planetf1.com

It is currently Wed Dec 19, 2018 3:07 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 8:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 6224
Location: Michigan, USA
mas wrote:
That was a freakish kinematic sequence of events but it really looked the worst case of impact to the driver was about to occur where a ton of metal was about to pivot on his head through the tyre, that could have been another Bianchi for sure. The Halo may not be the ending point of driver head protection but it sure is a very good start.

Agreed, from that new video it very much looks like Alonso's car was on a fatal collision course with Leclerc's head. That would not have been a survivable impact. Pending an announcement from the FIA, it looks to me like the Halo did its job.

Anyone who says losing Leclerc from the sport would have been 'worth it' to avoid the aesthetic nightmare of the halo can **** off, as far as I'm concerned. That is not a defensible position. And don't try to bring up any straw men about restricting the cars to 70 MPH either: the Halo does not impact the actual racing in any way, unlike such an obviously ridiculous suggestion.

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 14 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 8:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 6:25 pm
Posts: 186
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
Initially the Honda chassis clears Leclerc's cockpit area. But contact with Ricciardo initiated a clockwise rotation of Alonso, so that the right front wheel was moving backwards relative to Leclerc. When the wheel made contact with the Halo, it was not moving forward, but backwards and directly towards Leclerc's head.


It certainly looks to be the case.

_________________
Forza Ferrari


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 8:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:58 am
Posts: 618
Location: Kansas
Exediron wrote:
mas wrote:
That was a freakish kinematic sequence of events but it really looked the worst case of impact to the driver was about to occur where a ton of metal was about to pivot on his head through the tyre, that could have been another Bianchi for sure. The Halo may not be the ending point of driver head protection but it sure is a very good start.

Agreed, from that new video it very much looks like Alonso's car was on a fatal collision course with Leclerc's head. That would not have been a survivable impact. Pending an announcement from the FIA, it looks to me like the Halo did its job.

Anyone who says losing Leclerc from the sport would have been 'worth it' to avoid the aesthetic nightmare of the halo can **** off, as far as I'm concerned. That is not a defensible position. And don't try to bring up any straw men about restricting the cars to 70 MPH either: the Halo does not impact the actual racing in any way, unlike such an obviously ridiculous suggestion.


That is twice in one year that a flying tire still attached to a car has made contact with a halo. Look up the F2 incident with Tadasuke Makino. This puts the lie to the argument that this kind of accident only happens every couple of decades.

_________________
Mission WinLater


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 8:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 6224
Location: Michigan, USA
Mort Canard wrote:
Exediron wrote:
mas wrote:
That was a freakish kinematic sequence of events but it really looked the worst case of impact to the driver was about to occur where a ton of metal was about to pivot on his head through the tyre, that could have been another Bianchi for sure. The Halo may not be the ending point of driver head protection but it sure is a very good start.

Agreed, from that new video it very much looks like Alonso's car was on a fatal collision course with Leclerc's head. That would not have been a survivable impact. Pending an announcement from the FIA, it looks to me like the Halo did its job.

Anyone who says losing Leclerc from the sport would have been 'worth it' to avoid the aesthetic nightmare of the halo can **** off, as far as I'm concerned. That is not a defensible position. And don't try to bring up any straw men about restricting the cars to 70 MPH either: the Halo does not impact the actual racing in any way, unlike such an obviously ridiculous suggestion.


That is twice in one year that a flying tire still attached to a car has made contact with a halo. Look up the F2 incident with Tadasuke Makino. This puts the lie to the argument that this kind of accident only happens every couple of decades.

And that's not even counting all the near misses we've had this decade in F1, such as the last big Spa crash in 2012 or the incident in 2015 where Alonso's car rode up on Kimi's at Austria and came dangerously close to the cockpit area. Or the IndyCar crash where Hunter-Reay narrowly avoided being beheaded by Wickens. Or a bunch of other IndyCar crashes. Etc.

Short version: yes, it's pretty common. Much more so than any of the things (such as out of control fire) used as a counter-argument.

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 14 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2018 12:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 8:06 am
Posts: 46
Mort Canard wrote:
I really don't see why people object to a safety feature on visual aesthetic grounds.

That's not an argument that holds when tested a bit, is it now? Let's cover the wheels, bc open wheels are more dangerous then closed off ones. Let's also prevent wheels getting tangled up, bc it's safer that way. Let's also close the cockpit, probably safer too. (We'd basically end up with a WEC car.)
Would it make the cars look better/worse and would it not influence your experience of them?

