driver takes his hands off the steering wheel before the hit? In combination with a certain minimum speed, obviously. Or perhaps remote control, seeing as all cars have on-board cameras that allow real-time monitoring?

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 22, 2017 8:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 1412
no matter how you look at this , its got to be a visual hinderence


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 23, 2017 1:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 1:23 pm
Posts: 51
For a person to have depth perception you need both eyes for this to work if one eye is obstructed you lose this ability .
At the speeds these drivers travel on track they need to see and react to what they coming up on in a split second to avoid other cars and or hazards . If the Halo obstructs vision in one eye at the wrong time for this critical split second the driver's ability to gauge distance could be compromised resulting in a crash . F1's cure could be potentially worse than the ailment .


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 23, 2017 1:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 2:53 pm
Posts: 5218
Location: Mumbai, India
kls2020 wrote:
For a person to have depth perception you need both eyes for this to work if one eye is obstructed you lose this ability .
At the speeds these drivers travel on track they need to see and react to what they coming up on in a split second to avoid other cars and or hazards . If the Halo obstructs vision in one eye at the wrong time for this critical split second the driver's ability to gauge distance could be compromised resulting in a crash . F1's cure could be potentially worse than the ailment .


Wouldn't this issue crop up when drivers were to test their 2018 cars in the simulator which also should be having the halo?

When driving for a good amount of laps & if they could try to drive in a race simulation, they could give a quick but essential feedback if halo is obstructive or not?

I read somewhere halo will be problematic for drivers heading towards Eau Rouge.

_________________
Feel The Fourth


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 23, 2017 2:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6831
Location: Belgium
UnlikeUday wrote:
kls2020 wrote:
For a person to have depth perception you need both eyes for this to work if one eye is obstructed you lose this ability .
At the speeds these drivers travel on track they need to see and react to what they coming up on in a split second to avoid other cars and or hazards . If the Halo obstructs vision in one eye at the wrong time for this critical split second the driver's ability to gauge distance could be compromised resulting in a crash . F1's cure could be potentially worse than the ailment .


Wouldn't this issue crop up when drivers were to test their 2018 cars in the simulator which also should be having the halo?

When driving for a good amount of laps & if they could try to drive in a race simulation, they could give a quick but essential feedback if halo is obstructive or not?

I read somewhere halo will be problematic for drivers heading towards Eau Rouge.
Whether the central support for the HALO obstructs depth perception depends on the distance it is in front of the driver's eyes. If it is close enough, it won't interfere in the least, but the mandatory cockpit dimensions may make that problematic. To illustrate this, a central post carrying a rear view mirror already featured on a F1 car in the 'seventies, while in the first version of the F-16 fighter jet, the video camera was placed in front of the pilot, behind the HUD. It didn't interfere with vision at all, as its position had been carefully calculated and tested.

Image
Source: http://www.voodoo-world.cz/falcon/o/fullcpt.jpg
Image
Source: http://8w.forix.com/eifelland/rs-mc72.jpg

In the simulators, if the HALO-support is actually there instead of just being left out of the computer image, it would be easy for the drivers to get used to it. The one problem I can think of is G-force pushing the driver's head to one side. But, just as in the case of a glass shield or canopy, testing the final product extensively should be able to iron out all problems.

I don't see why the Raidillon should be a problem; the two corners down at the foot of the hill are just like any other two corners, while the lefthand corner on top is blind anyway. Of course, it might provide a handy excuse for those drivers cutting the top corner, every chance they get.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 23, 2017 2:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 5:09 am
Posts: 2550
Location: Perth, Australia
I'm a bit out of it. Has any support been given to the idea of keeping the top bar of the halo, and placing a screen like the Red Bull one underneath it?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 23, 2017 5:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 6:41 pm
Posts: 587
Why not use a screen with a re-enforcing carbon lip? (as stated by toby) you will get near enough the same strength as with the use of a central brace without visual obstruction.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 23, 2017 5:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 6:41 pm
Posts: 587
I also think the halo might be pretty good at hooking the nose of a car and putting it strait into the driver head :-((


