planetf1.com

It is currently Wed Dec 13, 2017 3:14 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 10:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Posts: 9720
Location: Ireland
moby wrote:
mcdo wrote:
moby wrote:
Knee jerk again. We need to be seen to do something even if it is not the right thing

I don't think "knee jerk" is the right term. They've been working on this for years


Its probably not, but what I mean is they have committed themselves to doing something, but are unsure if it is the right thing. ( I assume they are unsure or they would not have tested the screen )

If it is the right thing, fine, we can put up with the looks, but what if it causes more problems than it solves. It does not seem to be what would save the driver, but makes it harder to get out. There is also lots of possibility of deflection into the drivers face.

That's up for the FIA to determine

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



FA#14


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 10:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 10781
Lord Crc wrote:
The biggest issue for me is that, as is the case with many optimizations, the Halo trades improved safety in some specific cases with reduced safety in other cases. To me it is not clear at all that the net result is a win.


Seatbelts and airbags also trade improved safety in some cases with reduced safety in other cases. :)

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 10:46 am 
mds wrote:
Lord Crc wrote:
The biggest issue for me is that, as is the case with many optimizations, the Halo trades improved safety in some specific cases with reduced safety in other cases. To me it is not clear at all that the net result is a win.


Seatbelts and airbags also trade improved safety in some cases with reduced safety in other cases. :)


With statistical analysis showing that the trade off is hugely in favour of life saving for seatbelts and airbags :)

Can we say the same about the Halo? Not yet, but indications are that the profile of the halo fits only a narrow band of situations where it could be considered safer for the driver.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 11:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6832
Location: Belgium
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
I think the halo looked a lot better in the Mercedes concept video than in the version they beta tested, so - in a car it was designed for - it could be integrated in a much more elegant way. They are just bolting on a piece of metalwork (or carbon fibre-work) onto a car it was not designed for when doing the tests. I think it will be like when they first added the side impact protection to the side of the driver's head - early on had very ugly implementations but now you don't even notice...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dqi9AUcMEfE

I agree. When I first saw this design, I liked it and appreciated the thought that had gone into it. I believe there will be integrated HALOs that will look rather nice.

_________________
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 20, 2017 11:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2013 8:06 pm
Posts: 207
mds wrote:
Lord Crc wrote:
The biggest issue for me is that, as is the case with many optimizations, the Halo trades improved safety in some specific cases with reduced safety in other cases. To me it is not clear at all that the net result is a win.


Seatbelts and airbags also trade improved safety in some cases with reduced safety in other cases. :)


Yes, as I said optimizations tend to be about trading this for that. However you seem to have ignored the key point of my message, which is that I fail to see a clear net win in terms of increased safety for the halo.

This is unlike seatbelts and airbags, for which it is much easier to see the net safety win.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 11:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 5870
Location: Nebraska, USA
As one who has long since given up on Aesthetics in F1 cars, I guess that I am not as concerned about the appearance as I thought I would be. If it does the job, then so be it. As some others have said, we will get used to it over time and eventually accept it as part of the car's structure.

I certainly don't see this as a "knee jerk reaction", as it has been in the works for some time and under study. I have no idea where some are coming from when they think it was suddenly implemented.

Lastly, to warheart.... no, this is not due to Vettel as you questioned. This is one "nasty" deed that you cannot throw at him!
:lol:

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 12:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1618
Alex53 wrote:
IDrinkYourMilkshake wrote:
What. The. chocolate fudge cake.

http://gptoday.com/full_story/view/6116 ... r_2018_F1/

It's the ugliest thing I've ever, ever seen on an F1 car. My brain is numb. We will be seeing this on F1 cars, for real?! Does F1 EVER listen to fans, or to common sense?


I don't think they look great either. But fans don't get in the car and get hit by flying springs that almost kill them, or by bouncing tyres that do kill them. So how about a bit of empathy?