Not saying aesthetic grounds should dictate the debate, but they are a consideration, just as other elements are.
Making the 3 changes I listed above would all mess with my aesthetic experience and I don't see why I shouldn't bring objections forward "just because they are about looks".
Doesn't mean I'm writing off the halo, far from it...but "looks" are a valid argument in this debate too imho. (Not a "killer" argument though.)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2018 1:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 8:06 am
Posts: 46
pc27b wrote:
all the off season hysteronics that the halo "is the end of f1" have fallen flat. sure, when the car is sitting still, at some angles, it looks funny. on the track, not really something noticed that often


Of course those reactions were pure hysteria (that 1 element can be "the end of F1"), did we really consider them worthy of having to prove them wrong?
Every x time a change in F1 gets this exaggerated reactions, I tend to ignore them anyway.


Last edited by speedy_bob on Tue Aug 28, 2018 1:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2018 1:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 8:06 am
Posts: 46
RaggedMan wrote:
...Here's how my evaluation of the incident evolved and how I came to mine.

Right after it happened, and I'd only seen it from behind, I thought that Alonso had been vaulted clear over the cockpit of Leclerc's car and the Halo had no impact on the result. Then after seeing the view looking back up the start straight at full speed, and having seen the damage to the Halo, I could tell that it might have had an affect but it was hard to tell which car was still carrying more forward momentum and the only reason the Halo was hit was because it was higher than the tub. So at this point I still had no solid opinion.

But then seeing the video showing the front of the cars in slow motion it clear that the Sauber was still moving faster than the McLaren and that the McLaren was coming down at a steeper angle than it appeared at first. These things combined means that had the Halo not been there the contact to Leclerc's car would've been further back than the marks on the Halo which brings that contact closer to Leclerc's head. Now I'm much closer to believing that the Halo did what it was intended to do but was still thinking that it was the edge of Alonso's floor that impacted the Halo.

Then another video appears which seems to have been shot from somewhere up the track after the exit from La Source which shows the crash from the side which clearly shows that the McLaren was spinning in a clockwise manner while in the air rotating the right front wheel of Alonso's car back toward Leclerc's head which was still moving forward. This is when I came to my opinion that the Halo definitely kept Leclerc from being hit in the head.

I'll also add my opinion that even if it's negligible that there would've been head to wheel contact here the value of the device has proven it's worth.


I kinda followed the same reasoning, but with this nuance: At first I thought the "damage" of the halo was perhaps caused by the floor being scooped up by it. But then I saw video where it's clear the tire smudges the halo AFTER the scooping up of the McLaren and prior to that, I don't see damage on it.

But if the halo wasn't only hit by the tire but also had the floor bounce of it, where is the damage on the halo to show just that?
The little winglet on top of the halo doesn't seem that much damaged, although you'd expect that to have happened.

I'm not saying this is proof the halo didn't scoop up the floor, only that I find it strange the halo doesn't seem to have a mark on it from that (or more correctly: I perhaps just haven't seen enough/the correct pictures yet). The central pillar was "clean" before the tire hit it and the winglet on top wasn't shaved off/broken it seems, not even after the tire hit is (is it that strong?)

Video seems to indicate the scooping WAS done and shortly afterwards the clockwork-orange, sorry, the clockwise-spinning orange car (got confused with another story of psychogical impact on people in groups) had its suspension concertinaed by the "faster" halo, relatively pressing against the tire.

So questions I still have:
-is there proof available of the halo being damaged by the scooping, PRIOR to it hitting the tire?
-where would the floor have ended up if it didn't get scooped up (perhaps modelling software can show this)? my guess: on Leclerc, so in this case I'm happy the halo was there to prevent him getting sliced by the floor.

Do I think Leclerc got "fully saved" by the halo (floor and tire both deflected)? Difficult to say what the tire impact would have been, but of course I'm happy it didn't get tested here.
Did the halo scoop the Mac out of the way? Seem so. It also got the tire out of the way, luckily.

And then, finally:
Is this the "killer" argument pro the halo and should we now stop debating it?

Not for me... I don't even see why that would be the case.
Because the debate about the halo (not just this incident) isn't about seeing one case where the halo did help things, it's also thinking of situations where it would be counter productive towards safety.

Imagine this: Massa's Hungary accident: the halo is in place and the spring hits it, gets deflected into the cockpit, straight at the softer abdominal area.
Don't tell me it can't happen, bc no one can predict the future.
If that would happen, should we then suddenly all reverse our opinion about the halo? Of course not.

Any thinking fan has thought of such scenario's, as soon as the halo was first introduced.
The FIA did a weighing of different scenario's, calculated chances, some real tests etc.
Their conclusion was that it adds more safety in an infinite time of racing, than it deducts.

They've used a string of argumentation I can follow.

