planetf1.com

Or.... someone is seriously injured (or dies) from an accident where the Halo might well have saved the driver, and the driver's family sues the FIA for failing to protect, as now that the whole halo/cockpit discussion has been introduced, the FIA could well be found to be negligent if they ignore their own findings.

I don't like the appearance of the halo either, but to claim that cockpit penetration is a problem that doesn't exist is just p l ain foolish. Many efforts to improve safety over the years have been unpopular at the moment, and the FIA has worked hard to improve racing safety.. indeed, prided themselves on it. The Halo may not be the ultimate answer, but I suspect, it will be around until a better solution comes along... whether some fans like it or not.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15

I saw it at the time and wouldn't be eager to see it again, but I do recall the crash quite clearly. His car hit the rear of the digger, right under the engine; the digger jumped into the air about a foot on impact, the F1 car went under it, and the side of the construction machine appeared to directly contact Bianchi's helmet before going on to shear the roll hoop off the car.

In principle, a strong enough Halo might deflect the impact and allow the digger to ride completely over Bianchi's head, reducing the G forces to a survivable level and saving his life. But since the impact was capable of shearing the roll hoop - the strongest part of the car - I would be far from certain it wouldn't have caused the halo to fail and killed him anyway. An accident like that isn't survivable; it needs to be prevented instead of treated, which is what the VSC is for.

_________________
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 #2)

Exactly, Bianchi’s was a freak accident. Nothing short of a miracle would have changed that outcome I’m afraid

It looks horrible. I am not a fan but it will save a life if we have incident like Surtees or what happened to Massa or incidents similar to what we have seen at ovals.

I am of personal opinion that F1 should have adopted the jet fighter canopy instead or still keep working towards that being the ultimate goal. Plexy glass can be very strong and can have quick release mechanism for easy access in case of accidents.
But until that happens, halo is safer than no halo. Thats the fact. I just hope drivers are comfortable with vision and FIA should be flexible enough to ensure they take feedback during practice sessions and if its overwhelmingly negative in terms of field of view and obstruction to driver vision, they be ready to take it off even though cars are undergoing significant design changes to make halo happen.

But if that is not an issue for drivers. I can tolerate this until something better comes along.

You have forgotten a fourth scenario. The Halo saves a life.

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

In aviation, mining, oil well, racing, you name it, there is no one device you can install and state "we now guarantee this is safe". The best you can do is state "we should have an increased probability in safety".

It is the same with the halo. It is painfully obvious that having a driver's head exposed to the elements needs careful thought. And since a Formula One race is run before thousands of people with safety systems in place, the debate on fire control or extraction should not be an issue. So the one and only argument against the halo is that it makes a very ugly car even uglier? Is that really the only argument against?

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

For me its making the sport too safe. I agree a lot of changes have made it safer where very much needed but making it too safe takes away from the sport as well.

A lot of people will criticize that point of view, but every single one of those drivers has watched the sport over the years and has accepted that it may end their life. If they are willing to accept that and drive regardless then I don't see why we have to force measures of this nature.

Your life is your life, what you are willing to risk with your life is your and only your decision. The rewards in the drivers eyes must be enough to warrant them to take the risk. The drivers that aren't willing to risk it simply don't have to drive.

I recommend all of you watch "Closer to the edge" about the Isle of Man TT and you will see riders with the same attitudes of Formula 1 drivers. They know it could kill them but not doing it is like death to them.

Part of the attractions to the sport is partly the risk for me, getting to watch the best of the best (in some cases) pushing themselves and the machines they drive to the limit and sometimes beyond.

It is so easy to say that it is "too safe" while tucked safely behind the protection of a monitor.

If the sport had followed your brave philosophy, drivers would still sit tall above the the body of the car with no roll bars, no seat belts, no HANS device, wearing leather helmets, wjth maybe a 50% chance of being killed.

Where does it say that it takes unnecessary high risk for a driver to "drive to the limit"? Throughout the history of the sport of racing, they have worked to make it safer... and most often faster... be it F1, WEC, NASCAR, et al. You do realize that drivers, who knowingly take their chances, do expect to go home to their loved ones at the end of the day... because of the safety measures taken previously. Those loved ones also expect the sport to make it as safe as they know how to do... so should we.

If you watch the sport for the purpose of seeing the drivers to "push to the limits and sometimes beyond", maybe seeing a disaster that perhaps could have been prevented, then i'd suggest you watch for the wrong reasons... or should put yourself in their situation... on a track. I bet you would be wanting things as safe as possible as you race. Bravery behind a monitor may not be enough.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15

And what about the half of the grid that have said they don't want them? That it's safe enough?

If I got the chance to drive an F1 car I wouldn't refuse because it didn't have the halo.

Personally, though most drivers have said it doen't hinder their field of vision, I can't imagine how that central element doesn't impede vision to some degree and for that reason I think it's simply not a practical solution. The front of the halo could be suspended from the sides structurally whilst still maintaining it's strength and rigidity, but greater energy absorption/dissipation can be achieve because the suspended portion could be engineered to do so given it's not anchored to anything.