There are plenty of drivers willing to get into an F1 car without a halo, so your argument falls flat.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 12:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 5870
Location: Nebraska, USA
Herb Tarlik wrote:
Alex53 wrote:
IDrinkYourMilkshake wrote:
What. The. chocolate fudge cake.

http://gptoday.com/full_story/view/6116 ... r_2018_F1/

It's the ugliest thing I've ever, ever seen on an F1 car. My brain is numb. We will be seeing this on F1 cars, for real?! Does F1 EVER listen to fans, or to common sense?


I don't think they look great either. But fans don't get in the car and get hit by flying springs that almost kill them, or by bouncing tyres that do kill them. So how about a bit of empathy?


There are plenty of drivers willing to get into an F1 car without a halo, so your argument falls flat.


and apparently "plenty of drivers willing to get into an F1 car" WITH a halo.
"Formula 1's Grand Prix Drivers' Association has backed the FIA's decision to push ahead with the halo cockpit protection device for 2018 despite a fan backlash and team opposition."

So how does that affect the "argument"?

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 12:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6832
Location: Belgium
Blake wrote:
Lastly, to warheart.... no, this is not due to Vettel as you questioned. This is one "nasty" deed that you cannot throw at him!
:lol:
I must say I was rather surprised by the comment by Vettel, concerning dizziness. I would have expected Ferrari to ask Räikkönen's input, even if just for another lap. I also wondered why Ferrari went through the whole procedure of getting this screen made, and not try it out on another car (earlier F1 model with comparable cockpit lay-out, or comparable lower class cars). One lap does make the verdict rather questionable, in my view.

_________________
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 20, 2017 12:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 5870
Location: Nebraska, USA
I would think that distortion and dizziness would be a concern with the screen. I am not that surprised. Time could probably resolve the issue, but the halo apparently represents a quicker solution.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 12:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6832
Location: Belgium
Blake wrote:
I would think that distortion and dizziness would be a concern with the screen. I am not that surprised. Time could probably resolve the issue, but the halo apparently represents a quicker solution.
Well, on reflection ( :D ) I would have proposed a test driver to drive with polarizing (sun)glasses, to see how this might improve things.

_________________
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 20, 2017 12:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 10781
Lord Crc wrote:
mds wrote:
Lord Crc wrote:
The biggest issue for me is that, as is the case with many optimizations, the Halo trades improved safety in some specific cases with reduced safety in other cases. To me it is not clear at all that the net result is a win.


Seatbelts and airbags also trade improved safety in some cases with reduced safety in other cases. :)


Yes, as I said optimizations tend to be about trading this for that. However you seem to have ignored the key point of my message, which is that I fail to see a clear net win in terms of increased safety for the halo.

This is unlike seatbelts and airbags, for which it is much easier to see the net safety win.


I did focus on just that bit - probably because all around the social media you see the reasoning "well it could also introduce risky situations if and such" and that's just not valid.

Now... I don't really see how it would not be a net win. Maybe it could be a slight one, and I'm not convinced it's even worth it, but the negative cases that are invented tend to be freak cases that we haven't seen happening in decades:
- "what if a driver breaks both his arms in a crash and needs to get out of his car"
- "what if a driver flips and the car is on fire"
- etc

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!


Last edited by mds on Thu Jul 20, 2017 1:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 1:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:52 am
Posts: 2499
Herb Tarlik wrote:
There are plenty of drivers willing to get into an F1 car without a halo, so your argument falls flat.
There were plenty of drivers willing to get into an F1 car without seat belts back in the day.

_________________
Where I'm going, I don't need roads


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 1:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 4:59 pm
Posts: 216
tootsie323 wrote:
Herb Tarlik wrote:
There are plenty of drivers willing to get into an F1 car without a halo, so your argument falls flat.
There were plenty of drivers willing to get into an F1 car without seat belts back in the day.