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 23, 2017 6:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 2:06 pm
Posts: 2189
Location: England
Will Buxton has gone to town on this decision in his column on Racer

http://www.racer.com/viewpoints/item/14 ... lo-goodbye

You might need the tin foil hat for page 2

_________________
http://tsatr.mooo.com
The Sun and The Rain - The reluctant runner.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 23, 2017 7:17 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 10780
Flash2k11 wrote:
Will Buxton has gone to town on this decision in his column on Racer

http://www.racer.com/viewpoints/item/14 ... lo-goodbye

You might need the tin foil hat for page 2


It's a crying shame when people with that kind of exposure and following are blatantly telling falsitudes like this gem: Yet at the FIA's own best estimates, the Halo would only be effective in 17 percent of potential incidents.

Expected better of him.

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!


Last edited by mds on Sun Jul 23, 2017 7:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 23, 2017 7:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 5870
Location: Nebraska, USA
mds wrote:
Flash2k11 wrote:
Will Buxton has gone to town on this decision in his column on Racer

http://www.racer.com/viewpoints/item/14 ... lo-goodbye

You might need the tin foil hat for page 2


It's a crying shame when people with that kind of exposure and following are blatantly telling falsitutes like this gem: Yet at the FIA's own best estimates, the Halo would only be effective in 17 percent of potential incidents.

Expected better of him.


I wouldn't have expected anything better from Buxton... he has shown himself to be little more than a sh1t stirrer who seldom offers anything factual or unbiased.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 23, 2017 10:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1618
chaz986 wrote:
I also think the halo might be pretty good at hooking the nose of a car and putting it strait into the driver head :-((


That would be in a head on collision wouldn't it? How often does that happen?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 3:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 4551
Location: Michigan, USA
mds wrote:
Flash2k11 wrote:
Will Buxton has gone to town on this decision in his column on Racer

http://www.racer.com/viewpoints/item/14 ... lo-goodbye

You might need the tin foil hat for page 2

It's a crying shame when people with that kind of exposure and following are blatantly telling falsitudes like this gem: Yet at the FIA's own best estimates, the Halo would only be effective in 17 percent of potential incidents.

Expected better of him.

Where does he get the 17%? What did the FIA actually say that led to that alleged quote?

_________________
PF1 PICK 10 COMPETITION (3 wins, 12 podiums): 2017: 19th| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
PF1 TOP THREE TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): 2017: 2nd| 2015: 1st
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 United States Champion! (world #3)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 5:52 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 10780
Exediron wrote:
mds wrote:
Flash2k11 wrote:
Will Buxton has gone to town on this decision in his column on Racer

http://www.racer.com/viewpoints/item/14 ... lo-goodbye

You might need the tin foil hat for page 2

It's a crying shame when people with that kind of exposure and following are blatantly telling falsitudes like this gem: Yet at the FIA's own best estimates, the Halo would only be effective in 17 percent of potential incidents.

Expected better of him.

Where does he get the 17%? What did the FIA actually say that led to that alleged quote?


Whiting mentioned 17% as the deflection rate for small objects.
However, what he said was that the halo was and always had been primarily targeted at large objects, and that it was very effective at that. That it also deflected 17% of small objects (he said they simulated a few millions of angles) was brought as a positive side effect.

Of all that, Buxton apparently makes that it "is only effective in 17% of potential incidents".

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 9:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7798
Two ways to look at this I suppose.

1) Give it a try, and if it is not good, scrap it.
2) Once the FIA make this sort of reg, they are never going to backtrack on it and its there for ever.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 1:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:00 pm
Posts: 4534
I think the biggest mistake that the FIA (and Liberty) are making here is the lack of information being released about the how, why, and effectiveness of the device.

Put out a white paper and a short video showing some simulations with small object deflection and physical real world testing of large object and release it widely so that most fans see it. That would be the best way to cut down on the amount of criticism they're getting for this.