But it is But Fugly!

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

There are always drivers reluctant to change. The HANS Device being a prime example. Just because "half of the grid" doesn't want, it is not necessarily a bad idea, nor should it be ignored... nor does it make the sport "safe enough".

Again, it is easy to say what you would do, when you don't have to do it. The question is not about refusing to drive without the halo... it is... in a race, not just a lap, do you want the car to be as safe as possible? Would you race without a helmet? Without a HANS device? Again... I don't like the appearance either, but much of the discussion recently has been about safety, or at ieast attempts to make the sport safer... as opposed to "brave" monitor racers wanting more risk.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15

Indeed, I seem to recall (although it was before my day) that at least half the grid didn't want seat belts, and were hostile towards the idea when they were introduced? The drivers probably aren't the best barometer for this sort of thing.

_________________
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 #2)

My main question would be is how far do you take this logic? Because if you believe it is reasonable to have racing cars then you must believe there is a cut off somewhere where it is safe enough?

Mikey,

People probably asked the same thing back in the 50s, the 60s, 70s, an so forth. Yet the search for greater safety continues, and will continue, whether we like it or not. There is no hard line in the sand where you say no more safety developments beyond this point... never has been, never will be. You have to know that?

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15

The 'how far do you take this logic' argument is used in a variety of situations in an attempt to reduce any stance to absurdity. Just because a stance can be taken to unreasonable levels does nothing to make it unreasonable. I could just as easily turn it around for you; how far do you take the logic that safety improvements are unnecessary? Should everyone be racing with no seat belts, no helmets and no roll hoops along unpaved coastal roads? That's where it all started, after all.

In fact, there is nothing that says that logically there must be a point where it is 'safe enough'. You can easily believe that it is reasonable to race cars and accept that they will never be completely safe, but also believe that anything that can make them safer is a good thing. What you're doing is setting up a false dichotomy, where safety is automatically viewed as detrimental to the function of the cars. It doesn't need to be, and where it isn't, why must there be such a thing as 'safe enough?'

I personally believe the halo is poorly implemented and not the best solution to the problem of foreign objects entering the cockpit. But that's because I think the halo is crap, not because I think F1 is 'safe enough'.

_________________
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 #2)

Agreed, lets not forget the halo is just a frame. There is no screen or shield preventing objects from entering the cockpit. It just reduces the likely hood of larger objects striking the driver.

_________________
PF1 pick 10 2016: 7th (1 win, 4 podiums), 2017: 17th (3 podiums)
Awards: Sergio perez trophy & Podium specialist
PF1 pick 3 2015: constructors 2nd, singles 5th
Autosport Gp 2016/17 - 5th
F1 Oracle 2017: 2nd (6 wins), 2016:5th (2wins)

1) Fia halo test



2) Fia explaining why they chose halo

_________________
PF1 pick 10 2016: 7th (1 win, 4 podiums), 2017: 17th (3 podiums)
Awards: Sergio perez trophy & Podium specialist
PF1 pick 3 2015: constructors 2nd, singles 5th
Autosport Gp 2016/17 - 5th
F1 Oracle 2017: 2nd (6 wins), 2016:5th (2wins)

I'm sorry Blake you seem to have missed the point entirely. As I stated some changes that have been made regarding safety were absolutely a necessity and rightly done but I feel this change is a step too far and the majority of the drivers are willing to take the risk. If we keep on going and going in the pursuit of safety where do we draw a line? Technology allows it that we dont even need drivers in the car at all?? so would you be happy with that.

Also in my original post I did emphasise those drivers not wanting to take the risk dont have to drive, they can go and do a safer and different series. They have free will and no one forces them to do it.

There are lots of other professions in the world that have a much higher mortality rate than racing driver and to everyone that chooses those jobs they are made abundtly aware of the risks involved and they accept them and do the job for the added reward that risk brings them. Why not in F1 as well? Hell MotoGp is much more dangerous and you dont see them suggesting they go to 4 wheels instead of 2 and put a structual housing around the driver oh wait that would make it a car.......

I just dont agree with the halo in this instance. If you look at the last 2 fatalities - if charlie whiting had stopped the race then Bianchi wouldn't have died or if there was a rule about JCBs being off track behind tyre wall until all cars are stopped during a rain hit race he would of still been alive. Look at María de Villota she hit a truck in a service area. Both of these deaths could have been avoided with better procedures.

The only reason its not procedural is because if its procedural F1 is responsible and if its component based the team is - so just a way for f1 to move the penalty onto someone else.

Drivers are the last people you listen to when it comes to safety. Some drivers are sane while others are willing to drive naked in a cockpit lined with razor blades if they believed it made them faster. And let's not waste our time on absolutes you propose. Halo versus driverless cars, motorcycles versus four wheels. These are single seat four wheel vehicles with a human being on board.