But using this 1 incident to declare "halo is ALWAYS the safest option", that's just looking for an easy "killer" argument that just doesn't exist in a nuanced debate like this.

And THAT is what I'm often missing in online forums, pundit's opinions etc: Getting people to see that looking for a "killer" argument is an un-nuanced way of discussing things.
I'm pretty convinced the engineers of FIA do not have this "simple" way of thinking.
They are engineers after all, often weighing elements more objectively then ordinary fans or even commentators.


To quote Exediron: "Anyone who says losing Leclerc from the sport would have been 'worth it' to avoid the aesthetic nightmare of the halo can **** off, as far as I'm concerned. That is not a defensible position."

I agree, I'd never value looks over a life, but it's all more nuanced then this, alas.

I still find the halo ugly (not so much on moving cars, much more when drivers enter/get out of the car). It gives me a claustrophobic feeling, getting out seems clumsy, still.
I haven't fully reached any conclusion on it yet, and even if I do, what value does that bring? I'm not in the deciding chair.

But simply because I find the halo ugly, doesn't mean I can't objectively debate the Leclerc accident.
Bc I try to argue from facts and accept there are "unknowns" for me, as a casual fan.

Many have their agenda: halo-haters try to "reason" the halo didn't do anything good here, halo-lovers/accepters see "final proof" the halo should stay.

I'd say progress can still be made on the design, positioning etc and also that we haven't yet seen real instances where the halo does more bad than good, but chances are they will come (and I'm not talking about escaping from fires, since I consider the chance of fire these days quite minimal anyway).

just my 2 cents..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2018 2:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:00 pm
Posts: 4798
I don't think the floor of the Mclaren did ever hit the Halo. As far as damage to the Halo goes, from the photos I've seen the carbon fiber wrapping did crack but there's no way to know at this point whether or not there was any damage to the steel structure beneath.

The fuller quote from Whiting on the issue he says that they'll have to wait until the device is unbolted from the car to see whether or not there was any damage or deformation of the steel.

The Halo certainly isn't the complete solution and smaller objects like the spring that hit Massa are still an issue, but that doesn't mean that it isn't valuable until a more comprehensive solution is found.

_________________
{Insert clever sig line here}


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2018 2:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 8:06 am
Posts: 46
RaggedMan wrote:
I don't think the floor of the Mclaren did ever hit the Halo. As far as damage to the Halo goes, from the photos I've seen the carbon fiber wrapping did crack but there's no way to know at this point whether or not there was any damage to the steel structure beneath.

Unbelievable, I now see what you mean, it indeed never got scooped, the only hit is the tire hitting the halo. So strange that only after the 100th view I see it this way and should abandon the theory of the scooping. Thx for forcing me to revisit that. ;-)

Just goes to show one shouldn't draw conclusions too fast and re-watching footage a LOT helps. :-)

RaggedMan wrote:
The Halo certainly isn't the complete solution and smaller objects like the spring that hit Massa are still an issue, but that doesn't mean that it isn't valuable until a more comprehensive solution is found.

True.
I'm wondering if we've ever seen the introduction of a safety device that pretty fast showed clear inadequacies in certain situations? (Must do some homework on that)
I'm not hoping the halo worsens an accident soon, but I'll also not be surprised if it does.
And I'll also be curious to learn what arguments the "halo-debate is OVER"-crowd will bring forward then.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2018 2:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 8:06 am
Posts: 46
speedy_bob wrote:
RaggedMan wrote:
Then another video appears which seems to have been shot from somewhere up the track after the exit from La Source which shows the crash from the side which clearly shows that the McLaren was spinning in a clockwise manner while in the air rotating the right front wheel of Alonso's car back toward Leclerc's head which was still moving forward. This is when I came to my opinion that the Halo definitely kept Leclerc from being hit in the head.

I misread your comment as to it saying "This is when I came to my opinion that the Halo definitely kept Leclerc from being hit in the head (my insert:) by the tire and what happened prior to that with the floor is also still true, but less important to me now.

But the last video also made you think the scooping never took place. I understand that now and see it too.

(I love a quality forum like this one!)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2018 5:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7405
Location: Belgium
I felt, viewing from the grandstand, that the HALO didn't annoy me in the least. The drivers' helmets aren't all that visible to begin with.

I'm not sure the tyre would have hit the driver's helmet in this accident, but even if it definitely wouldn't have happened, I doubt any investigation would lead to the conclusion it is just as well to remove it again.

My questions concerning the accident are about the reason for fully open wheels, seeing that Alonso's car was launched into the air by Leclerc's rear wheel. And whether the low nose is indeed better than the high noses we used to have; it would seem they are indeed.