_________________
{Insert clever sig line here}


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 2:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 10:06 am
Posts: 125
I Just dont see how this brings any more safety to motorsport.... How do they justify a formula1 drivers life over that of a formula ford driver?

The only decent safety device brought in recently is the Hanns device, and the best part is it works for every form of motorsport.

Maby a redesign of the shape of the crash helmet would be another path to look down


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 2:56 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 10780
colinp wrote:
I Just dont see how this brings any more safety to motorsport.... How do they justify a formula1 drivers life over that of a formula ford driver?


To be fair, if safety measures are exactly the same then it's the life of the Formula Ford driver that is valued the most, as there are far higher speeds and forces involved in F1 and so with equal measures, the F1 driver is more at risk.

However... Who's to say the halo won't be brought in in lower categories once it has established itself in F1?

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 5:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 2:06 pm
Posts: 2189
Location: England
I don't think it'll be a choice once its established in F1, imagine the lawsuit if someone gets killed in an accident that wouldn't have happened with the Halo in an F4 race. This is the new face of open wheelers as we know it under the FIA banner.... they really need to have a go at making it look better.

_________________
http://tsatr.mooo.com
The Sun and The Rain - The reluctant runner.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2017 5:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 1583
Location: Miami, Florida
mcdo wrote:
Fiki wrote:
mcdo wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
What is the most recent life this would have saved in F1?

I'm not sure about Bianchi being saved. From what I can recollect the sheer force of the impact caused the diffuse axonal injury. I think the halo would have saved Maria de Villota
Would you mind explaining that? My information is far from adequate, but I would think just the opposite would be the case.

If I'm not mistaken it wasn't the impact of his helmet against the tractor that caused the injury, it was the 254G force that his body endured that caused the brain tissue to separate

Sorry but in the video it is CLEARLY visible that his head strikes the bottom of that tractor. The rapid deceleration of his body is one thing but the impact on his helmet is isolated in that it was the very first thing to impact the large immovable object just on the crown of his helmet which first whips his head back and once it clears it snaps forward, already scrambling his cranial matter about and then the final impact was in addition to.

If you've ever fallen and slammed your head while in a helmet you'd know the distinct pop sound it makes upon impact!
I was cut off by a dump truck and luckily I was able to act swiftly and primed downshifted through 3 gears to low me down to about 15MPH and my helmet struck the edge of the truck's wheel in the temple area and that jarred my noggin and since I was turned almost 90° right upon impact, my bike wobbled as it rolled until I caught myself and pressed the front break, at which point I fell onto my left side while on the bike and smacked my head AGAIN, and once again that same sound. I was concussed a bit but my trusty Arai saved my life.

If you've ever heard that sound you'd know what it sounds like and when Jules hits that tractor you can hear it.

In his accident the Halo may have saved him, but at the same time, that massive tractor and the speed may have caused a Halo to snap the way carbon fiber tends to do and possibly caused other injuries. It could have also been crushed down onto his head, compacting his vertebrae and causing life ending injuries just the same.

With de Villota, the sides of a halo may have prevented the intrusion into the cockpit, but that would depend on the angle upon impact. The corner of that lift gate may have slipped past a Halo just the same.

Either way, I'm all for safety but the Halo is just not the answer so I feel it should not be implemented. Th canopy would be the way to go but it needs to be specifically engineered around the F1 cockpit so as to address any/all the distortion issues so the final product is as functional as an every day windshield.

_________________
HAMILTON :: VETTEL :: ROSBERG :: RAIKKONEN :: VERSTAPPEN :: SAINZ :: MASSA :: BOTTAS :: NASR
ALONSO :: BUTTON :: PEREZ :: RICCIARDO :: GROSJEAN :: KVYAT :: HULKENBERG :: MALDONADO
THE REST… THERE ARE FAR BETTER DRIVERS THAT SHOULD BE IN FORMULA 1


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2017 5:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 4551
Location: Michigan, USA
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
In his accident the Halo may have saved him, but at the same time, that massive tractor and the speed may have caused a Halo to snap the way carbon fiber tends to do and possibly caused other injuries. It could have also been crushed down onto his head, compacting his vertebrae and causing life ending injuries just the same.