At one point it was because it was safer without though due to escaping a fire...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 1:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 5:59 pm
Posts: 1983
There's nothing about HALO that makes me think it will save lives... would it have prevented Massa getting stuck by a Williams spring? Nope. If the potential for flying wheels is a thing, then beef up the wheel tethers & ban any car without suitable tethers for a race weekend...

I have to question if a driver could escape from a car if it goes over (ala Alonso in Australia) or if there was (God forbid) a fire...

This is the wrong response to the issue. Motor racing is dangerous. Always has been and always will be. Neutering it to make it safe is only going to destroy the sport.

_________________
the loon previously known as dr lee


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 1:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2013 8:06 pm
Posts: 207
mds wrote:
Now... I don't really see how it would not be a net win. Maybe it could be a slight one, and I'm not convinced it's even worth it, but the negative cases that are invented tend to be freak cases that we haven't seen happening in decades:
- "what if a driver breaks both his arms in a crash and needs to get out of his car"
- "what if a driver flips and the car is on fire"
- etc


Maldonado and Gutierrez 2014, car could easily have landed upside down, and driver couldn't have gotten out.
Alonso and Gutierrez 2016, Alonso would likely not been able to get out if the car had a halo.

Not being able to get out can be very bad even if the car is not on fire.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 2:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 10781
Lord Crc wrote:
Maldonado and Gutierrez 2014, car could easily have landed upside down, and driver couldn't have gotten out.
Alonso and Gutierrez 2016, Alonso would likely not been able to get out if the car had a halo.

Not being able to get out can be very bad even if the car is not on fire.


How exactly?

But see, this is pretty much what I mean. You need to resort to "well, IF this AND that AND then that THEN well, then it could be dangerous!"

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 2:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6832
Location: Belgium
Lord Crc wrote:
mds wrote:
Now... I don't really see how it would not be a net win. Maybe it could be a slight one, and I'm not convinced it's even worth it, but the negative cases that are invented tend to be freak cases that we haven't seen happening in decades:
- "what if a driver breaks both his arms in a crash and needs to get out of his car"
- "what if a driver flips and the car is on fire"
- etc


Maldonado and Gutierrez 2014, car could easily have landed upside down, and driver couldn't have gotten out.
Alonso and Gutierrez 2016, Alonso would likely not been able to get out if the car had a halo.

Not being able to get out can be very bad even if the car is not on fire.
Strictly speaking, not being able to get out of the car if there is no fire, just means you wait a bit for the marshals to help you. That's what those people do. I don't see the escape as something the drivers should be able to accomplish on their own at all times and in all kinds of scenarios.
The first people whose insights I would like to read concerning the HALO, are the rescue experts.

_________________
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 20, 2017 3:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2013 8:06 pm
Posts: 207
mds wrote:
Lord Crc wrote:
Not being able to get out can be very bad even if the car is not on fire.


How exactly?


I had to rush to a meeting, so was a bit quick. What I'm trying to say is that I think the halo will be an obstruction in certain emergencies.

The driver might have gotten injured (from debris from the crash for example) in such a way that immediate medical care is required. The halo might prevent the driver from receiving that medical care, either because of direct physical blockage (in-cockpit treatment), or because the driver cannot easily be removed for treatment.

mds wrote:
But see, this is pretty much what I mean. You need to resort to "well, IF this AND that AND then that THEN well, then it could be dangerous!"


Well yes, since we don't have a time machine that's the best we can do in order to predict the impact of the halo. We model scenarios and try to predict the performance of the halo in those scenarios. Is your suggestion we just bolt it on and see how it goes?

Anyway, I see variations of the above mentioned crashes where the halo would have been a detriment. On the other hand I see variations of the Grosjean and Alonso crash in 2012 and the Alonso and Raikkonen crash in 2015 where the halo would have been beneficial.