_________________
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 Aug 28, 2018 7:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 6224
Location: Michigan, USA
speedy_bob wrote:
That's not an argument that holds when tested a bit, is it now? Let's cover the wheels, bc open wheels are more dangerous then closed off ones. Let's also prevent wheels getting tangled up, bc it's safer that way. Let's also close the cockpit, probably safer too. (We'd basically end up with a WEC car.)

WEC car:
Image

Not a damn WEC car:
Image

Seriously, is there anyone who would have trouble telling these two apart?

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 14 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2018 7:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 3654
I agree, If F1 ended up with enclosed wheels and full cockpits, it would take an idiot rule maker to actually cause them to look like WEC cars.

Closed wheels would also stop drivers having their races ruined because of the driver behind lightly touching their front wing into the rear tyre of the car in front.

Punctures like that annoy more more than pretty much anything else in the sport.

_________________
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. [Lord Acton]
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2018 11:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 1922
Location: Miami, Florida
In karts we have wide bumpers so wheel guards can be designed to protect the rear wheels all the way around to the sidewalls.

As for Leclerc and Alonso's accident, upon further review it's pretty certain that Alonso's front right tire would have hit Leclerc's head full on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tC6ZcYfH7FQ

_________________
HAMILTON :: ALONSO :: VETTEL :: RAIKKONEN :: RICCIARDO :: VERSTAPPEN
BOTTAS :: MAGNUSSEN :: OCON :: SAINZ :: PEREZ :: VANDOORNE :: HULKENBERG
GROSJEAN :: GASLY :: ERICSON :: LECLERC :: STROLL :: SEROTKIN :: HARTLEY


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 29, 2018 1:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 5:09 am
Posts: 2823
Location: Perth, Australia
I'm not convinced that's "certain", but it'd have been worryingly close at best.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 29, 2018 8:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 8:06 am
Posts: 46
Fair enough, the X1 is another possible design route. But going for that concept, you think all fans would immediately agree with it? There would be a lot of fuss about it. And that was my point, that we can still do a lot for improved safety, but would we all accept it?

And I made the point of allowing aesthetical arguments in the debate too. The X1, to me, has cool areas (the cockpit), but I find the wheelcaps very ugly, even if I know they help with achieving better aero and better safety.

Although perhaps emotional, to me F1 is about looks too, although it’s very hard to quantify that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 29, 2018 9:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 3654
Aesthetics are important to me too, but I have to accept an F1 car will never look like the Ferrari 641 again! Things move on.

_________________
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. [Lord Acton]
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 6:17 pm
Posts: 570
Location: illinois
Asphalt_World wrote:
Aesthetics are important to me too, but I have to accept an F1 car will never look like the Ferrari 641 again! Things move on.


or a 67 gurney eagle, or ...many other mouth watering f1 cars.
the halo doesn't really bother me. eventually there will be a "windshield" of some sort, and if i live long enough(lol), i'll watch em when they put a canopy on it


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23943
speedy_bob wrote:
Fair enough, the X1 is another possible design route. But going for that concept, you think all fans would immediately agree with it? There would be a lot of fuss about it. And that was my point, that we can still do a lot for improved safety, but would we all accept it?

And I made the point of allowing aesthetical arguments in the debate too. The X1, to me, has cool areas (the cockpit), but I find the wheelcaps very ugly, even if I know they help with achieving better aero and better safety.

Although perhaps emotional, to me F1 is about looks too, although it’s very hard to quantify that.

I don't know, I don't see an awful lot that's controversial about the X1 route, other than the obvious one of having to reclassify what constitutes an open-wheeled series, that it!

But assuming they can get around that hurdle, then it looks pretty much what I'd imagine an F1 car of the future would look like and the canopy would give much greater driver visibility than they have even now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 31, 2018 8:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm
Posts: 1325
Maybe we should redefine Formula cars as bespoke single-seaters.

I have not seen one counter-argument against the Halo that cannot be addressed. Fire? Fire suppression, quick responses by the marshalls and a driver contained air supply. It has been proven many times that providing a survival cell is very effective for a driver. The floor, front, sides, and back are basically as stout as practicable. All that is left is the driver's helmet.

Of course the aesthetics are the main counter-Halo argument. But all cars, especially Formula One cars change and evolve. I grew up when there were no wings, cars like the Lotus 49 or Gurney eagle were simplicity beautified. But once people become de-sensitized to the Halo, it will not be a talking point. In twenty years anyone proposing removing the Halo will be faced by weird stares.

Like I have always stated, I am willing to endure an ugly car if it saves a driver's life twenty years from now.

_________________
Only dogs, mothers, and quality undergarments give unconditional support.


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: No registered users 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