The strange thing about everyone discussing the Halo in relation to Jules' accident is that there was already a major safety innovation introduced in response to his accident, and it works just fine: the Virtual Safety Car. Jules' accident can only happen if cars are traveling at race speed while unsafe vehicles are outside the protective barriers, a situation which should never again occur now that we have a better system than yellow flags for when a car needs to be recovered. If tractors and cars racing at speed are never going to coexist on track again, then there's no need for a safety solution that deals with an accident that can't happen.

That aside, I doubt the Halo would be strong enough to save Jules. The tractor weighs multiple tons, and the force of the collision sends it several feet into the air; it also completely sheared off the back of the car, which includes the roll hoop - itself designed to be very strong. If the Halo is strong enough to stop an accident like that, it's going to be heavy.

Now, a well-designed Halo might be able to redirect the force of the impact and help the car slide under the digger. But it would still need to be exceptionally strong.

_________________
PF1 PICK 10 COMPETITION (3 wins, 12 podiums): 2017: 19th| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
PF1 TOP THREE TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): 2017: 2nd| 2015: 1st
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 United States Champion! (world #3)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2017 5:43 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 10780
Exediron wrote:
Now, a well-designed Halo might be able to redirect the force of the impact and help the car slide under the digger. But it would still need to be exceptionally strong.


Well, the FIA are claiming it to be twice as strong as the current roll structure.

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2017 7:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 1702
mds wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Now, a well-designed Halo might be able to redirect the force of the impact and help the car slide under the digger. But it would still need to be exceptionally strong.


Well, the FIA are claiming it to be twice as strong as the current roll structure.


I'm not an expert, but I'd also expect it to be designed for completely different forces. A roll structure is designed for rolling, it isn't designed for a front on impact with an object (the nose would be expected to hit first) so the fact it sheered off in the Bianchi incident doesn't say anything for the strength of the roll structure IMO.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2017 8:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Posts: 9718
Location: Ireland
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
mcdo wrote:
Fiki wrote:
mcdo wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
What is the most recent life this would have saved in F1?

I'm not sure about Bianchi being saved. From what I can recollect the sheer force of the impact caused the diffuse axonal injury. I think the halo would have saved Maria de Villota
Would you mind explaining that? My information is far from adequate, but I would think just the opposite would be the case.

If I'm not mistaken it wasn't the impact of his helmet against the tractor that caused the injury, it was the 254G force that his body endured that caused the brain tissue to separate

Sorry but in the video it is CLEARLY visible that his head strikes the bottom of that tractor. The rapid deceleration of his body is one thing but the impact on his helmet is isolated in that it was the very first thing to impact the large immovable object just on the crown of his helmet which first whips his head back and once it clears it snaps forward, already scrambling his cranial matter about and then the final impact was in addition to.

If you've ever fallen and slammed your head while in a helmet you'd know the distinct pop sound it makes upon impact!
I was cut off by a dump truck and luckily I was able to act swiftly and primed downshifted through 3 gears to low me down to about 15MPH and my helmet struck the edge of the truck's wheel in the temple area and that jarred my noggin and since I was turned almost 90° right upon impact, my bike wobbled as it rolled until I caught myself and pressed the front break, at which point I fell onto my left side while on the bike and smacked my head AGAIN, and once again that same sound. I was concussed a bit but my trusty Arai saved my life.

If you've ever heard that sound you'd know what it sounds like and when Jules hits that tractor you can hear it.

In his accident the Halo may have saved him, but at the same time, that massive tractor and the speed may have caused a Halo to snap the way carbon fiber tends to do and possibly caused other injuries. It could have also been crushed down onto his head, compacting his vertebrae and causing life ending injuries just the same.