Last edited by Lord Crc on Thu Jul 20, 2017 5:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 3:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 1583
Location: Miami, Florida
Herb wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
Herb wrote:
It's ugly. No doubt about that. But if the FIA have looked into it and this is the safest option then I'm ok with it.

There'll be lots of armchair safety experts around as usual, but F1 has always pushed for safety, have they ever got anything drastically wrong in the area?

It's kind of hypocritical to force manufacturers to produce greener technology that's more appealing to the ever increasing populous of people that are self proclaimed tree huggers that don't even know F1 exists, to then implement this atrocity which is unappealing in all but one regard, and even then I think it's too vague an improvement to force the uglification of the cars. And IMPO having the vertical element dead center like that will bother the drivers. It's like having a handicap permit hanging from your rear view mirror.

I say implement a fully enclosed cockpit with small openings on top for breatheability and allow them to look like fighter jet cockpits that are more in line with F1 than this makeshift eye tumor!


Your rant about tree huggers is irrelevant to the halo.

Regarding the centre vertical piece. Drivers who have used it say you don't really notice it.

Sure it is. You just missed it. ;)

_________________
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: Thu Jul 20, 2017 4:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 2:03 pm
Posts: 1242
mds wrote:
Lord Crc wrote:
Maldonado and Gutierrez 2014, car could easily have landed upside down, and driver couldn't have gotten out.
Alonso and Gutierrez 2016, Alonso would likely not been able to get out if the car had a halo.

Not being able to get out can be very bad even if the car is not on fire.


How exactly?

But see, this is pretty much what I mean. You need to resort to "well, IF this AND that AND then that THEN well, then it could be dangerous!"

From a pure safety point of view it is often better if a driver is extracted in a controlled way rather than under their own power. On a hot track inside the car is usually the safest place and a driver climbing out in a hurry can exacerbate any injuries that are masked by shock or adrenalin.

I'm not saying drivers should be deliberately stopped from climbing out after an accident but I'm really struggling to see many situations other than fire where extra protection wouldn't be either positive or neutral, even if it does take slightly longer and the driver potentially plays a more passive roll in getting out in some cases.

Regarding Alonso 2016, as much as it against a drivers instinct perhaps he'd have been better/safer staying strapped in the car with his spine effectively braced against the seat and waited to be extracted in a controlled way?

Lord Crc wrote:
...
The driver might have gotten injured (from debris from the crash for example) in such a way that immediate medical care is required. The halo might prevent the driver from receiving that medical care, either because of direct physical blockage (in-cockpit treatment), or because the driver cannot easily be removed for treatment.
...

A lot of the issues with quick driver extraction are to do with cockpit ingress one way or another. An fully open cockpit will generally allow a driver to become trapped more readily/dangerously than an area around the driver that is somewhat protected and controlled. The latter requiring the removal of the safety device creating room for the driver to be extracted whereas the former is would require the direct removal of whatever is obstructing the driver, or worst case scenario has entered the cockpit and trapped the driver directly.

Luciano Burti's crash at Spa in 2001 springs to mind.

_________________
===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶===


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 5:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2013 8:06 pm
Posts: 207
wolfticket wrote:
Regarding Alonso 2016, as much as it against a drivers instinct perhaps he'd have been better/safer staying strapped in the car with his spine effectively braced against the seat and waited to be extracted in a controlled way?


I was thinking more of the halo preventing Raikkonens car from making contact with his head. It didn't happen then, but it easily could have. A halo would most likely have prevented that.

wolfticket wrote:
A lot of the issues with quick driver extraction are to do with cockpit ingress one way or another. An fully open cockpit will generally allow a driver to become trapped more readily/dangerously than an area around the driver that is somewhat protected and controlled. The latter requiring the removal of the safety device creating room for the driver to be extracted whereas the former is would require the direct removal of whatever is obstructing the driver, or worst case scenario has entered the cockpit and trapped the driver directly.