I am old, 67 and have seen a heck of a lot of racing. But I also have seen too much death. In my youth it was common for at least one or two drivers to perish each year. That was an era I hope no fan has to experience again. We can never make the sport safe enough. We can and do put on good racing despite continually adding or changing safety. The Halo is not going to fundamentally change the sport, trigger the collapse of this house of cards.

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

[url]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4YlqJkn_JE[/url]

Here is a link to the video I mentioned - the 2012 Spa crash, from Alonso's cockpit. He was lucky. How many drivers watching this would say they're willing to risk not having a halo?

A F1 car jumping sideways probably will be termed as a freak accident such as this. Massa's accident in Canada that was caused by Sainz's spinning Toro Rosso is similar with only 1 major difference, it didn't launch in the air. 1 death / accident that I get reminded of would surely have been averted if Halo was present then. The accident of Tom Pryce where a fire extinguisher crashed into his helmet head on.

Halo ofcourse would be beneficial in general but freak accidents can't be anticipated in terms of debris, angle, speed etc. which will always keep F1 never 100% safe.

_________________
Feel The Fourth

There have been plenty of accidents in recent years where one car has been launched after contact and rode over another. The video of Bryan Herta above was another example. I think if you can identify a situation such as this one which has happened several times, and where the current safety set-up has a hole, you have to plug it. If having trialled the halo the FIA did not now introduce it and a bad accident like this did occur they would look very foolish. Of course if they'd kept quiet on the whole subject they wouldn't..

Ironically, Tom Pryce's death was I think caused by a thoughtless marshal running across the track on the Kyalami straight, where the crest caused a blind spot, with a fire extinguisher A halo might have saved Pryce (although not the marshal), but so would better camera coverage and discipline among marshals, which thankfully we now have.

Want that grosjean who collided with Alonso that day.

Would the halo have helped. Who knows I'd say that people who are pro halo would agree.

How about another example. Similar to alonsos incident.
The Schumachers at the nurburgring in 1997. Similar incident to alonso.

Let's flip this round. What if the rear tyre becomes lodged in between the 2 areas of the halo where they meet.. or the tyre to lodge in the centre pole of the halo. Which means the car going over the top other car. (Ralf going over Michael in the nurburg 97 incident) would not dislodge from the other car. Or if the car does separate. What is to stop the flying car to then violently flip and barrell roll with the force thst it already has. And what then if the halo severs the tyre off the suspension. Where is that rear tyre going to go.

I stand by my comments from earlier. There have been some great advances in safety since Senna died. The wheel tethers in 99 and the HANS device in 2001.
But i think that this is a ill advised solution to a problem that didn't need solving in the first place.
You want too reduce the carbon fibre in a crash. Reduce the amount of carbon fibre. (Not replacing it with other materials.) Ban barge boards. Have a single plane front wins with no winglets. Have a single plane rear wing with 1 supporting beam to fix the wing onto.
Less to break off. Less carbon fibre. Closer racing due to less aero and safer racing. (The survival cell already helps that problem)
Think of other ways to aid safety. (Drivers who take note of flags. Cough. Rosberg Hungary 2016. Cough)

As others have said. And you all know and have seen the signs. Motorsport is dangerous. That's why drivers get paid millions of pounds a year. They known the consequence.

One last one. There have been less deaths in f1 in the last 30 years than there has been in the tt in 2017 alone. Less deaths than in moto gp in the 30 year period and probably less deaths than on the public road around the world in the first 9 days of this year.

Just read this article on the Autosport website:

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/13382 ... er-display

This video shows all 3 solutions. The canopy one is old but just shows how effective it would be if the F1 finally decides to agree to closed cockpit racing.

The screen test failed multiple times, and thats the reason it was rejected. And then we have halo which keeps F1 open cockpit and offers better protection than screens.

I really really hope they consider complete canopy in the future. Cars will look great and clear canopy will not really hide driver's helmets any more than what we have now. Ejection mechanism can be implemented.

Also there is no such thing as "too safe" when you are talking about the speeds at which F1 cars run around in some circuits. There is possibility of grave injury and even death due to pure g-forces experienced in event of crash on some circuits, so lets just stop making age of argument of F1 being too safe. Its not safe, it will never be safe until science fiction becomes reality and we have acceleration dampers in real life which wont happen in our lifetime.

Bring in the canopy and lets just enjoy sick looking cars instead of this halo. But Halo is better than no Halo.

Bianchi would not have been saved by the halo.
The simple fact was a massive crane was beyond the crash barriers, tyre barriers, gravel traps etc trying to pick up another car. Pointless having all that protection then have a crane infront of it all. The possibility of hitting a crane like that should not have been allowed. How he survived as long as he did is a miracle. There were near misses in Japan 1994 and Nuremburg 2007 with these cranes.

The VSC reduces the danger significantly, but doesn't stop it completely.

pretty simple isn't it