With de Villota, the sides of a halo may have prevented the intrusion into the cockpit, but that would depend on the angle upon impact. The corner of that lift gate may have slipped past a Halo just the same.

Either way, I'm all for safety but the Halo is just not the answer so I feel it should not be implemented. Th canopy would be the way to go but it needs to be specifically engineered around the F1 cockpit so as to address any/all the distortion issues so the final product is as functional as an every day windshield.

Ah man read it again. Nobody has said that his head didn't hit the tractor. His head hitting the tractor did not cause the outcome

_________________
I don't rely entirely on God
ImageImage
I rely on Prost



FA#14


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2017 9:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6831
Location: Belgium
Exediron wrote:
The strange thing about everyone discussing the Halo in relation to Jules' accident is that there was already a major safety innovation introduced in response to his accident, and it works just fine: the Virtual Safety Car. Jules' accident can only happen if cars are traveling at race speed while unsafe vehicles are outside the protective barriers, a situation which should never again occur now that we have a better system than yellow flags for when a car needs to be recovered. If tractors and cars racing at speed are never going to coexist on track again, then there's no need for a safety solution that deals with an accident that can't happen.
The thing that I found strange over the past 15-20 years or so, is that is was deemed necessary to "recover" cars at "normal" racetracks at all. That you don't leave a stopped car out on the track in Monaco or other narrow street tracks, is clear. But in the 'eighties, a car on the grass verge at proper race tracks was just left there. While it is clear that run-off areas are safer is uncluttered, I still see no reason whatsoever why drivers are allowed to go off-track so often.
Add to that the speeds at which drivers run through yellow and double yellow areas, and it becomes clear why such horrible accidents as the one that took Bianchi happen. Seeking advantage in times of race suspension should have been dealt with severely; there is no excuse for allowing drivers to benefit from going beyond the rules.

Having said that, I think the VSC is a fine measure if, as I said before, you think a race should go on with the racing suspended. I don't think I will ever understand what purpose that serves, except keeping TV-transmissions within a schedule that allows the reruns of cookery programmes to take place unhindered. :D (Or a football match, which is more or less the same...)

I'm going to look again at what Gary Hartstein had to say about the Bianchi accident report.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2017 9:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 1702
Fiki wrote:
Add to that the speeds at which drivers run through yellow and double yellow areas, and it becomes clear why such horrible accidents as the one that took Bianchi happen. Seeking advantage in times of race suspension should have been dealt with severely; there is no excuse for allowing drivers to benefit from going beyond the rules.

Having said that, I think the VSC is a fine measure if, as I said before, you think a race should go on with the racing suspended. I don't think I will ever understand what purpose that serves, except keeping TV-transmissions within a schedule that allows the reruns of cookery programmes to take place unhindered. :D (Or a football match, which is more or less the same...)



This seems strangely underregulated. I'm a sad person, and I always open the live timing screens when there is a sustained double yellow or even a VSC, there are certain drivers that can fairly consistently shave a 0.5-1.0 off a competitor under those conditions and not be penalised. Not knowing the specific deltas, my assumption is the competitor is erring on the side of caution by running a tenth or two behind whilst they run a couple of tenths ahead which they then claim as 'close enough'.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2017 9:47 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 10780
Fiki wrote:
The thing that I found strange over the past 15-20 years or so, is that is was deemed necessary to "recover" cars at "normal" racetracks at all. That you don't leave a stopped car out on the track in Monaco or other narrow street tracks, is clear. But in the 'eighties, a car on the grass verge at proper race tracks was just left there. While it is clear that run-off areas are safer is uncluttered, I still see no reason whatsoever why drivers are allowed to go off-track so often.


A driver doesn't always choose to go off-track, and when he goes so far off-track that he is at risk to strike another car that's been left by the side of the track, I'd say it's pretty much never his deliberate choice.

Isn't it entirely obvious why they want to recover stopped cars? In a sport like F1 this is one of the nobrainers when taking safety measurements.