Fair point.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1618
Blake wrote:
Herb Tarlik wrote:
Alex53 wrote:
IDrinkYourMilkshake wrote:
What. The. chocolate fudge cake.

http://gptoday.com/full_story/view/6116 ... r_2018_F1/

It's the ugliest thing I've ever, ever seen on an F1 car. My brain is numb. We will be seeing this on F1 cars, for real?! Does F1 EVER listen to fans, or to common sense?


I don't think they look great either. But fans don't get in the car and get hit by flying springs that almost kill them, or by bouncing tyres that do kill them. So how about a bit of empathy?


There are plenty of drivers willing to get into an F1 car without a halo, so your argument falls flat.


and apparently "plenty of drivers willing to get into an F1 car" WITH a halo.
"Formula 1's Grand Prix Drivers' Association has backed the FIA's decision to push ahead with the halo cockpit protection device for 2018 despite a fan backlash and team opposition."

So how does that affect the "argument"?


The argument is that if there is no halo next year in F1 not one driver, repeat, none one single driver would stop driving.

That clearly shows that F1 is safe enough. The level of risk is acceptable for the drivers. You can never, ever have zero risk. If a driver were uncomfortable with the level of risk, they could easily withdraw from this dangerous sport.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1618
SDLRob wrote:
There's nothing about HALO that makes me think it will save lives... would it have prevented Massa getting stuck by a Williams spring? Nope. If the potential for flying wheels is a thing, then beef up the wheel tethers & ban any car without suitable tethers for a race weekend...

I have to question if a driver could escape from a car if it goes over (ala Alonso in Australia) or if there was (God forbid) a fire...

This is the wrong response to the issue. Motor racing is dangerous. Always has been and always will be. Neutering it to make it safe is only going to destroy the sport.


This. This. This.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 4:42 pm
Posts: 1829
Herb Tarlik wrote:
Blake wrote:
Herb Tarlik wrote:
Alex53 wrote:
IDrinkYourMilkshake wrote:
What. The. chocolate fudge cake.

http://gptoday.com/full_story/view/6116 ... r_2018_F1/

It's the ugliest thing I've ever, ever seen on an F1 car. My brain is numb. We will be seeing this on F1 cars, for real?! Does F1 EVER listen to fans, or to common sense?


I don't think they look great either. But fans don't get in the car and get hit by flying springs that almost kill them, or by bouncing tyres that do kill them. So how about a bit of empathy?


There are plenty of drivers willing to get into an F1 car without a halo, so your argument falls flat.


and apparently "plenty of drivers willing to get into an F1 car" WITH a halo.
"Formula 1's Grand Prix Drivers' Association has backed the FIA's decision to push ahead with the halo cockpit protection device for 2018 despite a fan backlash and team opposition."

So how does that affect the "argument"?


The argument is that if there is no halo next year in F1 not one driver, repeat, none one single driver would stop driving.

That clearly shows that F1 is safe enough. The level of risk is acceptable for the drivers. You can never, ever have zero risk. If a driver were uncomfortable with the level of risk, they could easily withdraw from this dangerous sport.


What a load of nonsense.

If that was the criteria we'd still be losing drivers every year. Sometimes the sport has to step in to save drivers lives.

And don't forget, the drivers are officially, as a group for the halo.

_________________
Group Pick 'Em 2016 Champion


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 10781
Lord Crc wrote:
Well yes, since we don't have a time machine that's the best we can do in order to predict the impact of the halo. We model scenarios and try to predict the performance of the halo in those scenarios. Is your suggestion we just bolt it on and see how it goes?


I think I said in my previous post that I'm not even sure the net gain is worth it, just that I can't see how there would not at least be a slight gain.

I can't help but feel that the FIA have done their research and have a positive case to introduce it - they know most fans think it's ugly as heck and they still go forward with it.

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 2267
So Amus reporting that Ferrari was the team that voted in favour of the halo.