Quote:
Having said that, I think the VSC is a fine measure if, as I said before, you think a race should go on with the racing suspended. I don't think I will ever understand what purpose that serves


Trying to impact an ongoing race as little as possible in case something happened that can be cleared quickly?

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2017 12:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6831
Location: Belgium
mds wrote:
Fiki wrote:
The thing that I found strange over the past 15-20 years or so, is that is was deemed necessary to "recover" cars at "normal" racetracks at all. That you don't leave a stopped car out on the track in Monaco or other narrow street tracks, is clear. But in the 'eighties, a car on the grass verge at proper race tracks was just left there. While it is clear that run-off areas are safer is uncluttered, I still see no reason whatsoever why drivers are allowed to go off-track so often.


A driver doesn't always choose to go off-track, and when he goes so far off-track that he is at risk to strike another car that's been left by the side of the track, I'd say it's pretty much never his deliberate choice.

Isn't it entirely obvious why they want to recover stopped cars? In a sport like F1 this is one of the nobrainers when taking safety measurements.
If it really were a no-brainer, I should by nature have to be the first to agree. ;)
But I don't believe it is as simple as that. Staying with the Bianchi accident; what would have been the outcome of Jules' off if the car being retrieved had just been left there?

In the years before Jules' accident, we have seen a number of incidents that really make me question the need to get at cars left in the sandtraps. I would like to see the full circumstances again (racing or not) to judge the Nürburgring race of 2007, but the main problem I see with just leaving the cars there, is helping a stranded driver decide when the best moment is to unbuckle and get to safety. Whether a car is destroyed in a subsequent crash is not really my concern, though obviously the teams might not see it that way.

Even in SC conditions, there have been moments when cars have left the track, during car recovery. Brazil 2003 is a good example. It made me question the value of having a SC then, and I haven't come across a good reason for it since.

To see that cars running into cars should not necessarily be a problem, remember the massive crashes at the start of the Austrian GPs in the 'eighties with classic construction cars, or Francorchamps 1998.

That a driver may accidentally leave the track is not what I'm discussing. Why a car should be removed from the sandtrap or tarmac overrun is, and also why the racing should be suspended without suspending the race itself. I would say that the best way to protect those who don't race, is to keep them behind the barriers and not to expose them to drivers who believe going off is a must, or that running somebody alongside off is just racing.

mds wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Having said that, I think the VSC is a fine measure if, as I said before, you think a race should go on with the racing suspended. I don't think I will ever understand what purpose that serves


Trying to impact an ongoing race as little as possible in case something happened that can be cleared quickly?
Well, either safety is paramount, or it isn't. In the early 21st century, I think there must be better ways available to guarantee a correct race result.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2017 12:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 1702
Fiki wrote:
mds wrote:
Fiki wrote:
The thing that I found strange over the past 15-20 years or so, is that is was deemed necessary to "recover" cars at "normal" racetracks at all. That you don't leave a stopped car out on the track in Monaco or other narrow street tracks, is clear. But in the 'eighties, a car on the grass verge at proper race tracks was just left there. While it is clear that run-off areas are safer is uncluttered, I still see no reason whatsoever why drivers are allowed to go off-track so often.


A driver doesn't always choose to go off-track, and when he goes so far off-track that he is at risk to strike another car that's been left by the side of the track, I'd say it's pretty much never his deliberate choice.

Isn't it entirely obvious why they want to recover stopped cars? In a sport like F1 this is one of the nobrainers when taking safety measurements.
If it really were a no-brainer, I should by nature have to be the first to agree. ;)
But I don't believe it is as simple as that. Staying with the Bianchi accident; what would have been the outcome of Jules' off if the car being retrieved had just been left there?

In the years before Jules' accident, we have seen a number of incidents that really make me question the need to get at cars left in the sandtraps. I would like to see the full circumstances again (racing or not) to judge the Nürburgring race of 2007, but the main problem I see with just leaving the cars there, is helping a stranded driver decide when the best moment is to unbuckle and get to safety. Whether a car is destroyed in a subsequent crash is not really my concern, though obviously the teams might not see it that way.

Even in SC conditions, there have been moments when cars have left the track, during car recovery. Brazil 2003 is a good example. It made me question the value of having a SC then, and I haven't come across a good reason for it since.

To see that cars running into cars should not necessarily be a problem, remember the massive crashes at the start of the Austrian GPs in the 'eighties with classic construction cars, or Francorchamps 1998.

That a driver may accidentally leave the track is not what I'm discussing. Why a car should be removed from the sandtrap or tarmac overrun is, and also why the racing should be suspended without suspending the race itself. I would say that the best way to protect those who don't race, is to keep them behind the barriers and not to expose them to drivers who believe going off is a must, or that running somebody alongside off is just racing.

mds wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Having said that, I think the VSC is a fine measure if, as I said before, you think a race should go on with the racing suspended. I don't think I will ever understand what purpose that serves


Trying to impact an ongoing race as little as possible in case something happened that can be cleared quickly?
Well, either safety is paramount, or it isn't. In the early 21st century, I think there must be better ways available to guarantee a correct race result.


You use Bianchi as an example, but this ignores all the things that would have went wrong had we did nothing with stranded cars.

My assumption would be - the real fear is a car flipping in to another car. Car A going straight on in to Car B shouldn't provide an issue. If the driver goes in at the wrong angle it can end very badly.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2017 12:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6831
Location: Belgium
Ennis wrote:
You use Bianchi as an example, but this ignores all the things that would have went wrong had we did nothing with stranded cars.
I do indeed use Bianchi's crash, but I hope for the right reasons. Do you have examples of things that went wrong with stranded cars, that I may have forgotten? It might indeed make me think again.

Ennis wrote:
My assumption would be - the real fear is a car flipping in to another car. Car A going straight on in to Car B shouldn't provide an issue. If the driver goes in at the wrong angle it can end very badly.
One thing is clear in my mind; if lives/limbs need to be put at risk, it should be the drivers' first, never those who make it possible for the drivers to ply their trade in the first place.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2017 12:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 1702
Fiki wrote:
Ennis wrote:
You use Bianchi as an example, but this ignores all the things that would have went wrong had we did nothing with stranded cars.
I do indeed use Bianchi's crash, but I hope for the right reasons. Do you have examples of things that went wrong with stranded cars, that I may have forgotten? It might indeed make me think again.

Ennis wrote:
My assumption would be - the real fear is a car flipping in to another car. Car A going straight on in to Car B shouldn't provide an issue. If the driver goes in at the wrong angle it can end very badly.
One thing is clear in my mind; if lives/limbs need to be put at risk, it should be the drivers' first, never those who make it possible for the drivers to ply their trade in the first place.


I don't have examples, because it never went wrong :)

I disagree on the Bianchi example being a result of getting an abandoned car. The issue was unsafely getting an abandoned car (and arguably, touchy subject, Bianchi not slowing down correctly).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2017 12:49 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 10780
Fiki wrote:
If it really were a no-brainer, I should by nature have to be the first to agree. ;)
But I don't believe it is as simple as that. Staying with the Bianchi accident; what would have been the outcome of Jules' off if the car being retrieved had just been left there?

In the years before Jules' accident, we have seen a number of incidents that really make me question the need to get at cars left in the sandtraps. I would like to see the full circumstances again (racing or not) to judge the Nürburgring race of 2007, but the main problem I see with just leaving the cars there, is helping a stranded driver decide when the best moment is to unbuckle and get to safety. Whether a car is destroyed in a subsequent crash is not really my concern, though obviously the teams might not see it that way.

Even in SC conditions, there have been moments when cars have left the track, during car recovery. Brazil 2003 is a good example. It made me question the value of having a SC then, and I haven't come across a good reason for it since.