Anyway the cars will look disgusting and will make the sport a joke.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2016: 24th place
2017: 4th place

Wins: Spain 2016, Canada 2017, Malaysia 2017
Podiums: 2nd Germany 2016, 3rd Mexico 2016


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 6752
F1_Ernie wrote:
So Amus reporting that Ferrari was the team that voted in favour of the halo.

Anyway the cars will look disgusting and will make the sport a joke.

I have to say that surprises me. I wouldn't have guessed Ferrari would be the ones to agree, I picture them as the team that would want to hold on to the traditional F1 open cockpit longest of all the teams.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7798
I wonder will they be allowed to gain aero advantage from it? If they are allowed to alter it a plane there may be useful


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2015 3:45 am
Posts: 512
Location: Michigan, USA
I don't like how it looks and I wish they'd just go full fighter-jet style cockpit rather than come up with a half-baked solution like this, but hopefully at least it works. I know that it's been tested, but I just don't see how it could stop anything other than a huge piece of debris flying at the head, and that's (happily) extremely rare. It also seems unlikely that the middle bar really doesn't effect vision at all.

Hopefully it'll look better when fully integrated with the car, at least.

_________________
Top Three: 5 wins, 17 podiums | 2016: 9th [6th] | 2017: 16th [6th]
Pick 10: 1 win, 4 podiums | 2016: 22nd | 2017: 21st
F1 Oracle: 5 wins | 2016: 6th | 2017: 6th
Group Pick'em: 2 wins, 6 podiums | 2016: 14th | 2017: 12th


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12375
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
So Amus reporting that Ferrari was the team that voted in favour of the halo.

Anyway the cars will look disgusting and will make the sport a joke.

I have to say that surprises me. I wouldn't have guessed Ferrari would be the ones to agree, I picture them as the team that would want to hold on to the traditional F1 open cockpit longest of all the teams.


Ferrari know how to play the game. Don't vote against the FIA.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12375
What is the most recent life this would have saved in F1?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 5:59 pm
Posts: 1983
Jules?

_________________
the loon previously known as dr lee


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12375
SDLRob wrote:
Jules?


Would have made it worse if anything.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 5870
Location: Nebraska, USA
mikeyg123 wrote:
SDLRob wrote:
Jules?


Would have made it worse if anything.


It could have been worse? How?

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 9:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7798
a vid of the testing


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 10:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 6752
mikeyg123 wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
So Amus reporting that Ferrari was the team that voted in favour of the halo.

Anyway the cars will look disgusting and will make the sport a joke.

I have to say that surprises me. I wouldn't have guessed Ferrari would be the ones to agree, I picture them as the team that would want to hold on to the traditional F1 open cockpit longest of all the teams.


Ferrari know how to play the game. Don't vote against the FIA.

Maybe, but that's a big assumption, maybe they just see the benefits of it even if only as an interim measure. I see no reason to assume there's any political motives, just surprised me that it was them (apparently).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 12:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 4551
Location: Michigan, USA
moby wrote:
a vid of the testing

Yup. Fighter jet canopy looks better, protects you better, and is faster.

Literally the only thing against it is if you want to maintain the (in my opinion, arbitrary) historical distinction of being open-cockpit.

_________________
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: Fri Jul 21, 2017 1:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 1583
Location: Miami, Florida
However synonymous it's been with the series, the genre is Open-Wheel, not open cockpit.
The canopy at least allows the shape of the cockpit to still be seen.

_________________
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: Fri Jul 21, 2017 2:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 5870
Location: Nebraska, USA
Exediron wrote:
moby wrote:
a vid of the testing

Yup. Fighter jet canopy looks better, protects you better, and is faster.

Literally the only thing against it is if you want to maintain the (in my opinion, arbitrary) historical distinction of being open-cockpit.


I would think an inverted race car might be a problem with a canopy... just a thought. And yes I know about explosive bolts, that would still leave the car inverted barring some kind of "James Bond" self-righting technology.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


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: Zoue 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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group