To see that cars running into cars should not necessarily be a problem, remember the massive crashes at the start of the Austrian GPs in the 'eighties with classic construction cars, or Francorchamps 1998.

That a driver may accidentally leave the track is not what I'm discussing. Why a car should be removed from the sandtrap or tarmac overrun is, and also why the racing should be suspended without suspending the race itself. I would say that the best way to protect those who don't race, is to keep them behind the barriers and not to expose them to drivers who believe going off is a must, or that running somebody alongside off is just racing.


A car should be removed because any stationary object that is within the safety barriers poses a risk. That's the no-brainer. That Bianchi's accident wouldn't have been so bad if they wouldn't have been busy recovering Sutil's car is true. But Bianchi's accident wouldn't have been so bad if he hadn't gone so fast under double waved yellows, or if the eventual measures to prevent this would have been in place before (in that no recovery vehicle would be on track unless there are (V)SC conditions or the race is red-flagged).

Now, can things still go wrong? Sure. But then it's about risk assessment. It is deemed that cars in gravel or runoffs can be recovered safely enough under (V)SC in order not to have to stop the entire race altogether. You may not agree with that, but I actually do agree that this poses less risk than to just let a car remain by the sidelines and risk a car going at 250-300km/h crashing straight into it.


Quote:
mds wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Having said that, I think the VSC is a fine measure if, as I said before, you think a race should go on with the racing suspended. I don't think I will ever understand what purpose that serves


Trying to impact an ongoing race as little as possible in case something happened that can be cleared quickly?
Well, either safety is paramount, or it isn't. In the early 21st century, I think there must be better ways available to guarantee a correct race result.


Any suggestions? :)

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2017 7:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6831
Location: Belgium
mds wrote:
A car should be removed because any stationary object that is within the safety barriers poses a risk. That's the no-brainer.
We should tell that to Mr Whiting! When you see those red lights over the track, there are 20 of them! Insane! :D (Sorry, I couldn't resist...)

mds wrote:
Fiki wrote:
mds wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Having said that, I think the VSC is a fine measure if, as I said before, you think a race should go on with the racing suspended. I don't think I will ever understand what purpose that serves


Trying to impact an ongoing race as little as possible in case something happened that can be cleared quickly?
Well, either safety is paramount, or it isn't. In the early 21st century, I think there must be better ways available to guarantee a correct race result.


Any suggestions? :)
As we already said in a previous thread some time ago; it should now be possible to suspend a race if necessary, and to restart it from the grid with the correct time differences between cars. I liked Button better than most other drivers, but his win in Canada a few years ago showed just how silly F1 has become.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2017 7:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6831
Location: Belgium
Ennis wrote:
I disagree on the Bianchi example being a result of getting an abandoned car. The issue was unsafely getting an abandoned car (and arguably, touchy subject, Bianchi not slowing down correctly).
It's not a touchy subject, or at least, it shouldn't be. Looking at safety and improving procedures means no subject is taboo.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 27, 2017 2:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 4:42 pm
Posts: 1829
Teams can add bits for aero advantage...

http://www.crash.net/f1/news/283338/1/t ... iting.html

_________________
Group Pick 'Em 2016 Champion


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 27, 2017 4:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1618
Roman Grojean firmly against the halo. He points out a lot of things that have not been tried, or tested. It's a terrible idea and truly is in his words, "a sad day for Formula One".

Also, he states that most drivers are against the halo.

http://www.espn.com/f1/story/_/id/20170650/halo-announcement-was-sad-day-f1


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 27, 2017 10:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 6:41 pm
Posts: 587
Herb Tarlik wrote:
chaz986 wrote:
I also think the halo might be pretty good at hooking the nose of a car and putting it strait into the driver head :-((


That would be in a head on collision wouldn't it? How often does that happen?


Really? the hoop go's around for about 300 degrees I see that as a possible capture point from many angles, no?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 28, 2017 9:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12374
Palmer's comments that I agree with wholeheartedly.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.ph ... we-know-it


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], mds and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group